Friday, September 09, 2005
War on the working class
This speaks for itself.
--ER
From: Tom Kiley, Democratic Press Secretary
House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Office of Congressman George Miller, Senior Democratic Member
Date: September 9, 2005
Subject: President Bush's Executive Order on Davis-Bacon for Gulf region: Exploiting Katrina to Pay Substandard Wages Is a Disaster for Storm Victims
YESTERDAY, by executive order, President Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon law for areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. Davis-Bacon is a 1931 law that requires federal contractors to pay its workers at least the prevailing wage on construction projects, including highways, buildings, and bridges. (The prevailing wage is the average wage for specific jobs in a local area; it is not the union wage rate.) The law was intended to stop unscrupulous employers from exploiting workers and has been a critical force in stabilizing wage rates for federal contracting work throughout the country. Congressman George Miller is calling on the President to rescind this order immediately.
But the President's executive order says that the way to save money in this time of crisis is to not pay the already-low prevailing wage rates in the affected Gulf communities and that contractors are now free to push the rates even lower. Workers and their families in the Gulf region are desperate to get back on their feet and are especially vulnerable to being exploited. They are trying to rebuild their lives after suffering devastating financial and emotional losses. Paying them poverty wages for critical work will undermine the quality of the work that is needed and will undermine the storm victims' ability to rebuild their lives quickly.
Deep poverty in New Orleans and other Gulf cities and towns is a big part of the story of Hurricane Katrina - undermining thousands of people's ability to get out of town before the storm, to get help quickly, to quickly rebuild their lives. Roughly one out of every four New Orleanians lived in poverty before the storm; fully half of the city's children lived in poverty. As America seeks to rebuild the city and the rest of the region devastated by Katrina, the federal government can and should ensure that it does not take advantage of the desperation in the area nor intentionally recreate the poverty that added to this disaster in the first place.
The fact is, The President and most of his Republican allies have tried time and again to undermine Davis-Bacon, but they have failed to garner the necessary votes in Congress to do so. Now, the President is exploiting Katrina to score another ideological point for his right wing allies. That is a disgrace. The wage standards in Davis-Bacon are critical to helping in the overall effort of getting families' lives back together in the affected areas.
Congressman Miller, the Senior Democrat on the House labor committee, will seek a vote to undo the President's order at the soonest possible opportunity. Congressman Miller is also asking for transparency in the contracts made by FEMA and other federal agencies for rebuilding in order to determine what wage rates are being paid by contractors.
There are several things to keep in mind as you consider this issue:
Suspending Davis-Bacon does not mean lower costs for taxpayers. Companies that win federal contracts to rebuild in New Orleans are under no obligation to pass the savings from reduced labor costs onto taxpayers. There is nothing to prevent these contractors - including profitable companies like Kellog Brown & Root and others - from taking advantage of this executive order to cut workers' wages and boost their own profits, while passing no savings onto taxpayers.
Davis-Bacon does not apply only to union workers. Davis-Bacon applies to all workers, whether they belong to a labor union or not. Davis Bacon helps to provide a floor for all workers' wages.
Prevailing wages for construction labor in the affected region are already low but the executive order sends a message to contractors to make them even lower. Charts are available showing prevailing wages by job type and region if you are interested.
Davis-Bacon repeal has repeatedly failed in Congress. Repealing Davis-Bacon has long been a favorite pet project of right-wing conservatives. But conservatives do not have the votes in Congress to repeal the law. That is why they have chosen this anti-democratic method - the executive fiat - for chipping away at a key protection for workers.
Davis-Bacon requires contractors to maintain records on wage rates paid for specific work. Suspending Davis-Bacon eliminates any record of what rates were paid to workers in these areas.
In Bush economy, poverty is already up, real wages are already stagnant. Despite growth in GDP during the last few years, it has been widely documented that real wages in America have failed to grow while the richest Americans have gotten richer. Late last month, the U.S. Census Bureau showed that poverty had grown for the fourth straight year, while median household income had continued to stagnate. The median household income is still $1,740 lower than it was in 1999. Suppressing wages further in the Gulf region is a callous and disastrous move.
Congressman Miller issued a statement on this issue yesterday.
