Bush and wages in the gulf area

[LRB]

no, the "jury is still out" on what the affect will be on workers. I remain with the opinion the wages will be lower, and like I said let's look at the data after a few months to make a conclusion.

A very Clintonesque move. Leave things very ambigious so you have an out. A few months could be anywhere from 2 to 200 months. Truth is that Mavdog doesn't have a clue in hell what will take place. However if you want to use proven economic therory go back and research cities that have been decimated by hurricanes or other natural disasters in the past and you'll see that demand for construction workers soars afterwards because there is far more building to be done than normal. The chances of workers wages going down is even less than Mavdog admitting that he's wrong and we all know that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of that every happening.

[Drbio]

Even though mavdog being wrong is understood by the masses. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

no, the "jury is still out" on what the affect will be on workers. I remain with the opinion the wages will be lower, and like I said let's look at the data after a few months to make a conclusion.

I'll be happy to revisit the data with you in a few months.

Interesting, it seems that your presumption is that it is too early to apply accepted economic theory to predict an affect, yet it isn't too early to determine the prediction isn't valid.

think about that for awhile and get back to me as well.

[/quote]

Theory is great, but you have to try and apply it to REALITY for it to be worth anything. Here, reality conflicts with your theory, rendering it meaningless.

[dude1394]

I sure as hell hope the wages will be lower than the socialist wages decreed by the bacon act.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I sure as hell hope the wages will be lower than the socialist wages decreed by the bacon act.

I don't have a problem if some wages are higher because of supply and demand. What I hate is an act that sets the minimum at what was previously the average. That's an increase in wages 99+% of the time. There also the expense of doing all the red tape and paperwork involved with Davis-Beacon which isn't trivial itself.

[dude1394]

And from someone who knows what they are talking about.

kausfiles

Let's hear from someone who does know something about Davis-Bacon! Kausfiles has received an e-mail from a seemingly well-informed source deep within the federal bureaucracy:.

I am a Federal Government Contract Specialist (job title: means I award contracts on behalf of the government) and know a lot about this law and have dealt a lot with this law. ... [i]f you want to see why Bush suspended the Davis Bacon act, read what it entails:

http://205.130.237.11/far/current/ht...html#wp1101814

That's the regulations. The reason isn't to save the government money. The reason may be politically motivated, but the reason is more this: they are stupid regulations and waste time. Davis Bacon requires anyone who wants to do a construction contract (read those Regs, and if you have real insomnia take a look at the part ...that has to do with construction ...) has to go through an inordinately larger number of steps than you have to even for regular contracts (which is still daunting).

Construction in the eyes of the Federal Regulations means a lot. Any change or improvement on a surface (painting, for instance) is construction. Davis-Bacon
applies to all of it. It requires people to get wage determinations, which are published by the Department of Labor and are notoriously inaccurate to actual market conditions, then engage in a long series of exercises with the contractor to insure they are actually paying people said wages and examine their records.

This wastes a lot of a more precious resource than government money: government time. Enforcing and implementing Davis-Bacon adds days, weeks, months to processes. Bush cut it because it makes sense. We'd still be in the preliminary stages of setting up contracts for reconstruction if Davis Bacon was in place, but now we can just go ahead and use the normal acquisition regs for those contracts.

In other words, to get the contractors to work fast, you need to suspend Davis-Bacon. That's why he did it. Granted weaknening wage laws sucks and it's probably an intended political side benefit, but it's FAR from the true issues at stake. [Emphasis added]

Working fast doesn't only have the obvious benefit--in the case of Katrina, it also allows the government to harness the power of its notorious September Spending Spree:

The issue here is that the federal government has a lot of leftover money (as it does at the end of every Fiscal Year, since the money turns into pumpkins midnight on September 30). In order to use it up, all contracts have to be awarded by Sep. 30. It's hard enough getting a regular large service contract done and awarded in a month, one that involved Davis Bacon would be impossible. Therefore a lot of money that the agencies want to use and repurpose for Katrina relief and field activities effectively COULDN'T BE if Davis Bacon was in place. It would essentially go to rot, or have to be used on other less important projects, what we usually do with end of FY money. In a sense, Bush is allowing for all that leftover money to now be dumped into reconstruction when it otherwise couldn't be. [Emphasis added]


In sum: 1. Contra Reed, Bush had a perfectly good, non-political reason for suspending Davis-Bacon. 2. Contra Drum, Davis-Bacon doesn't just boost wages. It creates lots of "archaic red tape" and wastes much more money than just the increase in workers' pay. . ...

Preserving Davis-Bacon may endear Democrats to the AFL-CIO's construction unions, but it's a slightly trickier case to make to voters--"Hey, this will really slow rebuilding and make it way more expensive for taxpayers!" Why take a stand defending the indefensible? 2:35 P.M. link

[Mavdog]

it appears we will not be able to look back to gauge the affects of removing the Davis Baon Act, it's been reinstated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage law reinstated for efforts to rebuild
Companies awarded federal contracts must pay prevailing rates to workers
By DAVID HAMMER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will reinstate rules requiring that companies awarded federal contracts for Hurricane Katrina pay prevailing wages, usually an amount close to the pay scales in local union contracts.

The White House promised to restore the 74-year-old Davis-Bacon prevailing wage protection Nov. 8, following a meeting between chief of staff Andrew Card and a caucus of pro-labor Republicans.

Democrats and the moderate Republican group both claimed their pressure caused President Bush to reconsider his open-ended suspension of Davis-Bacon starting Sept. 8 in hurricane-affected areas.

The Republican group originally sent a letter to the White House in September arguing that suspension of the wage law only leads to shoddy workmanship, reduces federal oversight and allows workers outside the region to undercut the market.

Savings unrealized
Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, who founded the pro-labor caucus with Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., earlier this year, said the Bush administration was not receptive to the initial letter. But the White House eventually acknowledged the suspension of the wage law was not saving the government money on billions of dollars in Katrina contracts, he said.

LaTourette said the Republican group suggested Nov. 8 as a reinstatement date because it was 60 days from the original suspension. He said he hoped companies wouldn't abuse the remaining days to underpay workers.

The administration contended the Davis-Bacon suspension would reduce rebuilding costs and thus benefit local residents by stretching financial resources, but unions and other critics said it would result in lower pay for workers. Unlike the three previous suspensions of Davis-Bacon since 1931, Bush left the suspension open-ended.

Accusations by Democrats
Democrats, such as Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that was a bid by conservatives to wipe out Davis-Bacon altogether.

Miller said Democrats' legislative proposals combined with the Republican group to force the Bush administration's hand.

The Bush administration demurred. "It was always intended for it to be temporary," said Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman.

LoBiondo received a letter last week from the Labor Department indicating the matter was being reviewed but the suspension could last up to a year.

Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., said a Democratic Policy Committee hearing they held earlier this month had an impact by highlighting abuses of the wage law suspension. In some cases, contractors were hiring undocumented workers, they said.

"The credit goes to anybody and everybody who understood this was bad public policy," Dorgan said.

Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., said the White House responded to the caucus "in part as a function of our party affiliation."

Unions praised the Republican group Wednesday and said workers across the country were invested in the fate of Gulf Coast workers.

"This was a blow on working people everywhere," said Anthony Liberatore of Laborers Local 860 in Cleveland. "To lose their homes and now to lose their wages is unacceptable."

Raymond Poupore, executive director of the National Heavy & Highway Alliance, lauded the Republican group for reaching out to unions to build a case for restoring the wage protections.