posted on September 9, 2005 11:13:11 AM
Bush allows contractors to pay lower wages
Thu Sep 8, 2005 7:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order on Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage.
In a notice to Congress, Bush said the hurricane had caused "a national emergency" that permits him to take such action under the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act in ravaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Bush's action came as the federal government moved to provide billions of dollars in aid, and drew rebukes from two of organized labor's biggest friends in Congress, Rep. George Miller of California and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.
"The administration is using the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to cut the wages of people desperately trying to rebuild their lives and their communities," Miller said.
"President Bush should immediately realize the colossal mistake he has made in signing this order and rescind it and ensure that America puts its people back to work in the wake of Katrina at wages that will get them and their families back on their feet," Miller said.
"I regret the president's decision," said Kennedy.
"One of the things the American people are very concerned about is shabby work and that certainly is true about the families whose houses are going to be rebuilt and buildings that are going to be restored," Kennedy said.
The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted. It applies to federally funded construction projects such as highways and bridges.
Bush's executive order suspends the requirements of the Davis-Bacon law for designated areas hit by the storm.
posted on September 9, 2005 11:20:25 AM
Well, it appears slavery is back. At least the people can work (getting paid is a whole other story). In Iraq, they can't even rebuild their own cities. The head slave owner, George W. Bush has put a giant Century 21 sign on the lawn of the coast.
posted on September 9, 2005 01:17:20 PM
Ron, I didn't see anything in this article about your words "federal prevailing wage".
I didn't see anything in this article about Prevailing Union Wages for that matter.
I read,The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted.
I am hoping Bush is not using his power to advance his class war. I hope Bush proves me wrong and the Federal Contractors pay workers more than the area's prevailing wage.
Like you said wages are already low in the effected areas.
If not then Ron and Karl Rove think they are now in charge of damage control for this White House and the CON-servative movement in regards to the New Orleans mess. "BRING IT ON" Ron and Karl.
posted on September 11, 2005 07:02:59 AM
peepa for your education, prevailing wage
To ensure that organized labor has a fair chance to bid for government contracts, federal law requires all employers engaged in the performance of federal contracts to pay "prevailing" wages to their workers. This ensures that nonunion employers cannot gain an unfair bidding advantage by paying wages far below the union rate and passing the savings on to the government in lower bids. A prevailing wage is a rate of pay determined by the U.S. Department of Labor to be the norm in a particular geographic area for a given class of labor and type of project. Virtually all federal expenditures in the private sector are covered by the prevailing wage provisions outlined in the Davis-Bacon Act, the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act, and the Walsh-Healy Act.
This IS NOT MINIMUM WAGE as you seem to think.
It actually adds costs to projects when they are bid on and 31 States have repealed the law requiring the use of prevailing wages. LA is one of them.
posted on September 11, 2005 08:43:59 AM
The only thing I don't understand is why the person in the article is complaining about the possibility of substandard home building. Federal workers are not going to be building homes. That's private contractor work. the only thing federal workers will be doing is clean-up - construction and road building etc are done primarily by private sector contractors who when working government projects bid the projects.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 11, 2005 09:22:10 AM
Ron, I am fully aware that,
U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order on Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage.
The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at "LEAST" the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted.
THAT IS WHAT I AM FULLY AWARE OF.
In a notice to Congress, Bush said the hurricane had caused "a national emergency" that permits him to take such action under the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act in ravaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.
I AM ALSO FULLY AWARE BUSH SIGNED A ORDER SUSPENDING THAT LAW.
Can either one of you deign that under laws introduced by Bush and passed by this republican controlled Congress has increased the number of Americans on or below the poverty?
HEY RON AND SICKO LINDA_K, FACT IS THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS IN POVERTY HAS INCREASED FOR AN UNPRECEDENTED 4 YEARS IN A ROLL.
I also fully understand why CON-SERVATIVE people like you and the very sick Linda_K don't call ACTIONS FROM BUSH AND HIS CON-SERVATIVE LAW MAKERS a CLASS WAR like I do.
posted on September 11, 2005 09:24:47 AM
""Linda_K
posted on September 11, 2005 08:14:21 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what's a WEPON?? ""
Poor lindaKKK, just like the Royal Canadian Mounties thread she just is slow to catch on
She babbled for two pages there and then had to ask what the subject was
posted on September 11, 2005 10:41:09 AM
peepa, before spouting off about nothing please finish reading my post.
