Organized Labor in a Tailspin-- Next Step, Congress Repeals Davis-Bacon Act

U. S. Chamber of Commerce ^ | October 13, 2004 | Bronc 1

[Bronc1]

Background: In 1931 the Davis-Bacon Act was adopted to create a "prevailing wage," usually the union rate, for any construction contract over $2,000 funded in whole or in part by the federal government. The benefits of the "prevailing wage," however, go to a very few at the expense of taxpayers and the Act is a prime example of unfunded mandates and government waste.

Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of federally funded construction projects by as much as 15%, discourages economic growth, and raises federal spending. In fact, Davis-Bacon Act wages cost taxpayers over $1 billion annually, in addition to the $100 million in government administrative costs per year.

Davis-Bacon also creates unnecessary regulatory paperwork costing construction companies $190 million annually. In addition, it forces state and local governments to pick up the cost of artificially high union-scale wages for construction projects in which any federal money is involved.

U.S. Chamber Position: Repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act will spur local economic growth by making it easier for state and local governments to fund federally subsidized projects such as school construction and improvements to the transportation infrastructure.

Davis-Bacon repeal also would create an estimated 31,000 new construction jobs and remove a barrier that keeps many smaller and minority owned construction firms from bidding on federally funded construction projects.

[A CA Guy]

Repeal that and maybe while you are at it, Specter.

[oceanview]

sounds like they want to open up construction jobs to the coming new wave of guest workers.

[donozark]

Perhaps the NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK ACT will be the first piece of labor-legislation Congress works on. I would encourage all to join/$upport the National Right to Work Committee (nrtwc.org).

[somemoreequalthanothers]

I've been waiting for this. It had its place and time, but it is outdated.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of federally funded construction projects by as much as 15%, discourages economic growth, and raises federal spending. In fact, Davis-Bacon Act wages cost taxpayers over $1 billion annually, in addition to the $100 million in government administrative costs per year...eventually the voting public will come to realize that the "common man" which the Dim party works so hard to represent is actually only a small contingent of union members, while the remainder of the populace pays higher costs for products and services because of favoritism and protectionism of the 'rats.....

[bigfootbob]

There would be a bigger savings to the taxpayers if the ridiculous EIS regulations were relaxed. Then, I might support reducing compensation for American tradesmen.

[Bob J]

"It had its place and time, but it is outdated."

It never had a place nor time. It was a handout to garner election votes.

[Holden Magroin]

There is no chance of repealing Davis-Bacon. There is also no chance of repealing whatever law grants a "right" to organize.

[RLM]

Mr Magroin,
Davis Bacon has nothing to do with the right to organize so a repeat of this ill-conceived Act would have no effect. Davis Bacon was originally enacted to keep blacks from the south from taking jobs in the north at lower wages. In other words, the Act protected artificially high wages in the north since others, namely blacks, were willing to do the same work for less. This prevented employers in the north from hiring blacks, perhaps with less experience, for a lower wage, since regardless of experience, all tradesmen had to be paid top dollar.

Davis Bacon wages are supposed to represent the prevailing wage of the area. The fact is, it has nothing to do with wages that prevail in the community but rather establishes artificially high wages based on union influence. The taxpayer gets screwed by being forced to pay higher than nominal wages for the trade. He gets screwed again with the cost for the mountains of paperwork that must be compiled by contractors to prove compliance.

The wage that really prevails is that which people are willing to work for in the community. Government will select the contractor with the lowest compliant bid, then demand workers get paid an extraordinary wage. Perhaps the Congress needs to enact a law to assure contractors a maximum profit, and call it prevailing profit to make it sound good. Most union influenced labor law is designed solely to garner highest maximum wages, and reduce access to the trade to guarantee the continued high pay. I have no quarrel with organized labor doing whatever they want, but I have a hell of a problem with the government acting as union advocates, denying a fair right to work for all.