On 10/1/05 7:54 PM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good enough, you are not completely clueless as I imagined. Normally I am just called "just another asshole engineer". I'll take completely clueless anytime! :) > But you do need to understand the purpose > of the Davis-Bacon Act. The original purpose of the law was to keep black non-union contractors out of federal contracts. It's history, you can look it up. The bill was a response by Rep. Bacon of NY because a contractor out of Alabama won an award to build a new Veteran's hospital in his district. He was upset at outsourcing. After all why give good jobs to poor colored people, when you can write a law so that only union shops can get business? Remember that this bill was written in 1931 during the depression. This bill also had the effect of raising the unemployment rates of blacks across the nation. > The DBA provides security for established local contractors by > preventing other contractors from undercutting their government > contracts by using unqualified workers. It still happens sometimes, > but only if the government does not enforce the law. It also still keeps many minority owned businesses, who are mostly non-union out of federal contracts. Thank goodness Habitat for Humanity houses aren't covered by DBA. Those poor people couldn't afford them. > So....if suspending DBA is no biggie for you, then you would be > willing to go to your boss and offer to work for 40% of your current > wage starting immediately? You know......suck it up for the team? > That is my objection. The skilled will never work for less than they are worth. The unemployed, unskilled "victims" will also need jobs. Do they need to be paid at union rates? Journeyman wages for untrained hands? What was the effect on wages after Bush 41 repealed DBA because of Hurricane Andrew? You know there is a history on this if you want to find it. > Each and every one of you......your personal wealth and the wealth of > the nation is tied inextricably to the wealth of others, if you want > to live in a nation like America has traditionally been. > You can see the switch on the wall and the light fixture it serves, > but you do not see the wiring or the skills and work that put it > there. You like your house and your workplace? Would you prefer that > someone less skilled built them? I know what you mean. My competition couldn't compete with me or my products, so he copied my product in China and now sells it in Lowe's. Now I have to move my factory to a place of cheaper union labor just to keep my market share. And if that doesn't work? You can guess the rest. > Of course there is political motivation, the act would not exist if > there were none, nor would any other laws exist without political > motivation. The thing is, the law is a good idea.....well, a great > idea! Without it, people who do construction work would be poor and > their employers would be much much richer. If you and your co-workers > were to work for minimum wage, your employer would be much enriched. > Now wouldn't that be nice!<G> I think the law was written to keep unions strong. And I will always remember it when my jobs get passed over for government work. Matthew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
