Unbelievable - I had no idea the prevaiing wage was only $7 or $8 an hour to begin with. That is NOT too much to pay for the workers to rebuild. It just goes back to the way this administration says one thing and then tries to pull a fast one under the radar.

Has anyone considered that a far more fair idea would be a wage cap?  Stop these corporate heads from making all the money at the expense of the hourly workers, who are the only ones actually working for their  wages.  Make it where company heads can earn no more than, say $100,000 a year.  And NO benefits!  No private planes, no company cars, no executive retreats, no stocks, no deferred payments, etc.  They do nothing toearn such lavish benefiets, and the money could be better spent on the currently poor workers.  Plus, with the added money saved by stopping rich CEOs and owners from looting from the businesses, they could pay for better wages, say a new federal minimun of $12-$15 an hour.  Conservative friends of mine say that raising wages will result in companies raiseing prices.  Simple solution: a federal law freezing ALL  prices at pre-minimunm wage hike prices for a period of no less that 5 years.  If a company can survive keeping their prices low for taht long, then they willl have no need to raise prices afterwards.  Or, for those of us who fear that they might, then you could reinstate the price freeze.  I know many businesses would try to raise prices even minimally, or try to let owners and CEOs get extra benefiets, so make the penelty for beaking the law that the goverment takes over all control and ownership of the business.  Bet that stops the greedy CEOs.
Another way to help the low wage earners would be a suspension of all taxes - federal and state.  So where to get teh money to run the govermetn?  Easy.  Tax the rich.  Put a maximum tax rate of app. 85% on all earnings AND possesions of the wealthy.  Business owners and the greedy CEOs would then pay 85% of all thier earnings as well as all the houses, cars, boats, stocks, businesses, etc. they have.  Don't want to pay?  Let the IRS confiscate every possession and throw the fat cat bastards in jail!  Some would say that's unfair.  So?  When have the rich ever been fair to the poor?  Hopefully. this will break their elititst attitudes.  Others will argue that why should the rich be made to pay all the taxes.  Why not?  They have been given a pass on paying any tazes by the Republicans, so now its payback time.  Besides, they have so much they won't even miss what the taxes (and hopefully wage caps) would take away.

Can I get some support for these tax and wage changes?

We need a Independent Katrina COmmission  I can't for the life of me figure out why no Dem Senator is willing to put a hold on Roberts until we get a commission

 

For more, see this.

As a Capitol Hill staffer I am inundated with information on every side of just about every issue. In the case of the President Waiving the Davis-Bacon Act in the gulf region, just about the only justification of it that I've seen is that there is a clause in the Act that could potentially prevent local citizens who aren't unionized or certified in some way from taking part in the reconstruction effort.

 I am wary of this line of reasoning, but I would appreciate it if someone with a bit more technical knowledge on the subject than I possess could explain the intricies of the Davis-Bacon Act with regards to the relief and reconstruction efforts in the gulf.

Thanks,

Michael 

The President suspended wage standards for workers on the Gulf Coast before he declared a national emergency. That means he was so focused on cutting the wages of people who'd be returning to the Gulf Coast to rebuild their lives and their communities that, in order to hasten the suspension, he failed to follow the law.

The President hasn't cut anybody's wages. What he did was suspend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements for government contracts in the area.  Those apply ONLY to government contracts.  Government contracts for the hurricane reconstruction will be for large infrastructure projects like levees, highways, and port facilities.  The only companies capable of even bidding on those jobs are very large ones that have union work forces with wages at least as high as the Davis-Bacon guidelines.  The D-B standards are pegged to union scale.  
  The President's pay cut affects tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Americans who desperately need a decent income to rebuild their lives. People working construction jobs in the Gulf Coast might only have earned $7 or $8 in the first place; now, the only protection left for them is the federal minimum wage, which is a disgraceful $5.15 an hour because Republicans repeatedly refuse to increase it.


This statement is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.  Most of the construction jobs in the area will not be under government contracts.  The construction of housing and industrial buildings will be privately funded and Davis-Bacon would not have applied anyway.  In those cases the ONLY wage floor for construction workers is the minimum wage.  It's always been that way as Davis-Bacon doesn't apply.  Nothing the President has done with Davis-Bacon will directly affect those wages.  

