The New York Times editorial today condemns President Bush's decision to cancel prevailing wage laws in rebuilding New Orleans. Good for them. Two news stories in the paper round out the issue. One reports on the windfall (is anyone surprised?) that lobbyists and contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel are slated to win in the rebuilding of the devastated areas. The other has to do with new witnesses scheduled by the Dems in the upcoming congressional hearings for the confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Dems have decided to add Robert Reich, who was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, to their list of witnesses. Reich is a good choice to counter the Republicans who have former Michigan Governor Robert Engler on their witness list. Engler is now head of the NAM, the National Manufacturers' Association, a lobby group that has a strong voice in cutting back worker and family friend legislation. It's a smart move by the Dems to present Reich as Engler's nemesis because Reich can make a public policy argument about the need for strong wage and hour laws, family and medical leave and the like.
It's also important that in this current national mood-when there is an opening provided by the tragedies caused by the hurricane--that there be some national attention paid to the role of our courts in making our nation a more equal or unequal society. The liberal-left has spent a lot of time in vetting candidates based on their pro-choice positions, but if we are ever to have a shot at making our society more just, (and if we are ever able to rebuild a progressive majority), it's critical that future justices on the Supreme Court (and candidates for the state and federal benches for that matter) are not pre-disposed to rule in favor of business against working families as has been the case. And, frankly, even many Dem nominees and sitting judges have been friendlier to big business at the expense of workers.
The Bush Administration and its minions in Congress keep their flock in place and strengthen their base through appeals to social issues, but all the while, they are able to push through their economic agenda. Until the progressive community makes economic justice key to a progressive agenda, the right will continue to disband the minimal economic justice safety net we have.
Davis Bacon/prevailing wage should be high on the list of the Dems questioning Roberts. Does he really think that an even lower standard of living for those hammering in the planks that are being sent to New Orleans by the Halliburtons and Bechtels is good for our country? And what about family-friendly work rules? Has he seen all those photos of young kids who have lost their mothers in the storm, many of whom were separated in the first place because of necessary informal child-care arrangements--children who were left with grandmothers and neighbors while their mothers were at work because the mothers have no other option? What is the role of the courts in regulating work/family options? And what about enforcing laws against worker discrimination? Let's hope that these issues are given the necessary attention during the upcooming hearing.
On Tuesday, the Census Bureau reported that poverty rates grew again last year and, for the first time on record, household incomes failed to increase for five years in row. The Republican war against the workers of this country, which is always disguised as just supporting business to create jobs, is as important as any issue.
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. -NYT Editorial A Shameful Proclamation 9/10/05
Davis-Bacon protects localities against the national government coming in and flattening local wage standards on federal projects (state’s rights, Mr. President?). Since the national government assists in rebuilding areas after catastrophic disasters, that is when this law should especially be enforced. Isn’t suspending Davis-Bacon in this emergency really just “price gouging” by the government to benefit the few big corporations?
September 10, 2005 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is great!
I was a pharmacy student at Ferris State University, when the faculty went on strike in 1997.
The Administration wanted plenary power to hire, fire and promote without consulting the Department Chairperson. (Sound familiar?) The professors felt that the Chairperson of the English Department, for example, should have a say who's qualified to teach English.
The scuttlebut on the picket line was that Gov. Engler had pressured the Trustees to take a hard line. As a a rising GOP star Engler could ill afford a lengthy professors strike. After an eight day walkout, the faculty got substantially what they wanted.
Good to see Engler has overcome this minor embarrasment, and the major one of failing to deliver Michigan to W., to become a hotshot anti-union expert.
September 10, 2005 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the right will continue to disband the minimal economic justice safety net we have."
In typical fashion this week, the R's responding to the prospect of public outrage, postponed the next phase of hacking away the safety net. They had been poised to both address the estate tax issue ... thus making their friends even richer, and simultaneously to put a number of safety net programs including medicaid, food stamps and TANF (allegedly reformed welfare) into the budget reconciliation process and to slash the bottom lines of all these programs. However, Katrina dealt them a double wallop and after the Prez and his horse whisperer made a bigger mess of responding to Katrina than anyone could have predicted, the R's in Congress couldn't be seen prioritizing bills that benefit their elite base, and also taking a machete to programs that Katrina has made so much more necessary.
For a brief window, povery and the class divide have become visible in this country, and the media is actually writing about it. Progressive legislators ... are there any ... need to make the most of this opportunity by articulating their inclusive vision and plans, and by shaming --this technique works amazingly well with this Administration -- the White House into backing off the Davis-Bacon suspension.
