The Davis-Bacon act.

[BlancoNino]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon_Act

Does this actually help the poor? Who can afford to win the bid for government construction projects under this act? That's right, rich expensive Union contractors. Perhaps there is only 1 in in an entire state that can afford to pay their workers that much, thus eliminating any competition. They may even do a terrible job, which is a double-whammy waste of tax dollars.

 

[Todd33]

Republicans have long been trying to repeal the Davis-Bacon act on the grounds that the regulations are outdated, expensive and bureaucratic. In 1993 Representative Cliff Stearns [1] urged the repeal of the act. Republican Sue Wilkins Myrick tried to repeal it outright in the budget battles of 1995.[2] Weakening it has been part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. In February 1999 Representative Ron Paul attempted to repeal it.[3] In 2004, Representative Marilyn Musgrave tried again.

If the GOP only had some power to do something.. like a mjority! I don't see how your characterization fits with the wording of the bill. The government has to pay local rates, how is that unfair to anyone? Should companies be able to ship low pay Mexicans from state to state to win federal contracts and put locals out of work? Why do you hate Americans?

Maybe I missed something, but it looks like the typical republican hate of labor regulations. Sure you'd like 6 year olds working in mines too, but we have evolved as a nation.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Republicans have long been trying to repeal the Davis-Bacon act on the grounds that the regulations are outdated, expensive and bureaucratic. In 1993 Representative Cliff Stearns [1] urged the repeal of the act. Republican Sue Wilkins Myrick tried to repeal it outright in the budget battles of 1995.[2] Weakening it has been part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. In February 1999 Representative Ron Paul attempted to repeal it.[3] In 2004, Representative Marilyn Musgrave tried again.

If the GOP only had some power to do something.. like a mjority! I don't see how your characterization fits with the wording of the bill. The government has to pay local rates, how is that unfair to anyone? Should companies be able to ship low pay Mexicans from state to state to win federal contracts and put locals out of work? Why do you hate Americans?

Maybe I missed something, but it looks like the typical republican hate of labor regulations. Sure you'd like 6 year olds working in mines too, but we have evolved as a nation.

Because the big rich and already well-established construction companies sit back and say "Yup, we'll get all the government project bids while all the other companies can sit back and fight amongst themselves. Yay for making us, the richest construction company around, even richer!"

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino



Because the big rich and already well-established construction companies sit back and say "Yup, we'll get all the government project bids while all the other companies can sit back and fight amongst themselves. Yay for making us, the richest construction company around, even richer!"

Can you translate this into something meaningful? After that, please compare and cantrast it to other other end of the spectrum like Haliburton and KBR in Iraq...

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino



Because the big rich and already well-established construction companies sit back and say "Yup, we'll get all the government project bids while all the other companies can sit back and fight amongst themselves. Yay for making us, the richest construction company around, even richer!"

Can you translate this into something meaningful? After that, please compare and cantrast it to other other end of the spectrum like Haliburton and KBR in Iraq...

It is something meaningful. I'm sorry you disagree with reality.

 

[dullard]

You have yet to provide a link from point A to point B.

Point A: Government jobs must pay at least the normal wage.
Point B: Only the rich can make government bids high enough to afford the normal wage.

Why can't a poor contractor make a bid high enough to pay the normal wage?

I agree that in many cases that law is awful. For example, my hometown was the smallest of the legal comparison cities. Thus, it had to pay its government employees the same wage that people made in much larger cities. It financially castrated the town. And it all came because there were no adequate "locally prevailing wages" to compare to.

So, I agree that the law can be bad, I just cann't understand your logic because you haven't fleshed out your logic. Please give us more information. Try my example. Government needs to mow a lawn. Local prevailing wage is $10/hour for lawn mowing. Why can only the rich contractors bid $10+/hour and poor contractors cannot bid that high and thus cannot mow that lawn? Are you arguing that poor contractors must bid $9/hour for the job and thus will lose money if they pay $10/hour? If so, why can't they bid higher than $9/hour?

