twa Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Governor faults White House over rebuilding By Michael Depp Sat Oct 29, 4:56 PM ET BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (Reuters) - Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, flanked by veteran Democratic activists and a union leader, criticized the Bush administration on Saturday for allowing hurricane rebuilding contracts to go to out-of-state firms and low-wage workers. ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to a rally of about 1,000 union members and activists from the steps of the state Capitol, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton also charged the White House with using the crisis to remake the state's political map by discouraging the return of displaced blacks. Jackson urged residents of the overwhelmingly black Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans to return. "Somebody is accountable," he said. "Don't give up. You have the right to return, the right to reclaim and the right to reconstruct." Blanco, a Democrat who has faced criticism for her own response to the August 29 hurricane, attempted to deflect widespread anger from local workers who complain they have been shut out of federal contracts in favor of larger, better-connected companies. Noting some $300 million in unemployment insurance had been paid out in the state since the storm, Blanco said the initial White House decision to suspend wage protections had compounded the Louisiana problems. "We had already been devastated by a hurricane," she said. "We did not need to be hurt to out-of-state companies giving incredibly low wages to workers outside of Louisiana. I must have said that long enough and hard enough because this week President Bush changed his mind." Earlier this week, President George W. Bush lifted an emergency order that had allowed federal contractors rebuilding after Katrina to pay less than the area's prevailing wage. In September, Bush waived provisions of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act that requires federal contractors to pay, at a minimum, an area's prevailing wage. The suspension of the prevailing wage protection prompted protests from Republican and Democratic lawmakers. POLITICAL VICTORY AFL-CIO President John Sweeney hailed the reversal as a political victory, but said the Bush administration had "broken faith with the God-fearing hard-working families of our country." "While New Orleans workers and their families were trapped in filthy shelters, they doled out billion of dollars for no-bid contracts so out-of-state companies could import low-wage workers to jack up their profits," Sweeney said. Some black New Orleans residents, including those from the devastated Lower Ninth Ward, have charged their concerns have been overlooked in a rebuilding effort dominated by business interests, a theme taken up by both Jackson and Sharpton, who also accused the White House of seeking to change the state's political make-up. "The crisis is not an opportunity to change the character of Louisiana's political order. We must not use the crisis to turn Louisiana into a red state -- this is a rainbow state," Jackson said. Speaking of Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove, Jackson said, "His agenda is political restructuring." Sharpton said, "It is hypocritical to mourn the death of Rosa Parks and then try to relocate Rosa Parks' children." Parks, a black seamstress who helped spark the civil rights movement by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man 50 years ago, died on Monday. "Just like Rosa Parks wouldn't move, you can't move. Keep your seat. Bechtel's trying to take your seat. Sit in your seat," Sharpton said. The Federal Emergency Management Agency awarded a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. a no-bid contract with a $100 million ceiling for rebuilding after Katrina. FEMA said last month the contract would be opened to competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 So you wouldn't vote for a Democrat because they want a minimum wage in place for workers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbblakemore Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 So you wouldn't vote for a Democrat because they want a minimum wage in place for workers? It's worse than that ... The Bush administration tried (unsuccessfully) to waive existing law that prevented companies from employing laborers at under minimum-wage rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 There is a major difference between prevailing and minimum,but that is not my complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So you wouldn't vote for a Democrat because they want a minimum wage in place for workers? Bush didnt do away with minimum wage for the out of state workers, he just allowed companies to choose not to pay what the Unions would demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So, um, your complaint (with Democrats), is that they complain when local contractors (who need work. One thing NO really needs right now is jobs.) are turned down for rebuilding contracts, because that work has already been awarded (without bids) to firms that aren't licensed in Louisiana, and don't hire local workers, but who have pre-existing political contacts with the administration? (Or, if that's not your point, either, perhaps you could state it, rather than letting people quess?