END
--ER
From: Tom Kiley, Democratic Press Secretary
House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Office of Congressman George Miller, Senior Democratic Member
Date: September 9, 2005
Subject: President Bush's Executive Order on Davis-Bacon for Gulf region: Exploiting Katrina to Pay Substandard Wages Is a Disaster for Storm Victims
YESTERDAY, by executive order, President Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon law for areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. Davis-Bacon is a 1931 law that requires federal contractors to pay its workers at least the prevailing wage on construction projects, including highways, buildings, and bridges. (The prevailing wage is the average wage for specific jobs in a local area; it is not the union wage rate.) The law was intended to stop unscrupulous employers from exploiting workers and has been a critical force in stabilizing wage rates for federal contracting work throughout the country. Congressman George Miller is calling on the President to rescind this order immediately.
But the President's executive order says that the way to save money in this time of crisis is to not pay the already-low prevailing wage rates in the affected Gulf communities and that contractors are now free to push the rates even lower. Workers and their families in the Gulf region are desperate to get back on their feet and are especially vulnerable to being exploited. They are trying to rebuild their lives after suffering devastating financial and emotional losses. Paying them poverty wages for critical work will undermine the quality of the work that is needed and will undermine the storm victims' ability to rebuild their lives quickly.
Deep poverty in New Orleans and other Gulf cities and towns is a big part of the story of Hurricane Katrina - undermining thousands of people's ability to get out of town before the storm, to get help quickly, to quickly rebuild their lives. Roughly one out of every four New Orleanians lived in poverty before the storm; fully half of the city's children lived in poverty. As America seeks to rebuild the city and the rest of the region devastated by Katrina, the federal government can and should ensure that it does not take advantage of the desperation in the area nor intentionally recreate the poverty that added to this disaster in the first place.
The fact is, The President and most of his Republican allies have tried time and again to undermine Davis-Bacon, but they have failed to garner the necessary votes in Congress to do so. Now, the President is exploiting Katrina to score another ideological point for his right wing allies. That is a disgrace. The wage standards in Davis-Bacon are critical to helping in the overall effort of getting families' lives back together in the affected areas.
Congressman Miller, the Senior Democrat on the House labor committee, will seek a vote to undo the President's order at the soonest possible opportunity. Congressman Miller is also asking for transparency in the contracts made by FEMA and other federal agencies for rebuilding in order to determine what wage rates are being paid by contractors.
There are several things to keep in mind as you consider this issue:
Suspending Davis-Bacon does not mean lower costs for taxpayers. Companies that win federal contracts to rebuild in New Orleans are under no obligation to pass the savings from reduced labor costs onto taxpayers. There is nothing to prevent these contractors - including profitable companies like Kellog Brown & Root and others - from taking advantage of this executive order to cut workers' wages and boost their own profits, while passing no savings onto taxpayers.
Davis-Bacon does not apply only to union workers. Davis-Bacon applies to all workers, whether they belong to a labor union or not. Davis Bacon helps to provide a floor for all workers' wages.
Prevailing wages for construction labor in the affected region are already low but the executive order sends a message to contractors to make them even lower. Charts are available showing prevailing wages by job type and region if you are interested.
Davis-Bacon repeal has repeatedly failed in Congress. Repealing Davis-Bacon has long been a favorite pet project of right-wing conservatives. But conservatives do not have the votes in Congress to repeal the law. That is why they have chosen this anti-democratic method - the executive fiat - for chipping away at a key protection for workers.
Davis-Bacon requires contractors to maintain records on wage rates paid for specific work. Suspending Davis-Bacon eliminates any record of what rates were paid to workers in these areas.
In Bush economy, poverty is already up, real wages are already stagnant. Despite growth in GDP during the last few years, it has been widely documented that real wages in America have failed to grow while the richest Americans have gotten richer. Late last month, the U.S. Census Bureau showed that poverty had grown for the fourth straight year, while median household income had continued to stagnate. The median household income is still $1,740 lower than it was in 1999. Suppressing wages further in the Gulf region is a callous and disastrous move.
Congressman Miller issued a statement on this issue yesterday.