You completely discount the fact that there is already a bulding boom underway in the areas around New Orleans as people and businesses relocate.  My company is desperate to build out more office space in Baton Rouge right now.  There will be a tremendous upward effect on the wages of skilled building trades.  No only will there be a shortage of skilled people there will be problems in housing the influx of workers from elsewhere.

 And at the same time the White House was cutting workers' wages, it was busy awarding no-bid contracts. 

Let's hope he was awarding some single source contracts to get aid quickly to thousands of distressed people.  If he was following the FAR mandated bid process that takes 3-4 months you would be posting a screaming piece here about how slow he was in bringing aid. 

What the President has done is immoral

Rep. Miller, what you have done in writing this deliberately misleading and inflammatory smear job is immoral.  Your attempt to score political points on the suffering of thousands of people is immoral.
 

So, Bush is willing to spend $200 Billion of US taxpayer money to clean up his mess. Last night, he commited to address poverty issues in the area.  Simultaneously, he signs an order depriving many residents of N.O. who will be working on these projects of $2-3 dollars an hour.

 His words and actions don't match up, and his actions are a hell of a lot louder than his words.

 

Michael:  I know much more about the Service Contract Act than Davis-Bacon so I can't answer your question.  I suspect you're being lied to.  Some of the State-level prevailing wage laws have stricter pro-union prevailing wage laws that undercut local non-union and minority contractors. Because they force the contractor to pay prevailing union wage on all their work, not just the government contract work.  But I don't think this is the case with the Federal law.

The question I have is this:  Where are the LABOR blogs where the experts can tell us about this stuff?  I have every sort of political blog on my blog roll but none by any labor experts like union leaders.  Shouldn't there be some really good and informative blogs by folks in the labor movement who can be disecting these subjects with excruciating detail as they happen?

Anyone? 

Can I get some support for these tax and wage changes?

No

First, people don't realize that construction workers are going to be asked to work for $5.15/hr.  Construction work is seen by many as a big wage job.

Let's hope they don't realize it because it's not true.  Rep. Miller is deliberately misrepresenting where Davis-Bacon rules apply and ignoring the fact that a labor shortage in the area will drive skilled labor rates up in the building trades.  Construction work is a good wage job for the skilled workers and will continue to be in the hurricane reconstruction to come  

Unbelievable - I had no idea the prevaiing wage was only $7 or $8 an hour to begin with.

It's not.  Another example of Rep. Miller's loose way with the truth.  The bottom of the Davis-Bacon schedule is $9.32 plus benefits.  That's only for the unskilled common laborer and you don't get many of those on projects anyway.  Most of the other rates are much higher.   Look here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=Davis-B
acon&docid=LA20030014

I had a feeling no one would try to reply using any facts.  Wasn't disapointed either.

If this is so, then would it be fair to say that the workers those companies hire would fall under Davis-Bacon and because of Bush rescinding this act, would not be paid competitive wages?  If that is true, then we are talking about Bush cronies obtaining huge amounts of money and any additional workers they hire for these "huge" projects being paid less than a living wage.

Go read what I wrote.  The large companies you name have unionized workforces.  They already get union scale because of their labor contracts.  Davis-Bacon rates are based on the union scale.  Their workers will get those rates whether Davis-Bacon applies or not - so no it would not be fair to say they wouldn't be paid competitive wages.  

  As far as the private sector, what does that have to do with those workers that the receipients of government contracts hire?  That is not the issue.

Rep. Miller has written his post to make it appear that ALL construction wages are affected by Davis-Bacon when they are not.  And that is a definite issue

Oh that's right.  You were the guy earlier in the week who was convinced that labor rates on government contracts are immune to market forces.  Talk about econ-illiterate. 

How many contracts have YOU managed that had Davis-Bacon rates as part of the T&Cs?  I've been working in that arena for 25 years.

El Campesino is totally full of BS, and it's the RNC talking points sort of deliberate spin BS at that.

The President hasn't cut anybody's wages. What he did was suspend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements for government contracts in the area.

BS right there. It's a total contradiction, a hand waving con job. The upshot is Bush cut wage requirements. Period.

