AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Barack Obama Sneaks Through “Union Only” Order Shutting 8 in 10 Construction Workers Out of Federal Projects
by Erick Erickson
Tuesday, September 1st at 7:00AM EDT

There has not been a lot of coverage of this. It happened back in July and is only now winding its way through the federal system.

Barack Obama and his administration are about to significantly drive up the costs of federal building construction. This is an astonishing reach. The Office of Management and Budget has directed that any federal construction over $25 million benefit unions.

The order would make all federal construction projects 10-20% more expensive by requiring all contractors to either use union workers or apply inefficient union apprenticeship and work rules to their employees. Contractors would also be required to make contributions to union pension funds and other union programs that non-union workers will never benefit from.

This will hugely drive up the cost of construction of federal buildings and line the pockets of unions without even having union workers involved in the projects. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that only 15.6% of private construction workers in America belong to unions. In other words, 8 out of 10 construction workers in America will be legally denied the right to work on federal building projects.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/09/01/barack-obama-sneaks-through-union-only-order-shutting-8-in-10-construction-workers-out-of-federal-projects/

Thomas wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, Joe.

I'm merely trying to discern how Ican arrives at the conclusion that the constitution forbids the government from "transferring wealth." As I understand it, Ican believes that the constitution doesn't say anything about transferring wealth, and so that's prohibited. But the constitution is equally silent about printing money, and yet Ican doesn't seem to have too much trouble with that. So why is the former unconstitutional while the latter isn't? Really, it's a pretty simple question, which is, I'm sure, why McGentrix is having such a hard time with it. It makes me wonder, though, why I'm having such a difficult time getting a straight answer from Ican.

A paper dollar that is backed by the same standard as a gold or silver coin, however, I think does meet the spirit and intent of the Constitution on that subject as do coins that are made of cheap metal but which represent silver or other precious metals.

joefromchicago wrote:

Where do you find the "spirit and intent of the constitution?"

I thought you were a lawyer. You honestly have never heard of the spirit and intent of the law? And what is the Constitution other than the supreme law of the land by which we govern ourselves?

In other words, 8 out of 10 construction workers in America will be legally denied the right to work on federal building projects.

None of those provisions say anything about printing money. Are you, therefore, suggesting that some congressional powers are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution?

I'm saying that ARTICLE I. SECTION 8, FIRST SIX CLAUSES, of the Constitution CAN BE rationally construed to IMPLICITLY GRANT the power to the feds TO PRINT MONEY.

I am also saying that ARTICLE I. SECTION 8 of the Constitution CANNOT NOT BE rationally construed to EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY GRANT the power to the feds TO LOAN MONEY.

ARTICLE I. SECTION 8 of the Constitution DOES EXPLICITLY GRANT the power to the feds TO BORROW MONEY.

No, I am wondering why you keep arguing about it. By arguing about it, you seem to have taken a side in the argument, only recently have I discovered that you were merely playing a game. You seemed rather adamant about the fact that the Constitution allows for the transfer of wealth, which Icann does not.

You then brought forth your point about printed currency, which from my perspective, would seem to mean you did not believe that was in the Constitution. Perhaps in the future, you could be more specific in what you are actually arguing for or against to alleviate any misunderstandings.

Foxfyre wrote:

In other words, 8 out of 10 construction workers in America will be legally denied the right to work on federal building projects.

You can't possibly agree with this statement, can you, Foxfyre?

Well, I don't really know what Ican means when he talks about "transfer of wealth.".

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In other words, 8 out of 10 construction workers in America will be legally denied the right to work on federal building projects.

You can't possibly agree with this statement, can you, Foxfyre?

I don't know as I don't know anything more about it right now than what was in that brief blurb. It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

If it is true, then it stinks. And it is something that we should all know about how the government is using the people's money.

It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

If it is true, then it stinks.

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In other words, 8 out of 10 construction workers in America will be legally denied the right to work on federal building projects.

You can't possibly agree with this statement, can you, Foxfyre?

I don't know as I don't know anything more about it right now than what was in that brief blurb. It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

If it is true, then it stinks. And it is something that we should all know about how the government is using the people's money.

So you're looking into it to see if it's true right? Be sure to let us know what you find out.

Tucked within the 407-page law is a requirement that laborers and mechanics employed on government stimulus projects be paid "prevailing wages," which is defined as the salary and fringe benefits for corresponding work on similar projects in the area. The prevailing wage is usually on par with union wages and higher than the average wages for the same category of employees in the same county.

For bricklayers in Madison, for example, the "prevailing wage" is $30.61 per hour but the average bricklayer there earns $25.77 per hour, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Working 40 hours per week over one year, a bricklayer under the prevailing wage would earn $10,000 more. The prevailing wage for cement workers is $29.78 per hour in Madison, compared to the average cement worker wages there of just $20.80 per hour " an annual difference of $18,678.

Major U.S. government construction projects have required contractors to pay prevailing wages since 1931, but the Labor Department has acknowledged that the stimulus law will apply the same wage standard to certain projects that previously weren't covered. It plans to release new instructions but hasn't said when that might happen.


"The point of the stimulus was to turn our economy around by creating jobs," said Jacob Hay, a spokesman for the Laborers International Union of North America, the construction workers union. "That will only happen if the jobs created are good jobs with fair wages that spread paychecks throughout local communities."

Labor groups " which have overwhelmingly supported President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress who voted for the stimulus law " are pleased. But contractors and home builders said they were worried about rising costs on stimulus projects, including plans to improve the energy efficiency of homes owned by low-income people.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=7180668

Foxfyre wrote:

It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

If it is true, then it stinks.

If it's true that the federal government is restricting projects to union workers, then how are 8 out of 10 construction workers "locked out" of those projects? After all, they can just join the construction union, can't they?

Well, we are highly unlikely to get the information unfavorable to the Administration through the mainstream media, ...

A directive by the OMB, who lets the contracts, is not the same thing as an executive order.

Then you agree that some congressional powers authorized by the constitution are not spelled out in the text of the constitution, correct?

As I understand it, Ican believes that the constitution doesn't say anything about transferring wealth, and so that's prohibited. But the constitution is equally silent about printing money, and yet Ican doesn't seem to have too much trouble with that.