 

[BlancoNino]

:roll:

Dullard, by your logic, if employees are getting paid X amount for doing private work on average, they would be getting paid X amount for government work as well, which would eliminate the need for the Davis-Bacon act. The problem is that what the government wants to pay workers, is generally WAY higher. Plus, there are different pays for different jobs. A guy standing on a highway holding a sign is getting paid over $20 an hour, whereas in a private job, he is getting paid maybe $13. Since only the rich companies can afford to pay workers that much, the smaller companies lose out, because they can't afford to pay their workers that much.

Edit: Besides, shouldn't the government be trying to get projects done by companies who will do it the most cost-effectively and efficiently since they are funded by tax dollars? Ooooooo, whoops, we wouldn't want that...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon_Act

Does this actually help the poor? Who can afford to win the bid for government construction projects under this act? That's right, rich expensive Union contractors.[/b]
< sarcasm >

Great thinking, there!

< /sarcasm >

Do you think the nation would be better off if our own government got into the business of running sweat shops because they had the leverage to do so? :roll:

:thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon_Act

Does this actually help the poor? Who can afford to win the bid for government construction projects under this act? That's right, rich expensive Union contractors. Perhaps there is only 1 in in an entire state that can afford to pay their workers that much, thus eliminating any competition. They may even do a terrible job, which is a double-whammy waste of tax dollars.

It helps in a couple of ways:
1. It helps tradesmen to get a fair wage for the work they do. Otherwise unscrupulous contractors would pay as little as possible and pocket large profits themselves.
2. Paying a decent wage means you get decent workers.
3. It levels the playing field for union and non-union contractors when they bid on the jobs as the labor costs are roughly the same. It's interesting to note that in most cases the union rates are the same as Davis Bacon rates.

FYI Union contractors are usually not rich because they have to compete against non union contractors for jobs and the only way they can compete is to keep their margins low - specially those jobs where the Davis-Bacon act does not apply. It's the non union contractors who usually have more money for themselves.

To prove compliance with the act, contractors have to submit certified payrolls weekly and the Dept of Labor is usually quite thorough with their checking and auditing. They will send out people to talk to the crew and if they smell anything fishy you can bet any contractor who pays less than what he claims will eventually get caught and blacklisted. Majority contractors know this - specially in the construction industry - and do not play games with prevailing wages.

 

[LunarRay]

Davis-Bacon is for Union protection..
No unionized shop could get government work otherwise.. everyone would de unionize and pay the craftsmen much less...
Union members make a decent wage..
In my history the difference is over 10.00 per hour.. and the benefits are less too...

It is not just big business but all business in the trades.. small shops are union too..

It is the small money grubbing owner who don't want to pay a fair wage that is made to when bidding government work..

I think it is fair..

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: dullard
You have yet to provide a link from point A to point B.

Point A: Government jobs must pay at least the normal wage.
Point B: Only the rich can make government bids high enough to afford the normal wage.

Why can't a poor contractor make a bid high enough to pay the normal wage?

I agree that in many cases that law is awful. For example, my hometown was the smallest of the legal comparison cities. Thus, it had to pay its government employees the same wage that people made in much larger cities. It financially castrated the town. And it all came because there were no adequate "locally prevailing wages" to compare to.

So, I agree that the law can be bad, I just cann't understand your logic because you haven't fleshed out your logic. Please give us more information. Try my example. Government needs to mow a lawn. Local prevailing wage is $10/hour for lawn mowing. Why can only the rich contractors bid $10+/hour and poor contractors cannot bid that high and thus cannot mow that lawn? Are you arguing that poor contractors must bid $9/hour for the job and thus will lose money if they pay $10/hour? If so, why can't they bid higher than $9/hour?

Davis Bacon wages are NOT uniform. They are different for different trades in different counties. Each county will have a different rate for the same trade - reflecting the local influence of labor rates.

If you really think about it the small contractor is actually better off with Davis Bacon rates as he can bid higher and compete at par with bigger companies - but will make more money as his overheads are lower.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
It helps in a couple of ways:
1. It helps tradesmen to get a fair wage for the work they do. Otherwise unscrupulous contractors would pay as little as possible and pocket large profits themselves.
2. Paying a decent wage means you get decent workers.
3. It levels the playing field for union and non-union contractors when they bid on the jobs as the labor costs are roughly the same. It's interesting to note that in most cases the union rates are the same as Davis Bacon rates.