He goes on to claim it won't matter anyways ... Well, if they're unnecessary, and redundant to market forces which are going to drive up wages anyway, then they're not doing any harm either. So why cut them? It's just BS and spin from "El Campesino."

Government contracts for the hurricane reconstruction will be for large infrastructure projects like levees, highways, and port facilities

More blatant Rovian BS. That is a flat out lie. Government spending will not just go to large infrastructure. There is going to be a lot of general disaster relief as well on a vast range of tasks.

The only companies capable of even bidding on those jobs are very large ones that have union work forces with wages at least as high as the Davis-Bacon guidelines.

More complete and utter BS. The companies will be working under totally unique circumstances, many will likely be GOP crony run ventures which spring up, splinter off, and otherwise materialize out of thin air specifically to rake in the Katrina bucks. Many will NOT be unionized whatsoever, or if they are they'll be able to operate outside usual constraints due to the unique glut of cheap labor and extraordinary circumstance. They will have a very desperate workforce to exploit while raking in the profits on the tax dollar.

It’s total BS to say the market is going to drive up wages. A desperate and homeless work force, a devastated city, and contracts run by the GOP patronage does NOT EVER drive up wages.

From there El Campesino just goes on to further distort and spin total nonsense, same as he has been on this issue for days now. You don't have to be a genius to figure this stuff out, but El Campisono is doing FAUX News style spin to catch some suckers.

Tekmo -  Even if El Campesino is right about there not being any harm to removing Davis-Bacon, is there any good to it?

The premise there is no harm, is absurd beyond belief. It's a lie to bolster another lie. The entire premise it was unnecessary or redundant or something, as your rightly point out, reeks of deception.

The guy is a BS artist. Straight up. It’s no surprise the only person rating him up is Robert Brown, another one.  Freepers or LGF'ers without doubt.

Go read what I wrote.  The large companies you name have unionized workforces.  They already get union scale because of their labor contracts.  Davis-Bacon rates are based on the union scale.  Their workers will get those rates whether Davis-Bacon applies or not - so no it would not be fair to say they wouldn't be paid competitive wages.  

I did read what you wrote and found it very confusing.  It simply makes no sense then for Bush to have rescinded Davis-Bacon if it does not apply, as you assert.  You also seem to think that in a huge reconstruction job as this with giant projects, that these companies would not want to hire more people than their employees that you claim are paid union scale (and do you have evidence of this?) -- perhaps they have a core group of employees and as a matter of course contract out for big jobs so they don't have thousands of employees on the payroll at all times).

 As far as the private sector, what does that have to do with those workers that the receipients of government contracts hire?  That is not the issue.

Rep. Miller has written his post to make it appear that ALL construction wages are affected by Davis-Bacon when they are not.  And that is a definite issue
 
I did not get that sense from Rep. Miller's post.  That is your assertion and your opinion.  The sense I got was that my taxpayer dollars are going to line the pockets of Bush cronies and the people they hire with that money will have no wage guarantees.

Tekmo- btw, a good indicator you can rely on: The more GOP cronies stand to make off something, the more you'll hear that sort of argument to downplay the matter from people like "El Campesino."

btw, "campesino" means farm worker in a Latin American country. This guy is obviously not a poor farm worker in Latin America, he just admitted to having a "25 year" steak in construction in the NOLA region.

I get it now. D-B only applies to government contracts and those are given to the huge companies that are unionized and pay more than D-B anyway. And “market pressures” will drive up private construction wages so those workers are going to make out like bandits, too. So, really, suspending D-B was a strategy to drive up wages for construction workers! Great, I knew our leader would come through. He’s a compassionate conservative.

D-B was created so that prevailing wages in a state could not be undercut and driven down by big federal projects. Period. The only reason that D-B would be suspended is to lower wage standards for government projects, which in turn will lower prevailing wages generally.

El Campesino, 

Miller did not say  "THE prevailing wage was $7-8".  He said that "people working construction jobs in the Gulf Coast might only have earned $7 or $8"  As I noted in an earlier post, there are affected counties and construction work categories that have been judged to have prevailing wages of $7-8 (and less) under Davis-Bacon, so, well, feel free to disagree with Miller of course, but I don't think it's fair to accuse Miller of lying.