Louisiana is one of the 31 states that repealed the law. No prevailing wages there. President Bush is just making the rebuilding work go faster and less expensive as it seems you know little of the bidding process that goes into a federal prevailing wage job.
Please get educated on the topics you wish to bash.
posted on September 11, 2005 05:56:39 PM
Ron it nice to see you know more than the reporter for Reuters. Again the words I read are "U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order on Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage." It went on to say the workers prevailing wage in their area.
If Louisiana doesn't have the law in effect why would Bush have to sign a order suspending it. Oh I get maybe its so he can screw the Mississippi and Alabama workers.
We will all be watching Bush's next moves in the CON-servative's Class War.
posted on September 13, 2005 04:57:38 PM
Ron, today the news said Millions of Dollars of Federal no bid contracts have already been awarded for New Orleans.
The news went on to say because George W. Bush issued an executive order last Thursday.
Federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina can pay below the prevailing area wage.
Again you and Linda_K must know something new reporters don't. Or is it you two are just trying your CON-servative ways again?
posted on September 13, 2005 05:29:28 PM
peepa, prevailing wage is not minimim wage or even close.
I will give you an example. We had driver that was making $12.50/hr as his normal wage, we bid on a federal government contract and had we won, his pay would of then went to the prevailing wage of that area at $25.10/hour.
Double what he had been making, this is so that non-union companies (mine) would have the same labor costs as union companies.
Do you understand now? Minimum wage was $5.15/hour
By letting companies pay less than the prevailing wage, it will save money in rebuilding.
Wages cannot be below min wage that is law and the president can't override that without a new law.
Sure the AFL-CIO and the union supported democrats are unhappy with this. Too bad. It saves the taxpayers money and this isn't going to be a cheap re-building job either. Plus it allows non-union contractors/shops/workers to qualify to do the work....avoiding making it 'union only' jobs.
I think it was a great move on the President's part.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 13, 2005 06:19:44 PM
I agree! With the contractors being forced to pay 'prevailing wages' and the contracts going to the lowest bidder - how does the contractor make money? Low quality, that's how, IMO.
posted on September 14, 2005 05:25:52 PM
To hopefully educate peepa in ANOTHER AREA he's wrong about.
First peepa screams a falsehood....then asks to be proven wrong.
Can either one of you deign that under laws introduced by Bush and passed by this republican controlled Congress has increased the number of Americans on or below the poverty?
"HEY RON AND SICKO LINDA_K, FACT IS THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS IN POVERTY HAS INCREASED FOR AN UNPRECEDENTED 4 YEARS IN A ROLL.
I also fully understand why CON-SERVATIVE people like you and the very sick Linda_K don't call ACTIONS FROM BUSH AND HIS CON-SERVATIVE LAW MAKERS a CLASS WAR like I do.
And then here are the FACTS [something peepa rarely knows about]
So here you go, peepa.
America and the poor Bill O'Reilly Talking Points, last night.
"The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. The issue is described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas: 'Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate.' Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that overstatement.
In 1996 the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements.
"Did the elite media mention that? Did Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't.
"Even in the midst of a war on terror, this country is spending a massive amount of money trying to help the poor.
So why the lie? Because political gain can be made off the suffering of others. Those who oppose the Bush administration don't care about the truth, so once again the No Spin Zone rides to the rescue.
"Hardworking Americans are providing the poor with Medicaid, food stamps, welfare payments, day care payments, foster care, and health insurance for children. But it will never be enough for the Jesse Jacksons and Howard Deans of the world.
"I fully expect to be attacked by the far left media for telling you all this. I'm sure they'll label me a racist, a shill for Bush, but I don't care. The dollars don't lie. We are a generous nation, and that is the truth."
-----------
Want to DISPROVE those numbers, peepa?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 14, 2005 05:29 PM ]
posted on September 14, 2005 08:04:27 PM
Of course what O'Reilly--and--you-fail to mention is that under Clinton the number of people living in poverty fell, while under Bush those numbers have risen to new highs. Of course the current administration has to give out more in "poverty entitlements"--it has created more people living below the poverty level...
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on September 15, 2005 03:49:04 AM
Ron,proves my point about the Class War being waged by CON-servatives against the American worker.
RON SAID
"I will give you an example. We had driver that was making $12.50/hr as his normal wage, we bid on a federal government contract and had we won, his pay would of then went to the prevailing wage of that area at $25.10/hour."
CON-servatives like Ron wants his people to work for 1/2 of the areas prevailing wage.
