Classifieds | Place a class ad | PDF Edition | Calendar | Discussions | Moderated Chat | Home Delivery| How to cancel
A "Men at Work" sign inspires gratitude — men with jobs.
Despite the high unemployment rate, apparently, everyone doesn't look at it that way.
A female employee at Sinclair Community College objected to the sign at an on-campus construction site. The college administrator, citing a commitment to "providing an environmment that is inclusive and non-discriminatory," stopped work until the crew removed the sign.
A new sign might state: "Construction site." "Construction zone" is another possibility. Maybe "Working here," or "Site of the employed" could be others. The possibilities could be entertaining as well as informative. Perhaps "Workers at work."
But, really, isn't it being a bit too sensitive to remove a perfectly good sign that has "worked" for decades without offending? Couldn't the crew at least display the sign until it rusted or wasn't usable? Why waste a perfectly good sign? It's a time to reduce expenses.
Finally, with all of the problems, does the wording on a sign rank as one of those that should become a priority? Somehow, in light of how long construction crews have used signs worded thusly, it seems like a very small irritation.
Instead of being offended, it would be better to rejoice in that men are working. Maybe even a woman or two was on site, too, and they didn't seem to object to the sign. They might have been too busy working and thankful for their jobs as most employed Americans are in today's economy.