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Bush didnt do away with minimum wage for the out of state workers, he just allowed companies to choose not to pay what the Unions would demand. No, he issued an executive order which repealled the Davis-Bacon act. The act states that anyone who is working for an employer being paid under a federal contract MUST be paid the prevailing wage in the area. . . which in New Orleans was $9.00/hr. The president thought $9.00 an hour was too much to pay the people working to reconstruct New Orleans :doh: Yet, another fascist move by the administration, proving once again they care nothing about the people, but only about business. Thankfully congress repealed the executive order and the Davis-Bacon act was reconstituted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 There is a major difference between prevailing and minimum,but that is not my complaint. Then what is your complaint? The title of this thread is why you won't vote for dems. . . is that because they want orkers to make a fair wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 unions out pricing their workers, ya dont say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 unions out pricing their workers, ya dont say. So $9.00/hr is "outpricing their workers"? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So $9.00/hr is "outpricing their workers"? :doh: If they don't like it, they can go find work elsewhere. Isn't this supposed to be a free market economy? The government shouldn't be setting wages, like they do with the minimum wage. Competition and the free market should set it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 evidently an interesting aside on unions. A friend of mine that I went to HS with worked in a factory in illinois. He was telling me he watched the union drive the factory work oversees, cause it became cheaper to have that work done over seas and shipped in then pay the ever increasing pricing for workers the union was demanding. Did this play a factor in this case? I say it id. The unions in that area drove the cost to 9/hr, other companies can come in (w/ travel) and do it cheaper = unions out priced their workers. Somebody said the contract was no bid, so there are a couple of ways of looking at it. A) it had to be no bid and the waving of matching local pay rates to ensure that a company that can do it cheaper can get threw the red tape Bush is satan without knowing all the details(and I mean all) we really cant be sure, but my guess is the administration is trying to minimize the cost of rebuilding anyway they can. This is a monumental task, even .01$/hour is going to be a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 If they don't like it, they can go find work elsewhere. Isn't this supposed to be a free market economy? The government shouldn't be setting wages, like they do with the minimum wage. Competition and the free market should set it. actually I kinda like the minimum wage thing, there are plenty of ways arround it so really it only kills mom and pop opperations. Its perfect for mega corporations, so if it will please you stop knocking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 If they don't like it, they can go find work elsewhere. Isn't this supposed to be a free market economy? The government shouldn't be setting wages, like they do with the minimum wage. Competition and the free market should set it. Only problem is, the free market did set that wage. (That's how the prevailing wage got to be prevailing.) Davis-Bacon doesn't set wages, it prevents the government from setting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 If they don't like it, they can go find work elsewhere. Isn't this supposed to be a free market economy? The government shouldn't be setting wages, like they do with the minimum wage. Competition and the free market should set it. Well, Larry pretty much destroyed your ludicrous argument to begin with, so all I'll add is . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I may be drawing a link between two stories and assuming they're related. But I read a story just a week or so after the flood. A local (NO) contractor, with local licenses and contacts, local workers, and decades experience in repairing flood damage, was trying to contact FEMA, so he could get started on the rebuilding. He'd been working for a week, and still couldn't even get anybody to even call him back. His workers are living in shelters drawing unemployment. He's heard that the rebuilding contract for the entire city has already been no-bid awarded to a company from Tenessee that has no licences in Louisianna, and has never worked there. But who has made big political contributions. Now, this guy didn't have any evidence to support a claim of influence buying. But he did have the evidence that he was the only contractor in NO who specialised in repairing flood damage, and he couldn't even get through on the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Only problem is, the free market did set that wage. (That's how the prevailing wage got to be prevailing.) Davis-Bacon doesn't set wages, it prevents the government from setting them. Wrong. The act dictates that the contractors pay, AT A MINIMUM, the prevailing wage in the area. What part of this didn't you understand?: "In September, Bush waived provisions of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act that requires federal contractors to pay, at a minimum, an area's prevailing wage." This is wage control by the government. The fact that the baseline wage established is what the market pays out in the area