low_delta | Bush Suspends Davis-Bacon Rules for Rebuilding

The Davis-Bacon Act

September 14, 2005

Congress approved a second Hurricane Katrina emergency spending package and President Bush Sept. 8 waived Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage rules on all federal construction in the hurricane region.

Federal procurement laws allow the president to suspend the prevailing wage law during a national emergency.

Davis-Bacon rules will be suspended on all contracts signed beginning Sept. 8, and until otherwise determined, in six Alabama counties, three Florida counties, 55 Louisiana parishes and 81 counties in Mississippi.

Calling the property damage from Katrina "unprecedented," the president said Davis-Bacon "increase the cost to the federal government of providing federal assistance to these areas." Suspension of the law "will result in greater assistance to these devastated communities and will permit the employment of thousands of additional individuals," he said in a formal proclamation.

The non-union Associated Builders and Contractors applauded the White House action, saying it would open the door to entry-level helpers in the rebuilding effort. Small contractors who normally do not compete for federal work can now participate in the rebuilding effort, said an ABC official.

AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney denounced the president's waiver, calling the White House action "unbelievable and outrageous." Taking advantage "of a national tragedy to get rid of a protection for workers the corporate backers of the White House have long wanted to remove is nothing less than profiteering. Congress must reverse this short-sighted action," Sweeney said. The federation's Building and Construction Trades Dept. did not issue a formal comment, but some construction unions privately expressed their disappointment.

The second emergency spending bill, approved Thursday in the House and later in the Senate, sends about $50 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. The money will be spent for debris removal, temporary housing, property damage assessment, payments to hurricane victims, unemployment insurance, food, water, medicine and search and rescue operations.

The Dept. of Defense will receive $1.4 billion for emergency repairs, evacuation costs and other relief efforts. Another $400 million is earmarked for the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damaged infrastructure.

With the approval of the new spending, requested by President Bush, the rising federal costs of Katrina are coming into clearer focus. The new funding follows an initial installment of $10.5 billion that Congress rapidly approved and Bush signed into law on Sept. 2.

And the new funding won't be the end of the federal spending on the post-hurricane effort, said Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten. He told reporters, "My expectation is that we will, in fact, need substantially more than the $51.8 billion" that the President requested. "...But this at least puts everybody on very solid footing to perform their tasks in the several weeks ahead." Bolten declined to say how much hurricane relief money the Bush administration would seek beyond what it had already requested from Congress.

Sherie Winston and Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record

Okay, who can give me some positive spin for this?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This is the same government who says, "Look, employments is up!" when it's just that all the systems analysts have been out of work so long that they've taken jobs at Burger King. Quantity is not the same as quality, Baby Bush.

I could, but it would be fluff and hot air worthy only of the current administration's press agenda.

Instead, I'll give you the most optimism I can and say that the country might not actually be insolvent, with corporations bidding on the bailout, by the end of the year.

yeah, it will get our goddamn motherfuckering lives back faster!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH YOU GODDAMN STUPID HEAD UP YOUR ASS LIBERAL?!?!?

excuse me rush, do you need some oxycontin? you seem a little uptight?

thats because i live in Louisiana asshole!!! i am right in the middle of all this mess!!!! so unless you either 1.) Live here or 2.) have done something to really help matters, then FUCK OFF!!!!

have done something to really help matters

So you live in Louisiana. You obviously have power, you are on the internet.. so what are YOU doing to help yourself? Are you out picking up debris? Are you helping your neighbors dig the funk out of their homes and apartments? Are you rescuing animals? Or are you too busy expending your precious energy calling people you don't know names on the internet because of their opinions?

It's funny, though, because you can never really do enough to help. All I did was give money. I didn't open my home to refugees. Even if this guy did that, he'd still be entitled to have some free time. Just like I'm entitled to my free time, which I use to try to get people to understand what's going on. Of course, I don't think that calling people names really helps. And I don't think that being stressed out entitles you to call names. Not twice, anyway.

The thing is, I pay taxes, and I think some of that money should go to helping people. The government, and its conservatives, doesn't seem to agree, so I'm going to complain about how my money is used. However, I'm not in the middle of things, so I need more information. Hence, my question at the end of the post. Which this guy hasn't answered.

I wish I could give you an answer to it as well.. but I can't see one. You see one of the arguments is that it is going to lower the unemployment rate.. but after the suspension is over.. what happens to those workers who are paid less than minimum standards?

well you certainly are inspiring me to do more than i already have. all i've done is give a weeks wages. now i think i'll lobby congress to spend one one hundredth of what they are on bush's little war, so that the people in your state who are going to work rebuilding it can actually make a living wage. of course, from your reaction, you are probably going to be hiring people, so you are hoping to pay as little as possible. sorry slavery isn't legal anymore. hope you manage to make a profit anyway.

You'd think you'd be worried about giving a decent wage to the guy doing the work. But I guess you only care about yourself.

The act was created to keep contractors from lowering wages to make the lowest bid. Since all the contractors are under the same rules, it doesn't do anything to competitiveness, it only changes the amount of government money given out. All it's doing is saving the feds a few bucks. It doesn't make things happen faster, it only decreases the amount of money going to your region. You stupid head-up-your-ass conservative.

The good thing - perhaps - just perhaps - the rebuilding will be faster.

I doubt it though. My guess is the Halliburtons will race in to the situation, taking the lion's share of funding, and using the decision to pay nearly nothing to the employees. Any bets that the Halliburtons have record profits at the end of the year?

That's what I was going to say also.
It sounds as if he's setting things up for some buddy.

unfortunately I agree with this.

why does paying someone less make them work faster?

If you pay the workers half-pay, you can hire twice as many.

in my experience, you get what you pay for.

But if you're bidding against other companies, you're not necessarily going to raise your bid so you can hire twice as many. You have to stay as low as you can, to get the job. You might be able to hire more workers, if you think everyone else will to.

hmmmm........in my part of the country, i don't see many homes being built by workers who are paid davis-bacon wages.....and home (re)building will be one of the major projects.....

I'm not sure what you're saying.

if federal dollars are used, then construction labor is generally paid davis-bacon wages per the FAR.....i'm saying homes are generally not built with davis-bacon wages and home rebuilding will be a huge part of the recovery from Katrina....some people may have insurance, but others will rely on the gov't to help them out......so, dropping the requirement for davis-bacon wages allows the normal contractors in the home (re)building biz to work on the project....

Okay, that makes sense. except for one thing. If they're paying people "prevailing wages" to do construction, but construction workers don't earn "prevailing wages," how does one account for the difference in definitions of the phrase?

as far as "prevailing wage" is concerned, the meaning of the phrase doesn't exactly come from the meaning of the words making up the phrase.....it's just politic-speak....

you can pull up the davis bacon wage determinations here: http://www.gpo.gov/davisbacon/allstates.html

Some of the wages on the chart seem high. Some don't. Looks like they're getting paid union wages. So we're back to: workers on government-contracted or government-assisted jobs get high pay. I can see where people would complain about that, but I don't see any *huge* drawback.

well, add the fringes to the pay.......and realize that you're prolly paying for more skills than your getting on a huge project.....skilled construction workers are hard to find in quantity.......

i don't see a problem with rescinding the DB Act for reconstruction work....

Well, there is the problem that non-skilled workers would earn union-level pay. And I don't suppose that the pay of many people with jobs is going to go down.

i doubt the pay will decrease for workers already in the industry.....there will be plenty of work......everyone is just greedy for the biggest share of the pie be it the unions, large constructors, etc......i'll sit off to the side and eat cake....