1. The rest of the money won't be going toward profit. It would be going back to the taxpayers.
2. The free markets already pay a decent wage, we don't need regulation on that.
3. This is exactly my point.

Pwnd.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon_Act

Does this actually help the poor? Who can afford to win the bid for government construction projects under this act? That's right, rich expensive Union contractors. Perhaps there is only 1 in in an entire state that can afford to pay their workers that much, thus eliminating any competition. They may even do a terrible job, which is a double-whammy waste of tax dollars.

It helps in a couple of ways:
1. It helps tradesmen to get a fair wage for the work they do. Otherwise unscrupulous contractors would pay as little as possible and pocket large profits themselves.
2. Paying a decent wage means you get decent workers.
3. It levels the playing field for union and non-union contractors when they bid on the jobs as the labor costs are roughly the same. It's interesting to note that in most cases the union rates are the same as Davis Bacon rates.

FYI Union contractors are usually not rich because they have to compete against non union contractors for jobs and the only way they can compete is to keep their margins low - specially those jobs where the Davis-Bacon act does not apply. It's the non union contractors who usually have more money for themselves.

To prove compliance with the act, contractors have to submit certified payrolls weekly and the Dept of Labor is usually quite thorough with their checking and auditing. They will send out people to talk to the crew and if they smell anything fishy you can bet any contractor who pays less than what he claims will eventually get caught and blacklisted. Majority contractors know this - specially in the construction industry - and do not play games with prevailing wages.

And fined for every day that the worker is under paid..
Yes compliance is vetted weekly but there are games played..

For instance: Some work need not be paid at scale if it is Owner/Operater sub that is used... A crafty contractor can sub out alot of the work and comply and even use some subs that are minority/disabled (registered) and meet that need as well.. there are lots of Owner/Operator subs around so the Union shops are really at a disadvantage in many ways..

Contracts over say.. 10m are mostly to large contractors anyhow.. who do have union shops.. small companies can't really compete on large jobs.. to bid the job the contractor usually has to show he can do it..

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
1. The rest of the money won't be going toward profit. It would be going back to the taxpayers.

Actually, higer wages to those employed on such projects should result in more tax revenue from those wage earners.

2. The free markets already pay a decent wage, we don't need regulation on that.

Bullsh8! If that were the case, there would never have been a need for unions to combat the stranglehold of big business over individual workers. All you need to do is review the history of labor relations in this country to know how full of sh8 you are.

3. This is exactly my point.

You haven't made any point worth considering.

Pwnd.

Not even rented.

 

[Genx87]

1. It helps tradesmen to get a fair wage for the work they do. Otherwise unscrupulous contractors would pay as little as possible and pocket large profits themselves.

If they dont pay a decent wage, nobody will work for them, they lose the contract. This works in all private industry, why wouldnt it work in the public?

2. Paying a decent wage means you get decent workers.

I dont think money equals quality of work. There are plenty of people slacking at high paying jobs.

3. It levels the playing field for union and non-union contractors when they bid on the jobs as the labor costs are roughly the same. It's interesting to note that in most cases the union rates are the same as Davis Bacon rates.

Why is the govt in the business of equaling the playing field for big unions? If the Unions cant pay their workers at the market rate and make money, then maybe the union is failing? Govt shouldnt be in the business of dictating what the market rate is labor is, let the contractors bid on the project and source their own labor.

Legislation like this may explain why our govt payrolls continue grow and contract jobs cost more than they should.

 

[BoomerD]

Davis-Bacon has nothing to do with rich or poor. It levels the playing field, so ALL contractors have to pay the same wage for the work being done. It is based on an average of all work of a similar natute in an area. Granted, usually they use union wages as the reference, because most of that kind of work is done by union contractors, but in the end, the contractors use the same hourly wage & benefit costs. Many non-union contractors pay very poorly, and offer few or no benefits. They therefore should conceviably be able to bid much lower for a project.
My town did away with prevailing wages for city work. As long as there's no state or federal money involved, a contractor can pay whatever wage they choose...Not surprisingly, the union contractors continue to get the lion's share of the work. Why? because they have employees that are better trained, more efficient, and usually own their own equipment. Many people in the city were surprised that the non-union folks were still losing most of the work to the union contractors. Wages play only a small part of oveall job costs, and more efficient workers make it a negligible difference.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino



Because the big rich and already well-established construction companies sit back and say "Yup, we'll get all the government project bids while all the other companies can sit back and fight amongst themselves. Yay for making us, the richest construction company around, even richer!"