doesn't matter. It still dictates to the contractors what they must pay for labor. This is socialism. No different than when minimum wage got its start during the socialist years of FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 larry Im not gonna say that the story that guy told you isnt true, but I highly doubt he was the "only" contractor in NO who specialized in flood damage. I find that really tough to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Wrong. The act dictates that the contractors pay, AT A MINIMUM, the prevailing wage in the area. What part of this didn't you understand?: The part where you claim that requiring people to pay a price that's already been set by the free market constitutes government price controlls. Davis-Bacon doesn't say "All plumbers in New Orleans will be paid $9/hour". It says "If the plumbers are already being paid $9/hour, then the government can't say 'I don't like that price I'm going to change it.'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Wrong. The act dictates that the contractors pay, AT A MINIMUM, the prevailing wage in the area. What part of this didn't you understand?:"In September, Bush waived provisions of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act that requires federal contractors to pay, at a minimum, an area's prevailing wage." This is wage control by the government. The fact that the baseline wage established is what the market pays out in the area doesn't matter. It still dictates to the contractors what they must pay for labor. This is socialism. No different than when minimum wage got its start during the socialist years of FDR. Do you understand what a federal contract is? A federal contract is an offer sheet accepted by the government that includes all the expenses that the contractor will incur. Whether or not there were a Davis-Bacon Act, the government controls the wages in every such contract, because the government must accept the deal. The "socialism" here is where the government awarded a no-bid contract, keeping this job off of the free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Dj do you have proof that it would have been more economocal to do it with the local unions? I will agree with you if thats what it is. At this point I still have to agree with that they cut red tape to keep costs down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Wrong. The act dictates that the contractors pay, AT A MINIMUM, the prevailing wage in the area. What part of this didn't you understand?:"In September, Bush waived provisions of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act that requires federal contractors to pay, at a minimum, an area's prevailing wage." This is wage control by the government. The fact that the baseline wage established is what the market pays out in the area doesn't matter. It still dictates to the contractors what they must pay for labor. This is socialism. No different than when minimum wage got its start during the socialist years of FDR. You really should give up while you are behind. . . you were owned by larry in about 15 words, and now you are trying to argue that even though you were owned, that doesn't matter. :doh: You are trying to defend your asanine and ridiculous position that the workers should NOT make $9.00 an hour because it's socialism. :doh: Completely ignoring the communist function of giving out a no bid contract huh?. . .I can not believe the utter arrogance ot the neo-conservative movement, it is really astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Djdo you have proof that it would have been more economocal to do it with the local unions? I will agree with you if thats what it is. At this point I still have to agree with that they cut red tape to keep costs down. I put "socialism" in quotes because I agree with you. The no-bid contract probably cut red tape, and the wage floor also cuts red tape. It's more economical to give bids to the obvious best contractor rather than take obviously inferior bids, and it's more economical to pay the prevailing wage rather than wait for the labor to unionize, go on strike, and negotiate for the prevailing wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 You really should give up while you are behind. . . you were owned by larry in about 15 words, and now you are trying to argue that even though you were owned, that doesn't matter. :doh:You are trying to defend your asanine and ridiculous position that the workers should NOT make $9.00 an hour because it's socialism. :doh: Completely ignoring the communist function of giving out a no bid contract huh?. . .I can not believe the utter arrogance ot the neo-conservative movement, it is really astounding. STFU. Nobody got owned but you in this thread. Every one of your posts is an arrogant, left wing rant typed out through the fog of a bong hit. So, once againk STFU, dumba$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 STFU. Nobody got owned but you in this thread. Every one of your posts is an arrogant, left wing rant typed out through the fog of a bong hit. So, once againk STFU, dumba$$. :laugh: Man, I'm the arrogant one? Why am I arrogant, because I'm RIGHT? Is that your only defense for being caught in a ridiculous talking point? You have to say I am on the left wing? Why don't you try to find a party who DOESN'T sell out our national security for revenge issues because of exposing their lies, then come back and maybe we can have a normal conversation!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.