END
Comments:
<< Home
Well, Howard Dean just backslide on CNN. He said yesterday that the response in New Orleans was slow because of skin color. He now says that’s not what he meant. God, just yesterday I was hoping I could go back to the Democratic Party in 08 but it looks like it’ll be 2012 now for sure. With Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean on the case it should be an easy win with 8 more years of Republican rule.
The media ruined Dean when they jumped on him for raising his voice at a pep rally with his troops in the last race. Now he’s quieter but making no sense.
What the Democratic Party should do if they want their man in the White House, is find a republican willing to get a bad haircut and buy a suit at JC Penney. That’s their only chance in 08
The media ruined Dean when they jumped on him for raising his voice at a pep rally with his troops in the last race. Now he’s quieter but making no sense.
What the Democratic Party should do if they want their man in the White House, is find a republican willing to get a bad haircut and buy a suit at JC Penney. That’s their only chance in 08
# posted by 
: 4:17 PM
: 4:17 PM
What's this Demo/Socialist next press release gonna say? "Workers of the world unite!! You have nothing to lose but your chains!!" Same old tune from the same old New Dealer retreads.
# posted by : 4:39 PM
: 4:39 PM
Anon, you may be right. The inmates are in charge of the Democratic Asylum.
Pastor Timothy: Who said this was supposed to be "fair and balanced" -- a phrase that makes me want to puke since Fox got ahold of it -- ???
It'a a damn response to the president's drastic, anti-working class action. Go find the White House's explanation if you want to -- but it'll be just that: The White House's explanation, no more "fair and balanced" than, well, than Fox "News."
Pastor Timothy: Who said this was supposed to be "fair and balanced" -- a phrase that makes me want to puke since Fox got ahold of it -- ???
It'a a damn response to the president's drastic, anti-working class action. Go find the White House's explanation if you want to -- but it'll be just that: The White House's explanation, no more "fair and balanced" than, well, than Fox "News."
Timothy, do NOT expect "balance" here. I bust my ass all day every day to be detached and fair and as balanced as is humanly possible in reporting.
Not here. Here, my Bullshit Detector is on all the time, and the filter through which I interpret events and information, and therefore write it, rewrite it, or even just pass it along, is my own.
And my own is mainstream Democrat. There arre a jillion right-wing blogs out there, and another jillion making up a virtual echo chamber for Karl Rove, Geo. W., et al. This is an anti-right-wing spin zone. Sometimes liberal-liberal, sometimes conservative-Dem -- but always anti-right-wing, and always-always, now, doubting everything, initially, that comes out of the White House. I will be duped no more.
Not here. Here, my Bullshit Detector is on all the time, and the filter through which I interpret events and information, and therefore write it, rewrite it, or even just pass it along, is my own.
And my own is mainstream Democrat. There arre a jillion right-wing blogs out there, and another jillion making up a virtual echo chamber for Karl Rove, Geo. W., et al. This is an anti-right-wing spin zone. Sometimes liberal-liberal, sometimes conservative-Dem -- but always anti-right-wing, and always-always, now, doubting everything, initially, that comes out of the White House. I will be duped no more.
And that's why we love you, ER.
My blog is the same thing, only the other direction. I am not the least bit ashamed of my bias, and will shout it from the mountaintop.
If I was a news network, my tagline would be:
"Tug's News Service. Spinning Today's Events in a Clockwise Direction, at Extremely High RPM's."
And I see nothing wrong with that. Not in this type of forum. I have my particular viewpoint, and I state it right up front, real honest like, same as you do.
You know that my points are projected through my lens, so you know to recieve them through your filter.
That is my main problem with the MSP.
They all want to claim to be "Fair and Balanced", when in reality, NONE of them actually are.
BTW,Thank you for stickin' up for me a while ago, ER, as well as for the compliments. It meant a lot to me.
My blog is the same thing, only the other direction. I am not the least bit ashamed of my bias, and will shout it from the mountaintop.
If I was a news network, my tagline would be:
"Tug's News Service. Spinning Today's Events in a Clockwise Direction, at Extremely High RPM's."
And I see nothing wrong with that. Not in this type of forum. I have my particular viewpoint, and I state it right up front, real honest like, same as you do.
You know that my points are projected through my lens, so you know to recieve them through your filter.
That is my main problem with the MSP.