Can you translate this into something meaningful? After that, please compare and cantrast it to other other end of the spectrum like Haliburton and KBR in Iraq...

Guess who gave Haliburton no bid contracts in the 90s?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Davis-Bacon has nothing to do with rich or poor. It levels the playing field, so ALL contractors have to pay the same wage for the work being done. It is based on an average of all work of a similar natute in an area. Granted, usually they use union wages as the reference, because most of that kind of work is done by union contractors, but in the end, the contractors use the same hourly wage & benefit costs. Many non-union contractors pay very poorly, and offer few or no benefits. They therefore should conceviably be able to bid much lower for a project.
My town did away with prevailing wages for city work. As long as there's no state or federal money involved, a contractor can pay whatever wage they choose...Not surprisingly, the union contractors continue to get the lion's share of the work. Why? because they have employees that are better trained, more efficient, and usually own their own equipment. Many people in the city were surprised that the non-union folks were still losing most of the work to the union contractors. Wages play only a small part of oveall job costs, and more efficient workers make it a negligible difference.

1)Not ALL contractors are going to have work being done if they can't afford to pay the rates.

2)Because they are starting out.

3)BS, because the government will give the jobs to companies that pay their workers more.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't see how this can be fair to the contractor who is in business to make money for himself and not for the people who work for him. In the first place he has to pay more in taxes to cover the fact that the government is going to have to pay him more thus increasing government inefficiency and then he's got to pay more to his workers. That's a double whammy and a rip off unless maybe other things factor in like maybe he'll just have to take lass profit if he wants the deal in which case both the employees and to some extent, the government wins, or even that all that money in the pockets of workers makes the economy for everybody grow. It's enough to make hour head spin.

 

[BlancoNino]

If the government is paying Union-based companies to do all the work, even the simplest jobs, they are wasting money.

Where's the room for the starting out companies? What about the inital workers? Nobody is going to hire beginning construction workers if they are forced by beaurocrats to pay them over $20 an hour.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If the government is paying Union-based companies to do all the work, even the simplest jobs, they are wasting money.

Where's the room for the starting out companies? What about the inital workers? Nobody is going to hire beginning construction workers if they are forced by beaurocrats to pay them over $20 an hour.

Not ALL work is covered by Davis-Bacon laws...do some research on the subject, instead of relying on wiki...

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/whd/dbra.htm

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If the government is paying Union-based companies to do all the work, even the simplest jobs, they are wasting money.

Where's the room for the starting out companies? What about the inital workers? Nobody is going to hire beginning construction workers if they are forced by beaurocrats to pay them over $20 an hour.

Not ALL work is covered by Davis-Bacon laws...do some research on the subject, instead of relying on wiki...

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/whd/dbra.htm

LMAO okay, $2,000 projects and above.

 

[Vic]

Actually, all the proof one needs that excessive government benefits the rich can be found in the drug war. Think for a moment, how many rich people ever get busted for doing drugs? All those rich movie stars, ball players, rock stars, and business execs with drug problems, yet you never see them in prison, do you? Strange, isn't that? And yet who does go to prison for drugs? Almost exclusively poor people. Hmmm.... ah fsck it, let's outlaw tobacco! It's for your own good!

And yeah, Davis-Bacon is a joke. The "prevailing" wage the government pays is usually twice the actual prevailing wage. Something about government always seems to invite corruption and inefficiency. I think this is because the public treasury is always other people's money, everyone feels it okay to steal using the classic "two wrongs make a right" mentality. If the corps do it, then the unions should be allowed to do it, and if the unions do it, then should the corps should be allowed to do it, etc. ad naseum.

 

[LunarRay]

One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

So the govt overpays for labor and gets a % back through taxes? That isnt a good deal.