Then Linda_K posts this,
"According to available federal data, the prevailing hourly wage for an electrician in Orleans Parish, Louisiana hovers around $20. Highway workers in the same area would earn upwards of $16 an hour."
Linda_K needs to read this again,"George W. Bush issued an executive order on Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage."
Then these CON-servatives wonder why I fight their wicked ways and call their actions and CON-servative laws a CLASS WAR.
Keep on fightin'. Thanks to hurricane Katrina, the world has now seen the poverty that exists in this country and in great numbers. Prior to the disaster they had no idea that the U.S. had poverty in these numbers - the richest country in the world with increasing poverty rates. And the gap between the poor and the rich just keeps getting wider.
"Of course what O'Reilly--and--you-fail to mention is that under Clinton the number of people living in poverty fell, while under Bush those numbers have risen to new highs. Of course the current administration has to give out more in "poverty entitlements"--it has created more people living below the poverty level...
posted on September 15, 2005 05:58:21 AM
Hi Cheryl, you are right. You and I both know millions of Americans before Katrina didn't pay attention to the hardships millions of their fellow Americans are facing. Millions of American get caught up in their everyday routine of working to make a living and don't pay attention to what is going on around them.
Now that millions of people in their own lives are feeling the effects of the CON-servative Class War they are paying more attention.
Ron asked me "Do you understand now? Minimum wage was $5.15/hour" Yes,Cheryl I do understand Ron's question. Minimum wage does nothing but put HARD working people in POVERTY. If the prevailing wage for a driver in Ron's area is $25.00 bucks an hour and Ron finds someone to drive for $12.50. We should check that drivers papers to see if he or she is legal.
Today and everyday I to talk with several people that vote. Today, I will hand them a copy of the article showing how Bush signed an executive order allowing contractors to pay workers below the prevailing wage.
And now these CON-servatives wonder why I fight their wicked ways and call their actions and CON-servative laws a CLASS WAR.
I give up, If you people can't tell the difference between minimum wage, average wage and prevailing wage you deserve whatever life gives you, obviously you don't have the education to better yourselves.
Keep those hands out, I am sure someone will come by and fill it.
It is only a class war because the democrats have done nothing to foster the idea that those who really want something in this country has the opportunity to reach that goal.
posted on September 15, 2005 06:55:14 AM
I hate to say 'I told you so', Ron...but the fact remains some are just to ignorant to accept the truth.
----
The Census statistics are both better and worse than advertised.
They're better because the middle class isn't vanishing. Many middle-class families achieved large income gains in the 1990s and "despite the recession and halting recovery "have kept those gains.
They're worse because the increase in poverty in recent decades stems mainly from immigration. Until our leaders acknowledge the connection between immigration and poverty, we'll be hamstrung in dealing with either.
Let's examine the Census numbers. They certainly don't indicate that, over any reasonable period, middle-class living standards have stagnated. Mostly, the middle class is getting richer.
Consider: in 2003, 44 percent of U.S. households had before-tax incomes exceeding $50,000; about 15 percent had incomes of more than $100,000 (they're also included in the 44 percent).
In 1990 the comparable figures were 40 percent and 10 percent. In 1980 they were 35 percent and 6 percent. All comparisons are adjusted for inflation.
True, the median household income has dropped since 1999 and is up only slightly since 1990. That's usually taken as an indicator of what's happened to a typical family. It isn't. The median income is the midpoint of incomes; half of households are above, half below. The median household was once imagined as a family of Mom, Dad and two kids. But "typical" no longer exists.
There are more singles, childless couples and retirees. Smaller households tend to have lower incomes. They drag down the overall median. So do more poor immigrant households.
A slightly better approach is to examine the incomes of households of similar sizes: all with, say, two people. In 2003 those households had a median income of $46,964, off about $900 from the peak year (1999) but up almost 10 percent from 1990. For four-person households, the median income in 2003 was $64,374, off about $2,200 from its peak but still up about 14 percent from 1990.
Though unemployment and less overtime have temporarily dented incomes, the basic trend is up.
Now look at poverty. For 2003, the Census Bureau estimated that 35.9 million Americans had incomes below the poverty line; that was about $12,000 for a two-person household and $19,000 for a four-person household. Since 2000, poverty has risen among most racial and ethnic groups. Again, that's the recession and its after-math. But over longer periods, Hispanics account for most of the increase in poverty. Compared with 1990, there were actually 700,000 fewer non-Hispanic whites in poverty last year. Among blacks, the drop since 1990 is between 700,000 and 1 million, and the poverty rate "though still appallingly high "has declined from 32 percent to 24 percent. (The poverty rate measures the percentage of a group that is in poverty.)