They all want to claim to be "Fair and Balanced", when in reality, NONE of them actually are.
BTW,Thank you for stickin' up for me a while ago, ER, as well as for the compliments. It meant a lot to me.
I was curious as to why Bush would repeal this, too. It's easy to bash him -- real easy -- but before I jump in on the dogpile I thought I would research it a little. Dang if this blog ain't making me work harder than most of my college classes did, but at least it's more interesting and a lot more fun.
From what I can gather, and I'm no research expert, just a 'net surfer, the Bacon-Davis Act was passed in the late 1920s. Contractors were bidding on federal projects and one way to make a low bid was to import low wage workers from around the country, rather than use the local and unionized work force. Shacks and other substandard living was provided for these low wage workers. The Bacon-Davis Act was passed to level the playing field and give the skilled, union workers making higher wages a chance to work, too, as well as supposedly give the low wage workers a decent wage. However, since contractors had to pay the same wage anyway, they hired the skilled, mostly white workers and those without skills or unions, mostly black people at the time, were out of a job completely. See the website below for more details.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-017.html
Now...why would Bush repeal it? To save the federal government money and get lower bids? That sorta seems like the obvious answer. It's going to take a huge amount of federal assistance to rebuild 90,000 square miles of devestated towns and cities. To give low wage workers a shot at the jobs, too? Maybe, but why not just pay them the same rate the rest of the country is getting and be fair about it? Shoot, I may have to research this a little more before I can form an opinion.
Where are all those Anon posters with their stats and specific details now when I really need them?
RebelAngel
From what I can gather, and I'm no research expert, just a 'net surfer, the Bacon-Davis Act was passed in the late 1920s. Contractors were bidding on federal projects and one way to make a low bid was to import low wage workers from around the country, rather than use the local and unionized work force. Shacks and other substandard living was provided for these low wage workers. The Bacon-Davis Act was passed to level the playing field and give the skilled, union workers making higher wages a chance to work, too, as well as supposedly give the low wage workers a decent wage. However, since contractors had to pay the same wage anyway, they hired the skilled, mostly white workers and those without skills or unions, mostly black people at the time, were out of a job completely. See the website below for more details.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-017.html
Now...why would Bush repeal it? To save the federal government money and get lower bids? That sorta seems like the obvious answer. It's going to take a huge amount of federal assistance to rebuild 90,000 square miles of devestated towns and cities. To give low wage workers a shot at the jobs, too? Maybe, but why not just pay them the same rate the rest of the country is getting and be fair about it? Shoot, I may have to research this a little more before I can form an opinion.
Where are all those Anon posters with their stats and specific details now when I really need them?
RebelAngel
# posted by : 1:59 AM
: 1:59 AM
Because this is the kind of stuff you really have to think about, and not just spout off about, Angel.
Yes, there is an argument FOR repealing it, and I think you nailed it.
My answer is: The law is in place for good reasons, and the emergency situation actually will create MORE of a likelihood that the abuses that caused the law to be passed (in 1931) in the first place will occur, so it's mean and stupid to repeal it.
Nobody tries to suspend the vaunted "free market" during an emergency. In fact, they usually pass emergency laws to restrict it, because it is especially rapacious in an emergency situation when people are desperate.
The fact that Bush & Co. just NATURALLY started gunning for laws protecting labor in this emergency is a perfect example of ideology put over pragmatism by the right wing.
They would dismantle every safeguard put in place since FDR if they could, emergency or not. And that's why they are dangerous.
And that's why I hold my nose and stand just left of the line.
--ER
Yes, there is an argument FOR repealing it, and I think you nailed it.
My answer is: The law is in place for good reasons, and the emergency situation actually will create MORE of a likelihood that the abuses that caused the law to be passed (in 1931) in the first place will occur, so it's mean and stupid to repeal it.
Nobody tries to suspend the vaunted "free market" during an emergency. In fact, they usually pass emergency laws to restrict it, because it is especially rapacious in an emergency situation when people are desperate.
The fact that Bush & Co. just NATURALLY started gunning for laws protecting labor in this emergency is a perfect example of ideology put over pragmatism by the right wing.
They would dismantle every safeguard put in place since FDR if they could, emergency or not. And that's why they are dangerous.