Bush would f*ck up a free lunch. I'm pleased that he cut workers' wages illegitimately, and I hope Congress will slap some sense into him by legislating against such a wage cut. Why did he cut their wages? Because he can. What a total jerk. It's clear, I think, that he hates the poor, because he does everything he can to dump on them.

Ahem... I didn't realize that I had to announce when I was exaggerating re: minimum wage for construction workers.  The difference in what construction workers are paid under normal conditions and what they will be paid if Bush has his way is tantamount to offering minimum wage.  That's why the labor unions just wrote Frist and Hastert, raising holy hell about what Bush wants to do during the Katrina rebuilding (see below). The ironic thing - I'm announcing it this time - is that by helping out W. & Dick's cronies, all the Repub's are going to do is cement their image as being anti-union and pro-corporation at the expense of workers, in all industries. 

That you are trying to push that the president waiving Davis-Bacon won't have an affect on other areas of labor in NOLA and the surrounding states is absolutely laughable.  Ever heard of Grover Nordquist?  Read the quote below.  For those of you just tuning in, Grover's the guy that has those weekly meetings to give Bushies their talking points.  He's one of their main guys.

With all due respect, you have to know how this works.  Lower wages, less expectancy on housing, health care, worker rights, etc.... and then the trend spreads.   You have to get what they're intending to do. 

Thing is Bush made a colossal blunder, but he's such a lousy team player all he cares about is his own political fortunes.  Leaving the rest of the Republicans to suck wind in 2006.  Or maybe these bozos just don't get how people are feeling out in America any longer.

Hey, but I'll give you an A for effort.  The reality appears below, though I have grabbed from the article, offering the link if you so choose. (And notice the comment about wages already being low in the Gulf states area.  Not exactly what you were touting is it?)

The presidents of LIUNA, the carpenters union and the engineers union wrote to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) yesterday decrying the Davis-Bacon suspension. LIUNA and the carpenters belong to the new labor federation Change to Win, formed by unions seceded from the AFL-CIO, while the engineers remain AFL-CIO members.

Despite the scrutiny heaped upon organized labor for its internal division, the AFL-CIO echoed LIUNA’s concerns, singling out Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) as an instrumental force for undoing worker-rights laws. ...

... Norquist, for his part, was far from cowed by the possibility of political counterattack by the AFL-CIO or Change to Win.

“Oh, gee, maybe they’ll try to oppose the president the next time he runs for office,” Norquist cracked. He added that the temporary Davis-Bacon suspension “certainly strengthens the case” for an eventual full repeal. “It will make it obvious to people what the dead-weight costs of Davis-Bacon will be.”

On the heels of Davis-Bacon will come a likely easing of the Service Contract Act, mandating a prevailing wage for service workers on federal contracts. The purpose of abandoning wage floors, both labor and conservative sources agreed, is to increase efficiency and help companies rebuilding the Gulf Coast to save money. Where that money will go is another story.

Samuel (AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel) wondered whether Congress should institute an oversight mechanism to ensure construction savings are passed from the private companies retained by the government and into federal coffers. “These no-bid contracts, are they somehow mandating lower profits?” he asked. Firms awarded lucrative reconstruction jobs include several with ties to the White House, and most have already reaped the benefits through rising stock prices.

The impact of labor deregulation will be felt politically as well as financially. One building-trades lobbyist, who asked to remain anonymous because his group’s internal division means it can take no stance on the issue, pointed out that prevailing wages in the Gulf are so much lower than the national average that the suspension will barely move profits.

“Politically, it was a mistake. Practically, it will have no impact. It was a fight the administration didn’t need to take on at this time,” the lobbyist said.

However, he noted, the conservative voting record of construction union members as compared with the rest of the labor community means congressional Republicans could see swing votes slip away for the 2006 election. “Now the leaders of the building trades will be reporting to their members, ‘you can’t trust Republicans, because every time they have a chance they are going to weaken Davis-Bacon,’” he said.

SOURCE: Labor fights to preserve Davis-Bacon

Discussion of Davis-Bacon at Labor Blog: http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/

NickDoe is famous around these parts for being on a crusade to limit participation in this site to those whose views very closely align with his.  So far site management has given no indication that they support his philosophy, so don't let him bother you.