September 10, 2005 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me, eerily, of back in the fall of 2002 when the Bushites insisted they needed exemption from federal hiring rules for the new Department of Homeland Security. So that the President could (ahem) put the best people on the job.
So, how did that work out, anyway?
I'm waiting (but not holding my breath) for the time when the administration asks the contractors to work on a cost basis, no profit, you know, for the public good and all.
Sub-minimum wage? Well, sure, it's not like anyone from New Orleans needs the money or anything.
September 10, 2005 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this time of crisis it is prudent to seek ways to soften the financial burden that will fall largely upon the taxapayers. Waving compensation rules though isn't likely to result in an equitable sharing of that burden. The likelihood that companies participating in the rebuilding process will reduce profit margins is slim. The more likely scenario is that waving compensation rules will increase those profit margins and increase the financial inequity. This tendency is not inconsistent with the Bush/Cheney administration and I don't think it logical that we should expect different. As a general condition, events that have befallen us of late have been turned to the advanatge of administration supporters as a cynical reaction to those events. This is nothing less that another ethical lapse customary of the administration.
thepeoplechoose
September 11, 2005 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
They want to pay low wages, but just had a law passed September the 8th that enables them to not have to take bids.
200,000 trailor houses were ordered for the disaster before this law passed. I would like to see the bill on that.
Excerpts:
H.R.3673 summary:
Appropriates an additional $50 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for disaster relief (for areas affected by Hurricane Katrina), to remain available until expended, of which up to $100 million may be transferred to and merged with "Emergency Preparedness and Response--Public Health Programs" for the National Disaster Medical System to support medical care as authorized by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
Requires the transfer of $15 million to, and merger with, "Departmental Management and Operations--Office of Inspector General" for necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General for audits and investigations as authorized by law for Hurricane Katrina response and recovery activities. Requires weekly reports by the Secretary of Homeland Security to the Committees on Appropriations on funds allocation and obligation.
Designates such amounts as emergency requirements which shall shall not count for budget enforcement purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. (Sec. 101) Authorizes the use of the emergency procurement authority of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act by executive agencies to make purchases without obtaining competitive quotations for procurements of property or services determined by the agency head to be used in support of Hurricane Katrina rescue and relief operations, if an agency employee determines that the purchase price is reasonable.
Increases from $2,500 to $250,000 the maximum amount (micro-purchase threshold) of such a purchase that: (1) may be made without obtaining competitive quotations; and (2) need not be distributed equitably among qualified suppliers.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03673:@@@D&sum
m2=m&
September 11, 2005 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann, I enjoyed your post but I wonder how much hope there is for better representation for not just working families but all workers whether they have a family or not.
During each presidential election the major contributors to presidential candidates are usually listed by the news media and what is striking is that the same big companies donate to both republican and democrat candidates fairly equally, all their bases are covered. Campaign reform seems to be as mythological as the unicorn.
And of course this ties in directly with the Supreme Court because it is the president who appoints (with congressional approval, sometimes) these judges.
I know that campaign reform is a tired old horse that no one seems to be interested in but isn’t it true that the way campaign funding is implemented is the true source for many of the problems we see in legislature and indirectly the Supreme Court?
Companies like Halliburton and Bechtel and especially the energy industry gives millions and gets billions back as we see happening now in New Orleans.
Yes there have been some attempts at changing this but it seems to be a mere handful of people. The vast majority of politicians probably don’t want to have their nice little perks taken away.
What I would like to see is no contributions from any company or private party, the campaigns should be paid for with tax dollars and the candidates should only be allowed to use these monies and not any of their own. The elections should be two weeks long, not 4 years as is typical and each candidate given equal time on the airways to make their pitch. I would also like to see privately paid political ads removed from the arena as there is absolutely no incentive for these ads to be truthful.
This, of course would not solve all problems but would it not be a giant step in the right direction? But I fear the present system is just too entrenched for any kind of change.
When are going stop giving America away to the highest bidder?
September 11, 2005 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That heading is meant more as a topic than a slogan. A general strike seems beyond the pale in contemporary USA. It is beyond even thinking about. It happens in other advanced industrial countries in modern times. But it can't even be thought in the USA. Think about that. What makes the USA exceptional with regard to the utter inconceivability of a general strike?
What would it take in terms of logistics and infrastructure to actually contemplate calling a general strike? More importantly, what would it involve in terms of cultural change?
September 12, 2005 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see how many people they can actually hire at 5 bucks an hour to do cleanup work.
bush's little ploy just might not work!
September 19, 2005 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink