You’re right - the current labor laws are far too weak and make it too hard to unionize.
So should the government, being the government, be able to use conscript labor? Or are they bidding on the open market, and how does that work?
The former is…interesting. The latter seems like it could cost more.
All it does is require the government contractors to pay what locals get for a given project. It bans paying workers in New York, for instance, the lower wages that workers might get in North Dakota, for instance. Hardly graft.
It’s not graft, but it is actually placing the interests of workers over the interests of taxpayers, something that Democrats do pretty much 100% of the time.
Funny that a populist party with labor ties would prioritize how it treats those it hires over how much certain “taxpayers” complain. :rolleyes: A huge proportion of federal revenue is paid by the 1%, who resent not having the same proportion of voting stock and so tried to legalize bribery. Still, we pretty much all pay taxes, including government employees. But the laborer is worthy of his hire, and all that.
So anytime someone promises to get taxpayers the best value for their money is lying. Got it.
Bidding on the open market. The way things work now is that when stimulus is needed and the government needs to spend money to “prime the pump” and get the economy moving again by building a new bridge or road, they first send out surveyors to find out what union members in the locale make. After six months to a year, they then are ready to build the bridge and every company who makes a bid to build the bridge has to pay their workers at least as much as the prevailing wage. This makes sure the bridge costs top dollar and the unskilled and unemployed are not helped by the new construction.
What they should do is what I do when I need a home repair. Find companies that have the proven ability to get a quality job done and go with the cheapest bid. It is no one’s business what the workers are making except the workers and the company.
If a government has a project that could be done for 1 million dollars but the government accepts a bid of 2 million because the a contributor to the mayor’s campaign runs the company that is graft. If the government accepts a bid of 2 million because the company uses union labor, and the union has contributed to the mayor’s campaign, I see no difference except that the former is illegal and the latter is legal.
Why do people get upset over the use of the “n-word”. The word itself is not evil. What it does is it tends to show what the speaker’s attitude is. The same is true about Democrat Party. It shows the speaker’s attitude.
If I pronounced your name fool’s gin ee ah, and after you corrected me many times I continued to do so, I would be showing disdain of you.
Um, okay. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Davis-Bacon.
Republicans put the interests of certain people or groups over the taxpayers too, all the time. It’s pretty much a requirement to govern. It’s hard not to do it when spending taxpayer money.
The workers *are *the taxpayers.
Davis Bacon makes it impossible for companies that bid on projects to pay their workers less than what unions make. This is a gift for unions that results in higher cost for the taxpayers. Exactly the same results as the mentioned scenario.
The fact that a law benefits unions does not make it “graft.” By that standard, you could call plenty of laws “graft,” including many passed by Republicans.
Actually, only 60% of Americans are workers. 100% are consumers and taxpayers. Plus the workers in question are a very small subset of the working class. It is actually a special interest carveout.
Again, if that’s true, pretty much everything the government does is a “special interest carveout.” If we must compare specific government policies or spending to the whole of the taxpayers every time, the taxpayers would always prevail because there are more of them, and nothing would get done. That’s why the comparison doesn’t work and shouldn’t be done in the first place.
The taxpayers should always prevail. They do in condo associations(fee payers actually), no reason it can’t work the same way in government.
So I can pick any old government spending program I don’t like and say “get rid of this - the taxpayers should prevail!”
Cool.
No, just as you wouldn’t get rid of the pool or security, or roof maintenance if you were in a condo association, or education at the state level, or Social Security at the federal level.
Spending programs are fine, but all spending should benefit the taxpayers as a whole. That’s what ‘general welfare’ is all about.
The GOP however wants to stop paying to clean the pool, and buy the security guards hoverboards and flame-throwers.
And education needs to be controlled at the federal level, because of the bible belt. They’d start handing out snakes and talking in tongues in World History class, and telling girls that condoms cause ovarian cancer in Health Class if they were allowed total control. We live in a world economy, we can’t have Americans being turned out in schools with an asterisk next to their diplomas signifying if they went to crazy-person school or not.
Nothing benefits everyone equally. There are roads you’ll never use, and schools your children will never go to.