And that's why I hold my nose and stand just left of the line.
--ER
I think you're right, ER. The justification (what little I could find) for repealing it doesn't outweigh the damage done by repealing it. It seems to me if the Republican Party really cared about breaking the cycle of poverty they wouldn't find ways to lower wages. If they want people to advance themselves to at least a middle class income, they would be looking for ways to increase wages. New Orleans is going to be looted again...this time with the blessing of the Republican party.
But, then again, why aren't more Democrats squawking about it? It's not just about New Orleans but thousands of blue collar workers as well, workers who will be coming in from lots of states for the rebuilding. Okay, I confess, I haven't had the TV on for a couple days -- I had to take a break from it -- maybe they are squawking about it. Can anyone point out another Democratic leader besides Congressman George Miller and his press secretary who are upset about this?
It's like my party is fussing about the wrong things...I flinched when I heard the Senator from LA berating the president for not being more aware the levees were going to break. Good grief, LA was HER state, what had she been doing with the money that was sent to them for improvements like that? Where did the money go? I know funding had been cut, but that still doesn't tell me what they were spending the money on all this time for the last 35 years. I think she's shooting herself in the foot. Well, she's fighting for her political life, as is the governor and the mayor of LA, but still...I worry that my party will be seen as just doing a lot of blaming while the Republicans pound home their image of "rolling up their sleeves" and trying to actually do something. The only thing helping our party image is that the Republican party seems so inept and clueless. Unfortunately, neither party is being effective in actually helping the evacuees.
And, now, when we actually do have a real issue to get riled up about...nothing...We're trying to form independent counsels to see what went wrong in LA. What will we really find out? That there was a breakdown in the system on every level? C'mon, we know that already! Tell me how we're going to rebuild; tell me how we're going to get help to those in shelters; there will be a lot of jobs in New Orleans and the gulf coast -- why aren't we protecting those workers? What's the plan?
My honey, who is several years older than me, and is the first one in three generations of his family to wear a tie to work, and who reads the Wall Street Journal like my mama reads her Bible, and is a Republican (but at least he's not a Yankee) offerred this rather cynical explanation. "They're not fussing," he said, "because big businesses make donations to the Democratic party, too, and they'll be bidding on those jobs on the Gulf Coast."
*sigh*
I will be writing a letter to my Congressman this weekend. Oh, wait..he's a Republican. Damn.
RebelAngel
But, then again, why aren't more Democrats squawking about it? It's not just about New Orleans but thousands of blue collar workers as well, workers who will be coming in from lots of states for the rebuilding. Okay, I confess, I haven't had the TV on for a couple days -- I had to take a break from it -- maybe they are squawking about it. Can anyone point out another Democratic leader besides Congressman George Miller and his press secretary who are upset about this?
It's like my party is fussing about the wrong things...I flinched when I heard the Senator from LA berating the president for not being more aware the levees were going to break. Good grief, LA was HER state, what had she been doing with the money that was sent to them for improvements like that? Where did the money go? I know funding had been cut, but that still doesn't tell me what they were spending the money on all this time for the last 35 years. I think she's shooting herself in the foot. Well, she's fighting for her political life, as is the governor and the mayor of LA, but still...I worry that my party will be seen as just doing a lot of blaming while the Republicans pound home their image of "rolling up their sleeves" and trying to actually do something. The only thing helping our party image is that the Republican party seems so inept and clueless. Unfortunately, neither party is being effective in actually helping the evacuees.
And, now, when we actually do have a real issue to get riled up about...nothing...We're trying to form independent counsels to see what went wrong in LA. What will we really find out? That there was a breakdown in the system on every level? C'mon, we know that already! Tell me how we're going to rebuild; tell me how we're going to get help to those in shelters; there will be a lot of jobs in New Orleans and the gulf coast -- why aren't we protecting those workers? What's the plan?
My honey, who is several years older than me, and is the first one in three generations of his family to wear a tie to work, and who reads the Wall Street Journal like my mama reads her Bible, and is a Republican (but at least he's not a Yankee) offerred this rather cynical explanation. "They're not fussing," he said, "because big businesses make donations to the Democratic party, too, and they'll be bidding on those jobs on the Gulf Coast."