Meanwhile, the number of poor Hispanics is up by 3 million since 1990. The health-insurance story is similar. Last year 13 million Hispanics lacked insurance. They're 60 percent of the rise since 1990.
To state the obvious: not all Hispanics are immigrants, and not all immigrants are Hispanic. Still, there's no mystery here. If more poor and unskilled people enter the country "and have children "there will be more poverty.
(The Census figures cover both legal and illegal immigrants; estimates of illegals range upward from 7 million.) About 33 percent of all immigrants (not just Hispanics) lack a high-school education. The rate among native-born Americans is about 13 percent. Now, this poverty may or may not be temporary. Some immigrants succeed quickly; others do not. But if the poverty persists "and is compounded by more immigration "then it will create mounting political and social problems.
One possibility: a growing competition for government benefits between the poor and baby-boom retirees.
You haven't heard much in this campaign about these problems "and you won't. To raise them is to seem racist; that's a heavy burden for politicians or journalists. Politicians also risk alienating Hispanic voters. Worse, there's the hard question: what to do? President George W. Bush and various Democrats have offered immigration plans that propose different ways of legalizing today's illegal immigrants. That's fine as long as the future inflow of illegal and poorer immigrants can be controlled. That would require stiffer measures than either party has endorsed.
These are tough problems; our leaders give them the silent treatment. This is understandable, but it won't make them go away.
posted on September 15, 2005 11:36:41 AM
Can't you just imagine peepa standing on his soap box, probably outside the post office, SCREAMING out his political point of view and anyone that happens to glance at him as they pass by gets handed one of his flyers. LOL
posted on September 15, 2005 11:50:01 AM
Ron and Linda_K, you both should just give up trying to defend a failed President.
BTW Ron and Linda_K, I ALWAYS WORKED AND MADE MY OWN WAY SO DON'T TRY TO SPREAD YOUR CON-SERVATIVE LIES AND CRAP ABOUT HAND OUTS ON ME. I ALSO NEVER BEGRUDGED HELPING OTHER PEOPLE. I ALWAYS BELIEVED AS AN AMERICAN IT WAS MY RESPONSIBLY TO HELP THE NEEDY. IF MY VIEWS ARE WHAT YOU PEOPLE LABEL LIBERAL VIEWS THEN I THANK GOD I AM A LIBERAL.
I will never STOP EXPOSING THE CON-SERVATIVE LIE.
Somewhere in Texas a small village is missing its VILLAGE IDIOT.
posted on September 15, 2005 12:10:58 PM
piinthesky, Sorry to disappoint you I don't stand outside any building handing out "flyers". I talk to and hand out information to people in their private homes. I find that way a much more effective way to EXPOSE THE CON-SERVATIVE LIE.)
posted on September 15, 2005 12:34:02 PM
You say that you help the needy, yet without any knowledge to the contrary you assume that I don't.
There are many ways to help truly needy and homeless people.
I am curious as to how you believe you help?
Does volunteering to go down on holidays to feed the homeless count? Does donating clothing and items count? Does doing free work so someone who can't afford a computer can have one count?
I think what you on the left need to open your eyes to are those who are truly needy and those just with their hands out.
No peepa, droping a dollar in some professional panhandler's bucket doesn't count.
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Sep 15, 2005 12:36 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2005 01:21:56 PM
Charity like you suggest is ok if it makes you feel good but it's not the answer for poverty on a scale that exists today.
"A profound political question is suddenly on the table: Must the country continue to give precedence to private financial gain and market determinism over human lives and broad public values? Or shall we now undertake a radical restoration on behalf of society and people? New Orleans, strange exception though it seems, is actually an extreme microcosm of the nation's general afflictions and social inequities. It's the place where reform politics can launch its long-deferred counteroffensive.
....
The government, meanwhile, must quickly become the employer of last resort across the region. Neither local school systems nor small-business employers can recover unless their communities have a large, reliable base of wage incomes--that is, government-financed jobs to sustain customers and taxpayers. You can't rebuild homes without tools and materials or temporary relief from mortgage defaults. You can't reopen schools if their tax base is gone. You can't prevent poor people from sliding back into desperate conditions unless government creates ladders of upward mobility.
Caroline 