DGS49
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 16,581
- 14,692
The Congressional Budget Office is warning "us" that the Federal highway "trust fund" will run out in the next couple years, which will have a devastating impact on the poor states (like California) that rely heavily on Federal money to maintain their roads. Parenthetically, they might be able to save a few Bil if they would give up on the stupid high-speed train from LA to SF, but that's another issue for another thread.
Higher gas taxes are inevitable, but WGAF? They pay $9/gal in Europe and seem to survive, right? Thrive, even.
But this development should raise in the minds of the American Taxpayer thoughts of the perverse, anachronistic law called Davis-Bacon, which mandates that all construction done with Federal dollars be done using "prevailing wages."
A bit of history for those who don't know: During the Depression, Congresspeople were, as they always do, funelling Federal construction dollars around the country to their own local areas for hundreds of make-work projects to benefit their needy constituents. But this strategy was threatened by construction companies, mainly headquartered in the former Confederate States of America, who bid and performed these projects with busloads of Knee-Grow's (descendants of slaves), who were willing to work for, let's say with some irony, "slave wages."
This off-pissed the locals and their Congresspersons, resulting in the Davis-Bacon Act, which says - when you cut through all the bullshit - When you do federal construction work you have to pay the prevailing wages in the local area, regardless of who does the work. Thus, they figured, the out-of-towners wouldn't have an advantage in getting the work.
But Democrats, being unscrupulous as they are, quickly decided that the newly formed National Labor Relations Board would have responsibility for deciding what the "prevailing wages" were. And being, basically, communists, they quickly decided that the "prevailing wage" was going to be what the local construction union contracts said.
This puts a whole new meaning on the word, "prevailing." You might have 10% of the local construction workforce being "organized," but nevertheless, those union rates would be the ones that governed the project, so that union contractors could not be shut out of the job with their inflated rates and counterproductive work rules.
The law survives in substantially the same form to this day.
The effect is that contractors are PROHIBITED BY LAW from employing completely competent laborers and craftsmen who are willing to work at market rates. In effect, it has been estimated that the cost to the various taxpayers of ALL FEDERALLY-FUNDED CONSTRUCTION WORK is inflated by approximately 25%. The actual number cannot be calculated, because private sector construction and government construction are not bid and executed in the same way.
The relevant Unions always claim that Davis-Bacon's effect is minimal because the Unions ensure that the craftsmen are competent (there is considerable logic to this), but if that's the case, then "Union" contractors would not be at a disadvantage without D-B, so why do Unions fight its repeal so vigorously?
In conclusion, I won't mind paying a dime more per gallon to fund roads and bridges, as long as I know that I'm not being "victimized" by both the Democrats and the construction unions for the privilege.
Repeal Davis Bacon NOW! (Along with all of its duplicate legislation in the states and localities around the country). The justification for it was bullshit (racism, if you must know) initially, and it remains stupid bullshit today.
Higher gas taxes are inevitable, but WGAF? They pay $9/gal in Europe and seem to survive, right? Thrive, even.
But this development should raise in the minds of the American Taxpayer thoughts of the perverse, anachronistic law called Davis-Bacon, which mandates that all construction done with Federal dollars be done using "prevailing wages."
A bit of history for those who don't know: During the Depression, Congresspeople were, as they always do, funelling Federal construction dollars around the country to their own local areas for hundreds of make-work projects to benefit their needy constituents. But this strategy was threatened by construction companies, mainly headquartered in the former Confederate States of America, who bid and performed these projects with busloads of Knee-Grow's (descendants of slaves), who were willing to work for, let's say with some irony, "slave wages."
This off-pissed the locals and their Congresspersons, resulting in the Davis-Bacon Act, which says - when you cut through all the bullshit - When you do federal construction work you have to pay the prevailing wages in the local area, regardless of who does the work. Thus, they figured, the out-of-towners wouldn't have an advantage in getting the work.
But Democrats, being unscrupulous as they are, quickly decided that the newly formed National Labor Relations Board would have responsibility for deciding what the "prevailing wages" were. And being, basically, communists, they quickly decided that the "prevailing wage" was going to be what the local construction union contracts said.
This puts a whole new meaning on the word, "prevailing." You might have 10% of the local construction workforce being "organized," but nevertheless, those union rates would be the ones that governed the project, so that union contractors could not be shut out of the job with their inflated rates and counterproductive work rules.
The law survives in substantially the same form to this day.
The effect is that contractors are PROHIBITED BY LAW from employing completely competent laborers and craftsmen who are willing to work at market rates. In effect, it has been estimated that the cost to the various taxpayers of ALL FEDERALLY-FUNDED CONSTRUCTION WORK is inflated by approximately 25%. The actual number cannot be calculated, because private sector construction and government construction are not bid and executed in the same way.
The relevant Unions always claim that Davis-Bacon's effect is minimal because the Unions ensure that the craftsmen are competent (there is considerable logic to this), but if that's the case, then "Union" contractors would not be at a disadvantage without D-B, so why do Unions fight its repeal so vigorously?
In conclusion, I won't mind paying a dime more per gallon to fund roads and bridges, as long as I know that I'm not being "victimized" by both the Democrats and the construction unions for the privilege.
Repeal Davis Bacon NOW! (Along with all of its duplicate legislation in the states and localities around the country). The justification for it was bullshit (racism, if you must know) initially, and it remains stupid bullshit today.