I can't stand the sob, nevertheless, I am not sure he broke the law on this one as the Davis-Bacon Act states the following:
"Sec. 6. In the event of a national emergency the President is authorized to suspend the provisions of this Act.

Please enlighten me, relative to the timing (declaration of national emergency and announcement of D-B Act suspention), because I intend to contact my Congressman, Gary Ackerman, if there is substance to Rep. Miller's claim.

Thanks.

I hope that Josh and Co. can find folks with expertise in Davis-Bacon to flesh out the facts of this topic, because this thread illustrates what I was hoping TPMCafe wouldn't become - a flame war that fails to reach very far beyond good/evil dualities. As a case in point, one area worth exploring is the argument that Davis-Bacon can pose difficulties for smaller capital projects in rural communities. Even here in Washington - a dogged "blue" state - the rural development field has ambivalent feelings about the implementation complexities of Davis-Bacon. So am I agreeing with the president's decision? No. Just suggesting that more facts and less heat might result in a more nuanced discussion.

I agree that more facts would be helpful.  It's likely that not many of us even knew about Davis-Bacon before Bush made it an issue by repealing it.

Having said that, I have no problem with the "flame war," as it has brought up an issue that may otherwise not have been addressed, and hopefully some good information can be posted to enlighten all of us.  I have a feeling that throughout this "reconstruction," issues such as this will come up and I for one would like good facts in order to understand them.

Finally, the unassailsable facts of Bush's track record leave no doubt in my mind that whatever plan he puts forth and whatever actions Karl Rove takes will be of benefit only to his cronies and his base.

Not knowing the D-B wage rate requirement and the market value of the labor of the poor people who were stranded in NO or the unemployment rate for those folks, it's difficult to make a NO specific case.  

The theory would be that if there is a significant difference between the two values, labor unions would fear that some smaller companies might try to employ those folks at some wage rate between the two values, risking the union bargaining position.  D-B would be a way to make it more likely that those companies would import labor rather than employ local people.

This is very analogous to the reason that labor unions will not support trade with other countries until their labor costs are the same as ours.  They couch it in the language of helping the poor, but they really about protecting their privileged position.

To round out the context of this proclamation, it is useful to keep in mind that officials have estimated that approximately 135,000 to 140,000 illegal aliens live in the affected Gulf Coast region.  Has this de facto work force been effectively legitimized or is it being used as a wedge to force a now largely unemployed legal work force to accept conservative induced 'economic realities'?  Perhaps some of both.  Remember Carl Rove, the king of wedge issues?

Howard, I have no problem with looking at any way to facilitate a fair reconstruction after Katrina.  Unfortunately, the odds of the Bush Admin. doing anything other than a quick fix job are virtually zero, given their record.  The kind of intelligent planning and decisionmaking you encourage does not exist within this Administration -- I truly cannot think of one endeavor of theirs that has thoughtfulness and competence as a hallmark.  Given that, the repeal of Davis-Bacon will cause only harm, combined as it is with the other tactics of the Rove-led reconstruction effort.

Wow. Looking at some of these numbers and the ones in the post above it I see that carpenters and crane operators stand to make as much as $28,000 a year if they're employed fulltime. Some electricians and plumbers could make as much as $45K a year ditto. Structural ironworkers, about the same.

 If you've every done any serious construction, you know that these are skilled jobs on which people's lives depend. Now think about how many white-collar jobs requiring neither this level of training and skills (just a "liberal education") nor the stamina to spend 8 hours a day in the New Orleans sun, pay at least as much.

Thanks.  I liked commenting here because there seemed few like him.  It's the first time I've been beset here.

Unfortunately, the Dems don't seem to have clean hands in this matter:

Harry Reid wants amnesty for illegal aliens who are taking jobs that could go to Katrina victims
 

As much as the Dems would like to have it both ways, it's simple economics that you cannot.

You can't both talk about amnesty - thereby encouraging employment of illegal aliens in the Gulf Coast and encouraging more to come - and expect higher wages to Americans.

For all the talk about the GCWC, perhaps the Dems could turn a moment's attention to this matter. I'm sure about 90% of Americans would support you if you decided to come down on the correct side.