*sigh*
I will be writing a letter to my Congressman this weekend. Oh, wait..he's a Republican. Damn.
RebelAngel
# posted by : 5:29 PM
: 5:29 PM
I'm afraid yer cynucal honey is partky right. The other thing is the Dems are so demoralized. I mean, they've got nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean speaking for the party. A Left Coaster and a Yankee. We Southerners and Westerners are left standin' along the wall while our partry leadership dances the slow Dance of Irrelevancy. This is life as the minority party.
Oh, and I don't know whether any other Dems are hollering. I actually heard of it when my congressman, Ispuke, sent out a release praising Dubya for what he did. Gak.
Sokmebody find me a yellow dog!!!!
Oh, and I don't know whether any other Dems are hollering. I actually heard of it when my congressman, Ispuke, sent out a release praising Dubya for what he did. Gak.
Sokmebody find me a yellow dog!!!!
Let's see, first Bush hated Blacks, now he hates the working man. MY GOD!!!! where will it end?
# posted by : 9:42 PM
: 9:42 PM
Think about this for a minute, ER.
Repealing that law will enable the contractors who come in to rebuild things in these devestated areas to employ the locals who are left and may be out of a job, and pay them a trainee's wage while they train them.
It allows out of work victims of the storm to find local employment, while not forcing contractors to pay them more than they are worth for the job they have been hired to do.
(Don't forget that every victim of this hurricane will be federally subsidized for the next year or two whether they work or not.)
Just a thought...
Repealing that law will enable the contractors who come in to rebuild things in these devestated areas to employ the locals who are left and may be out of a job, and pay them a trainee's wage while they train them.
It allows out of work victims of the storm to find local employment, while not forcing contractors to pay them more than they are worth for the job they have been hired to do.
(Don't forget that every victim of this hurricane will be federally subsidized for the next year or two whether they work or not.)
Just a thought...
Tug, contractors who come ijnt to do this work will not be hurting for money. And, if anybody deserved to make (even more than) the prevailing wage, it's those who have lost everything.
Again, "Nobody tries to suspend the vaunted 'free market' during an emergency. In fact, they usually pass emergency laws to restrict it, because it is especially rapacious in an emergency situation when people are desperate."
--ER
Again, "Nobody tries to suspend the vaunted 'free market' during an emergency. In fact, they usually pass emergency laws to restrict it, because it is especially rapacious in an emergency situation when people are desperate."
--ER
Tug, don't be offended, but I'm not following the logic in your arguement. First, whether the law was repealed or not, contractors would have bid for the jobs. Repealing the law didn't "enable" the contractors to come in there. It just made it easier to exploit people already vulnerable.
Second, will the contractors get to hire unskilled workers for a lower wage? Sure, but why not be fair and pay them the prevailing wages? And, what about the skilled workers? They'll be hired in for the lower wages, too. How is any of that fair? And, come to think of it, why would you even hire unskilled workers, when you could get skilled workers for the same low pay? This is not a win-win situation. Just another thought...:)
ER, you're a poet, too. :) This is great imagery. "We Southerners and Westerners are left standin' along the wall while our partry leadership dances the slow Dance of Irrelevancy." A sad message, but great imagery.
RebelAngel
Second, will the contractors get to hire unskilled workers for a lower wage? Sure, but why not be fair and pay them the prevailing wages? And, what about the skilled workers? They'll be hired in for the lower wages, too. How is any of that fair? And, come to think of it, why would you even hire unskilled workers, when you could get skilled workers for the same low pay? This is not a win-win situation. Just another thought...:)
ER, you're a poet, too. :) This is great imagery. "We Southerners and Westerners are left standin' along the wall while our partry leadership dances the slow Dance of Irrelevancy." A sad message, but great imagery.
RebelAngel
# posted by : 3:05 AM
: 3:05 AM
More.
--ER
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES...
September 10, 2005
A Shameful Proclamation
On Thursday, President Bush issued a proclamation suspending the law that requires employers to pay the locally prevailing wage to construction workers on federally financed projects. The suspension applies to parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
By any standard of human decency, condemning many already poor and now bereft people to subpar wages - thus perpetuating their poverty - is unacceptable. It is also bad for the economy. Without the law, called the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors will be able to pay less, but they'll also get less, as lower wages invariably mean lower productivity.
