Bush Suspends Minimum Wage

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I had the same situation happen as the roofer up above.. I was working for a private contractor earning about $11 an hour approximately 15-16 years ago.. well guess what.. when I went in to pick up my check they were forced to give me prevailing wage... AT like $23 per hour.. for unskilled labor... This was work that was performed on the building of a new airport... I was only 17 or 18 at the time and was doing some small forklift driving and clean up... $23 per hour for those menial tasks was outrageous and unnecessary.


Could you imagine what it would cost if every person with a broom in NO was paid $25 per hour?

Sounds like your employer way overpaid you. No way was $23 an hour the prevailing wage for general labor 15 years ago. It's way less than that today!

 

[Zebo]

This thread is so Dave. Prevailing wage? I get bets on he wants to pay $100 an hour to his buddies at HAL not less.

 

[GroundedSailor]

The Davis Bacon act specifies the minimum prevailing wage to be paid for each trade on federally funded project. The prevailing wage is in most part the same as the local union rate for that trade and includes benefits. The Dept of Labor decides this and they just pick up the union rate and publish that as the prevailing wage.

In one sense it's a good thing as it prevents contractors and others from underpaying their workers and levels the playing field for all companies who bid on federally funded projects.

I agree that in times like this the prevailing wage should be suspended for the reconstruction effort. This will help reduce the overall cost of rebuilding the devastated area.

But, and this is a big but, this SHOULD NOT BE ACCOMPANIED BY NO-BID CONTRACTS otherwise the contractor is going to make unhealthy profits. This is what I fear will happen, given this administrations track record.

I'm familiar with all this as I help run a union contracting company and we bid and work on federal projects. While we don't make large profits it's enough to pay for our overheads and our salaries.


Ferocious
The $23 per hour for general labor is feasible as the total includes benefits. For union workers the benefits are paid to the union but for non union workers working on prevailing wage the benefits are paid in cash to the worker directly. E.g., if the wage is $15 and the benefits are $8 per hour, a union worker will be paid $15 and the benefits are paid to the union (which is supposed to take care of medical cover, annuity, pensions etc.). Non union contractor employees doing the same job will be paid $23 per hour but they have to look after their own health cover etc.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Wow,

Any of you geniuses know what prevailing wage means in regards to government contracts?


Im my younger days I was a roofer. My company paid me 12 bucks an hour. When the company was short they would have non union workers come in at prevailing wag. I would make 21 an hour working on base.

He's not lowering minimum wage, he's suspending unions prevailing wage scams.


Anyways, the op of this thread is breaking the rules by blatantly refusing to provide commentary and should be banned.

Settle down sparky. We usually prod the OP's to include their own commentary as opposed to calling for bans. :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Wow,

Any of you geniuses know what prevailing wage means in regards to government contracts?


Im my younger days I was a roofer. My company paid me 12 bucks an hour. When the company was short they would have non union workers come in at prevailing wag. I would make 21 an hour working on base.

He's not lowering minimum wage, he's suspending unions prevailing wage scams.


Anyways, the op of this thread is breaking the rules by blatantly refusing to provide commentary and should be banned.

:thumbsup:

The Anti-Bush crowd jumped all over this one without even stopping to look at the facts. As usual.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic
Where in the article does it say that Bush suspended the minimum wage? It doesn't. He suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, aka the federal prevailing wage, for that area and that area only. The article says AND explains that quite clearly.

Where do you people get the idea that this will benefit corporations? It won't. If anything, it will hurt them. Bush is doing this to undercut the contractors and force them to submit lower-than-normal bids. The purpose here is to not benefit corporations but to save the federal government money in the face what will likely be staggering rebuilding costs to be placed upon the taxpayers. In other words, he's trying to keep the carpet-baggers out and encourage the use of local companies and workers. Pretty obvious to anyone who knows business, I would say.

Are the unions upset? Of course. They can stay home then while locals work, happy to have a job after this disaster.

Is the OP trolling? With or without commentary in the OP (and there still is none), I would say most certainly yes. His argument is intentionally misleading, partisan, and ignorant.

I don't know if that's true or not Vic. In a subsequent post, GroundedSailor points out an important qualifier.

Supposing local labor gets the jobs. Local people getting local money AND profits. Suppose though Halliburton or some outside corporation gets the lion's share of the money? They take the profits, the money is still spent, and the local economy gets less of it.

1)Lower wage costs
2)Hire Halliburton
3)?????
4)PROFIT!!!

is not what I want to see in NO.

For now this hasn't happened so I'm witholding judgement. Not going to hold my breath though.

We'll see.