You also seem to think that in a huge reconstruction job as this with giant projects, that these companies would not want to hire more people than their employees that you claim are paid union scale (and do you have evidence of this?) -- perhaps they have a core group of employees and as a matter of course contract out for big jobs so they don't have thousands of employees on the payroll at all times).

You are correct. It is the nature of construction to subcontract lots of the work.  But you either have a union work site or you don't.  The majors will sub to union shop subs to keep their own people happy.

There is no reason to believe that the majors will sub to union shops to keep "their own people happy."  Why do you assume that "their people" would care one way or the other?  From the research I have done on both Kellog, Brown & Root (who have already received over $100 million in no-bid contracts) and Bechtel (ditto), their record of working with union employees has not been very good.  There is no guarantee whatsoever that they will hire union workers.  Also, I found that Davis-Bacon "applies to all workers, whether they belong to a labor union or not." (See my previous post).  To suggest that we leave these matters in the hands of corporations whose sole goal is to make a profit is, I believe, naive.


 Rep. Miller has written his post to make it appear that ALL construction wages are affected by Davis-Bacon when they are not.  And that is a definite issue
 
I did not get that sense from Rep. Miller's post.  That is your assertion and your opinion.  The sense I got was that my taxpayer dollars are going to line the pockets of Bush cronies and the people they hire with that money will have no wage guarantees  

I respect your opinion - but look at comments 1 and 15 on this thread.  You seem to understand that there are other forces in play but some appear to have swallowed whole that *most* construction workers in the area only make $8 an hour now and that the rule change is going to force most of them to work for minimum wage.  Neither of these things are true.  IMO that is the impression that Rep. Miller wanted to leave with people so they would react with outrage. 

El  Campesino, if it were only the repeal of the Davis-Bacon act, I might agree with you.  But this administration is also rolling back environmental laws and using really egregious fiscal policy in reconstruction (such as not saying how we are going to pay for all this -- similar to their tactics in the Iraq war).  With the track record of the Bush Administration, I don't find it at all illogical that this latest puzzle piece fits in to make a picture that spells corruption, lack of accountability and the kind of incompetence that has become the hallmark of Bush & Co.
[ Parent | Reply to This | Help Other Readers by Rating Comments noneSpamInappropriateNot HelpfulOkayGoodExcellent ]

"However, the only way for civil debate to work is for there to be civility and respect on both sides of an issue. Perhaps some of the heated responses you received stemmed from the fact that you attacked Rep. Miller's motives and character in your own comments"

I don't think the undocumented rules require civility to public officials.  It is considered fine sport on this site to see who can make the most uncivil comments about Bush's motives and character and there is nothing wrong with that.

"What bad outcome would Davis-Bacon lead to, that suspending it would prevent? I don't have a preconceived answer to this question, and I would be interested to hear your and others' takes on it"

As I have stated elsewhere, I think the intent of the D-B rules is to discourage the use of low wage local labor as apposed to temporarily importing more union labor.  If it will really work out that way in NO, I don't know.

"If you want to rebuild the Gulf Coast quickly and make it vibrant than you have to build a ready consumer base. How does it make sense, in the midst of an economic development project, to impoverish the people doing the work?"

One has to bear in mind that the area has to be economically viable after the reconstruction bubble subsides.  It is fine for people to make a high wage during the reconstruction, but will there be other equally lucrative employment for them after the reconstruction projects are complete?

I don't think the undocumented rules require civility to public officials.  It is considered fine sport on this site to see who can make the most uncivil comments about Bush's motives and character and there is nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, I see your point, and I agree that in general public figures are fair game.  Still I think that when you're responding directly to that public official's posts on the site, it's kind of a gray area.  Also I think that if you're gonna be all snotty to a guest poster on the site, it's a little much to expect that everybody's gonna respond to you with the utmost civility and respect.

But, that said, I do think you have a point,...

Well, sauce for the goose, after all.
If the intent of repealing DB is to save the taxpayers a dime or two, then your suggestion would save a heck of a lot more dimes.
And yes, that rather obvious issue occured to me as well when Josh first mentioned the repeal.

I don't think the undocumented rules require civility to public officials.  It is considered fine sport on this site to see who can make the most uncivil comments about Bush's motives and character and there is nothing wrong with that