The ostensible rationale for suspending the law is to reduce taxpayers' costs. Does Mr. Bush really believe it is the will of the American people to deny the prevailing wage to construction workers in New Orleans, Biloxi and other hard-hit areas? Besides, the proclamation doesn't require contractors to pass on the savings they will get by cutting wages from current low levels. Around New Orleans, the prevailing hourly wage for a truck driver working on a levee is $9.04; for an electrician, it's $14.30.
Republicans have long been trying to repeal the prevailing wage law on the grounds that the regulations are expensive and bureaucratic; weakening it was even part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. Now, in a time of searing need, the party wants to achieve by fiat what it couldn't achieve through the normal democratic process.
In a letter this week to Mr. Bush urging him to suspend the law, 35 Republican representatives noted approvingly that Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and the elder George Bush had all suspended the law during "emergencies." For the record, Mr. Roosevelt suspended it for two weeks in 1934, to make time to clear up contradictions between it and another law. Mr. Nixon suspended it for six weeks in 1971 as part of his misbegotten attempt to control spiraling inflation. And Mr. Bush did so after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, two weeks before he was defeated by Bill Clinton, who quickly reinstated it after assuming the presidency.
If Mr. Bush does not rescind his proclamation voluntarily, Congress should pass a law forcing him to do so.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
--ER
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES...
September 10, 2005
A Shameful Proclamation
On Thursday, President Bush issued a proclamation suspending the law that requires employers to pay the locally prevailing wage to construction workers on federally financed projects. The suspension applies to parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
By any standard of human decency, condemning many already poor and now bereft people to subpar wages - thus perpetuating their poverty - is unacceptable. It is also bad for the economy. Without the law, called the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors will be able to pay less, but they'll also get less, as lower wages invariably mean lower productivity.
The ostensible rationale for suspending the law is to reduce taxpayers' costs. Does Mr. Bush really believe it is the will of the American people to deny the prevailing wage to construction workers in New Orleans, Biloxi and other hard-hit areas? Besides, the proclamation doesn't require contractors to pass on the savings they will get by cutting wages from current low levels. Around New Orleans, the prevailing hourly wage for a truck driver working on a levee is $9.04; for an electrician, it's $14.30.
Republicans have long been trying to repeal the prevailing wage law on the grounds that the regulations are expensive and bureaucratic; weakening it was even part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. Now, in a time of searing need, the party wants to achieve by fiat what it couldn't achieve through the normal democratic process.
In a letter this week to Mr. Bush urging him to suspend the law, 35 Republican representatives noted approvingly that Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and the elder George Bush had all suspended the law during "emergencies." For the record, Mr. Roosevelt suspended it for two weeks in 1934, to make time to clear up contradictions between it and another law. Mr. Nixon suspended it for six weeks in 1971 as part of his misbegotten attempt to control spiraling inflation. And Mr. Bush did so after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, two weeks before he was defeated by Bill Clinton, who quickly reinstated it after assuming the presidency.
If Mr. Bush does not rescind his proclamation voluntarily, Congress should pass a law forcing him to do so.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
OK. I will admit to not knowing much about this subject. Being an unskilled laborer myself most of my life, I have never felt I was earning what I was worth, but on the other hand, who can put a monetary value on worthiness? How would one even guage that? I see it as relative. To me, $1000.00 is a lot of money. To Bill Gates, $1,000.00 could be carelessly dropped on the ground and he wouldn't even consider it worth it to bend over to pick it up, as I do with pennies.
That said, When i try to look at things logically, This is the way I see the low wage/fair wage debate:
Usually, the highest percentage of expense in a business is payroll. Almost all businesses sell something, either tangible or intangible merchandise, or services.
Every time wages are raised, Employers have to raise prices to cover the payroll expense, accordingly, or take a loss of profit. That makes merchandise or services cost more which in turn, goes back to the original reasons workers needed the raise in the first place. So, they demand higher wages to make what the goods and services they are paying for more affordable. The the employers have to raise wages again, which makes prices go up again, which makes the workers demand raises again and so on and so on and so on into infinity or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.
