Posted on 05/19/2006 12:03:08 PM PDT by Altair333
The (Senate) bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
If employers ignore the immigration status of workers already, they will just ignore this provision as well.
This is just ridiculous! That would make illegals make more than many of our employees where I work!
I forgot to mention- this is a very promising blurb here in the article:
"While the White House is banking on winning House approval making new border enforcement measures contingent on legalizing millions of illegals, House Republicans remain firmly opposed to any amnesty and are confident that Hastert will not permit a bill that a majority of his party opposes to reach the floor."
- end quote -
The most powerful man by far in this country when it comes to the immigration bill is Dennis Hastert. He gets to name the House members of the reconciliation committe and he decides if the eventual bill gets brought to the floor.
Basically, he decides the whole thing because there are enough RINOs plus Dems in the House to pass the Senate bill.
This strikes me as some kind of backdoor fair wage thing. Are these scumballs are trying to sneak one past us?
I was about to fly into a rage over this until I read your post, and now I'm laughing. What an excellent catch! Every "guest worker" would be out of a job.
well, Davis-Bacon does sound like pork.
Exactly! And if you were an employer concerned with costs, what would be the logical next step?
"I'm not sure what I think about this provision. I dislike Davis-Bacon, but if employers are required to pay top dollar for guest workers, might that not mean they will use American workers instead?"
It's clever. It will kill the business lobbies ardor since the whole purpose is to depress wages of Americans.
But we don't need an extra guest worker plan.
As for the unions, the AFL-CIO says they support amnesty for illegals already here. Part of the policy reasoning was the fantasy they would get to unionize them. They were suckers, more illegals would still come. They are quite naive.
But the AFL-CIO did come out against the extra, new "guest worker" plan. That would legalize more wage depression beyond new illegal immigration. Here is an attempt to kill it.
The Democratic party is in a bind. Their corporate benefactors have framed Amnesty+ as an issue of anti-racism and caring for their upper class members, MSM and the chattering classes. Look at the chats and blogs, near silence of any discussion of the economic effects on American citizens and residents. The unions are a tricky bunch though. They've been deceived about the globalization project, just now waking up.
Another reason to be against this is it just adds more bureaucracy.
Juicing the Domestic labor pools to squeeze out new profits is an expensive business, but the lobbies won't bear the costs.
That's what I was thinking. And you know, that's probably why the unions are demanding it.
Given that the majority of illegals, particularly in construction and labor, housekeeping and other lower-mid- skill jobs are working under the table, this rule will do little.
As an aside issue, I think that Davis-Bacon ought to be repealed, not expanded. The liberals and RINOs are loving this. They're throwing every possible taxpayer-funded give-away to the illegals that they can think of, in hopes that it will appeal to Americans. Disgusting.
"Yes, they likely would. Maybe it could be a good idea after all, but I doubt this was what was on the mind of those backing it."
Absolutely. But better is to kill any new guest worker program for "unskilled" or any labor.
I would not be surprised to see a dem amendment in the Senate that calls for severe criminal/civil penalties for the hiring of illegals...coupled with substantial funds for enforcement.
The RINOs and Dems only THINK they have a compromise bill at this point, but their REAL motives are totally different. The Dems want voters and increased welfare rolls, the RINOs want cheap labor to support agriculture, construction and hospitality. However, now that the Unions and the Right are tu5rning the screws on their respective party members in the Senate I'm pretty sure this whole mess will blow up.
It'll be the RINOs left holding the bag...the right WILL NEVER FORGET...the left will forgive and forget.
If anything, this allows the Dems to pander to both the illegal lobby and the trial lawyer lobby - imagine the lawsuits that can be applied to companies that hire guest workers after a few years who are unware of this provision.
You got that right, even
There's little chance of this provision ever being enforced.
What were there, 3 workplace immigration-violation prosecutions last year?
Davis-Bacon is one of the worse laws we have. Many local governments are doing services/jobs formerly done by private contractors because they can do it cheaper. In many instances, governments can avoid paying Davis-Bacon, bypass the bidding process, not pay many mandated charges like unemployment costs, etc. Governments can also buy cheaper because many manufacturers give government discounts, etc. So, in the end, government becomes a competitor with private industry simply by legislating laws they can avoid. Davis-Bacon is a terrible law for all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.