10
   

should the Davis-Bacon Act be suspended for gulf oil clean-up work?

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:50 pm
@BillRM,
georgeob1 wrote:

The Davis Bacon act does not apply to BP or any commercial contractor acting on its own. It applies only to contractors working under a Federal government contract. The "prevailing wage" determinations are made periodically by the Labor Department, based on local Union wages. In most cases they are 7% - 10% higher than non-union wages.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 04:46 am
@roger,
Lord as BP is going to be paying back the government for all costs any wages paid directly or indirectly by the government will be pick up by BP.

What so very very hard for you to understand?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:34 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

I think we are all aware of that fact however BP will be paying back the funds that the Federal government spend on the contractors that the government had to hired to deal with the spill so indirectly in this case it does apply to BP.


I'm not aware that this is the case with respect to most of the effort there. Any fines and penalties BP may pay the government go to the Treasury, not directly to the cleanup effort. The money BP is spending now on labor and subcontractors to cleanup the spill is not subject to the Davis Bacon Act. The money that the government spends directly is subject to the act, with or without BP funding.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 02:44 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

BillRM wrote:

I think we are all aware of that fact however BP will be paying back the funds that the Federal government spend on the contractors that the government had to hired to deal with the spill so indirectly in this case it does apply to BP.


I'm not aware that this is the case with respect to most of the effort there. Any fines and penalties BP may pay the government go to the Treasury, not directly to the cleanup effort. The money BP is spending now on labor and subcontractors to cleanup the spill is not subject to the Davis Bacon Act. The money that the government spends directly is subject to the act, with or without BP funding.


Seeing as it has been pointed out that we're talking about roughly 70 cents an hour difference, I'm hard-pressed to see how repealing this act - which the Republicans call for all the time for political reasons - would have a substantive effect on the cleanup effort.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 03:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Seeing as it has been pointed out that we're talking about roughly 70 cents an hour difference, I'm hard-pressed to see how repealing this act - which the Republicans call for all the time for political reasons - would have a substantive effect on the cleanup effort.

Cycloptichorn


I agree with that. The administration has bungled so much of the effort so far that a 5%-10% difference in the labor cost won't have a noticeable additional effect.

I'm not aware of any Republican effort to repeal the Act, either lately or when they had control of the Congress. This is a union payoff that has been in place for many decades.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 04:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
This is a union payoff that has been in place for many decades.


Perhaps the Republicans should have thought about that before they created and passed this legislation, if they have such a problem with it.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 05:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You are the one here alleging that Republicans have a problem with the act. I'm not aware that this is the case. I doubt seriously that Dyslexia, who is the author of the thread, would identify himself as a Republican.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 05:28 pm
@georgeob1,
So, you don't have a problem with this supposed 'union payoff?' You are a republican, right?

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 05:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The Davis Bacon Act is a relatively minor bit of foolishness enacted a long time ago by Democrats as a payoff for union financial contributions and political support. As those things go it is relatively minor in that it doesn't compell union membership for government contractors (that would exceed legislative authority): it only requires that workers be paid the local prevailing union wage. The current administration is trying to extend the act by executive fiat by treating project labor agreements as an evaluation factor in competitive government contracts. That is an obvious payoff worthy of the former governor of Illinois.

I am a Republican, but I don't presume to speak for all of them. To my knowledge there is no ongoing Republican effort to repeal the Davis Bacon Act.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 06:02 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The Davis Bacon Act is a relatively minor bit of foolishness enacted a long time ago by Democrats


Laughing Are you not aware that Davis and Bacon were Republicans? And that Hoover, a Republican, signed it into law?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:38 pm
Goodness george! First time I've seen you with your pants down Very Happy

In any case...thanks for urging me to read Postwar by Tony Judt. It's a wonderful book.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 11:23 am
My intention when starting this topic was my own lack of knowledge/understanding. That's why this is posted as a question. What little I do know is that during the Katrina clean-up Davis Bacon was temporarily suspended by Bush '43. I assumed there was some reasoning for that and I wondered what that reasoning was and would it be applicable to the current situation BP oil spill. My interests are two/fold, reduce unemployment and increase clean-up effectiveness. My interest is not ideological.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 11:28 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

My intention when starting this topic was my own lack of knowledge/understanding. That's why this is posted as a question. What little I do know is that during the Katrina clean-up Davis Bacon was temporarily suspended by Bush '43. I assumed there was some reasoning for that and I wondered what that reasoning was and would it be applicable to the current situation BP oil spill. My interests are two/fold, reduce unemployment and increase clean-up effectiveness. My interest is not ideological.


Sure. But I think that the reason for getting rid of it has been ideological, on the part of those who have done it in the past, because it doesn't really save all that much money but does hurt those Dem-supporting Unions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 10:59:23