It has beem my experience personally, that the more money I make, the more I spend, and I have heard millionaires make that complaint, so I am not the only one. It is a vicious circle.
Of some politician, Democrat or Republican could come up with a plan that raises wages but keeps prices stable, I would vote for him and quite possibly be a campaign worker.
It aint gonna happen, cause employers don't want to reduce profits so I can eat steak a little more often.
Nor can I blame them. I would object just as strenuosly if I owned a business.
Making a profit is the reason for being in business.
That said, When i try to look at things logically, This is the way I see the low wage/fair wage debate:
Usually, the highest percentage of expense in a business is payroll. Almost all businesses sell something, either tangible or intangible merchandise, or services.
Every time wages are raised, Employers have to raise prices to cover the payroll expense, accordingly, or take a loss of profit. That makes merchandise or services cost more which in turn, goes back to the original reasons workers needed the raise in the first place. So, they demand higher wages to make what the goods and services they are paying for more affordable. The the employers have to raise wages again, which makes prices go up again, which makes the workers demand raises again and so on and so on and so on into infinity or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.
It has beem my experience personally, that the more money I make, the more I spend, and I have heard millionaires make that complaint, so I am not the only one. It is a vicious circle.
Of some politician, Democrat or Republican could come up with a plan that raises wages but keeps prices stable, I would vote for him and quite possibly be a campaign worker.
It aint gonna happen, cause employers don't want to reduce profits so I can eat steak a little more often.
Nor can I blame them. I would object just as strenuosly if I owned a business.
Making a profit is the reason for being in business.
Mr.Maness, ya gotta be real careful around here. Get outta line and you're gone.
# posted by : 11:46 PM
: 11:46 PM
Oh, come on.
Mess with Bird. Yer outta here.
Mess with Dr. ER. Same
Attack me, repeatedly, personally, about something you don't and couldn't possibly know anything about, and I put up with it -- to a point.
The deletions of the past few days are the ONLY time I've used the phaser on kill -- except foronce months ago when somebody had snarkythingsw to say about Dr. ER.
That's an indication of two things: How tolerant I am, and how muich of an asshole this particular asstroll was being.
Argue with me. Get passionate. Do not be insulting to me personally.
Also, way don in the sidebar is a little link called READ ME. Do. It.
Mark, fine writin' on the cycle of wages and inflation, etc. You go ahead and care about the businesses. I'll go ahead and care about the labor.
--ER
Mess with Bird. Yer outta here.
Mess with Dr. ER. Same
Attack me, repeatedly, personally, about something you don't and couldn't possibly know anything about, and I put up with it -- to a point.
The deletions of the past few days are the ONLY time I've used the phaser on kill -- except foronce months ago when somebody had snarkythingsw to say about Dr. ER.
That's an indication of two things: How tolerant I am, and how muich of an asshole this particular asstroll was being.
Argue with me. Get passionate. Do not be insulting to me personally.
Also, way don in the sidebar is a little link called READ ME. Do. It.
Mark, fine writin' on the cycle of wages and inflation, etc. You go ahead and care about the businesses. I'll go ahead and care about the labor.
--ER
OK I went thru it. But it still doesn't mean you had to get nasty with me. Don't think I've EVER gone that low.
# posted by : 1:45 PM
: 1:45 PM
People can cut people with all kinds of words, not just "nasty" ones. Sarcasm and ridicule, in fact, are usually more hurtful than plain old profane language.
--ER
--ER
RebelAngel:
I was watching Lou Dobbs on CNN this afternoon and he brought up the Bacon-Davis Act. He was saying a lot of the stuff you've brought up. The reporter he was talking to about it also mentioned the silence about it from the congressional delegates from the Gulf States. Although I'm an unabashedly strong Bush supporter, repealing this act is very troublesome to me. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Post a Comment
I was watching Lou Dobbs on CNN this afternoon and he brought up the Bacon-Davis Act. He was saying a lot of the stuff you've brought up. The reporter he was talking to about it also mentioned the silence about it from the congressional delegates from the Gulf States. Although I'm an unabashedly strong Bush supporter, repealing this act is very troublesome to me. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
<< Home
