I just had a friend tell me this.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) it ends up being much cheaper to directly award the contract to a company.

yeah especially when it goes to a contractor who has made some nice contributions to your campaign.

We all know these "rules" are in place to get the lowest cost, it has nothing to do with kick backs, political favours or anything like that

Just can't let go of the hate, can you? *where's a rolling eyes icon when you need one?*

of course not! that would require letting go of a long-embraced personal position and no one wants to do that!

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) it ends up being much cheaper to directly award the contract to a company.

yeah especially when it goes to a contractor who has made some nice contributions to your campaign.

We all know these "rules" are in place to get the lowest cost, it has nothing to do with kick backs, political favours or anything like that

Just can't let go of the hate, can you? *where's a rolling eyes icon when you need one?*

If US history had no examples of graft and corruption I could understand your comment.

Unfortunately, US history shows rampant graft and corruption at all levels, which is why processes have been put in place to attempt to minimize it. Maybe the processes could be streamlined, but circumventing them altogether is a recipe for abuse.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Just can't let go of the hate, can you? *where's a rolling eyes icon when you need one?*

Has nothing to dow ith hate. You are slamming another poster saying he knows nothing about the federal processes etc and that it is sometimes cheaper to circumvent the rules and just hand out no-bid contracts.

Just pointing out that these rules are in place for more reasons than just getting the lowest cost. They are more so in place to try and ensure contracts don't only go to buddies and political allies.

The reason I bring that up is because of the lessons learned from the sponsoship scandal and the federal liberal party here in Canada.

But I know it is easier to stick to your preconceived assumptions.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Hopping it is not true.

They told me the Bush administration is trying to pass a special law so that the workers who are working to rebuild NO can be paid below minimum wage.

If this is true it is a new low.

Not sure that it is true or not wondering if any of you know any more about this. He told me it was on CNN last night and it has been all over Europe as well.

It's true. Bush issued an executive order suspending the requirements for the Davis-Bacon act.

references:

whitehouse press release: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050921-2.html

cnn: http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/08/news/economy/katrina_wages.reut/

Walt

You guys are killing me. No where does it state that minimum wages are removed.

What the President's Executive Order does allow is employers to pay below "Prevailing Wage". That means that Unions cannot ride rough-shot over contractors to demand bloated wages for unskilled labor and the like.

Everyone really needs to read this shit before screaming in a shrill.

Quote

The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted. It applies to federally funded construction projects such as highways and bridges.

Bunch of whiners -- frankly it's starting to piss me off. This means that a worker used to the pork of earning $30/hour as a prevailing wage working on a road may get paid $20/hour or maybe less depending on circumstances.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Michele 1]

Quote

No where does it state that minimum wages are removed.

I was wondering when someone would bring this up...'cause that's what my reading also led me to understand. Minimum wages are not being touched; prevailing wage - as Gawain described, might be.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

No where does it state that minimum wages are removed.

I was wondering when someone would bring this up...'cause that's what my reading also led me to understand. Minimum wages are not being touched; prevailing wage - as Gawain described, might be.

Ciels-
Michele

It actually WAS brought up. Several times.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

They told me the Bush administration is trying to pass a special law so that the workers who are working to rebuild NO can be paid below minimum wage. If this is true it is a new low.

Which best serves to restore the people of New Orleans to their homes:

1) One person who gets a job for $30 per hour, or;
2) Two people who get jobs for $15 per hour each?

Furthermore, the more people you can bring in to get a job done, the quicker the city can be restored. So you can have:
1) Some high-paid construction workers taking twice as long to do the job, or;
2) Twice as many construction workers being paid half as much getting the job done in half the time.

Take your pick.

I suppose if Bush didn't take this action, then the Bush-haters would be screaming about how he is deliberatly slowing down the restoration of New Orleans, with implications of racism...

[Michele 1]

Quote

It actually WAS brought up. Several times.

My bad...life, I suspect, will continue.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

It actually WAS brought up. Several times.

My bad...life, I suspect, will continue.

Ciels-
Michele

Actually, the world just stopped revloving and gravity no longer exists. prepare to float off the Earth.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 2,990]

>1) Some high-paid construction workers taking twice as long to do the job, or;
>2) Twice as many construction workers being paid half as much getting the job done in half the time.

So in your experience, twice as many workers willing to work for half the money do a better/faster job? Who would you want building your reserves - one master rigger and one assembler who's been there for ten years (and makes decent money) or four minimum wage recent hires?

Of all the reasons I've heard for changing the federal wage, this is the silliest.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So in your experience, twice as many workers willing to work for half the money do a better/faster job? Who would you want building your reserves - one master rigger and one assembler who's been there for ten years (and makes decent money) or four minimum wage recent hires?

Of all the reasons I've heard for changing the federal wage, this is the silliest.

So you are opposed to two poor, oppressed, black men getting jobs at $15/hr and rebuilding their neighborhood. Would you rather some undeserving white guy with a little "training" gets $30/hr. I can't believe your insensitivity to those that need to be able to find opportunity. You capitalists are alway exploiting the poor and misfortuned

It can be spun no matter what.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,990]

>You capitalists are alway exploiting the poor and misfortuned . . .

I would answer, but I have to go off and oppress some minorities before dinner.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>You capitalists are alway exploiting the poor and misfortuned . . .

I would answer, but I have to go off and oppress some minorities before dinner.

give those wingsuit flyers hell for me too

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

They told me the Bush administration is trying to pass a special law so that the workers who are working to rebuild NO can be paid below minimum wage. If this is true it is a new low.

Which best serves to restore the people of New Orleans to their homes:

1) One person who gets a job for $30 per hour, or;
2) Two people who get jobs for $15 per hour each?

Furthermore, the more people you can bring in to get a job done, the quicker the city can be restored. So you can have:
1) Some high-paid construction workers taking twice as long to do the job, or;
2) Twice as many construction workers being paid half as much getting the job done in half the time.

Take your pick.

I suppose if Bush didn't take this action, then the Bush-haters would be screaming about how he is deliberatly slowing down the restoration of New Orleans, with implications of racism...

Not this old argument again. No business I have ever worked with (I currently have a book of clients that covers 245 businesses accross the entire spectrum of occupations) has ever hired more workers than they need to do the work, regardless of the salary.

Employers hire the number of workers they need, to accomplish the job at hand.
No business will hire two workers when one can so the work (with the exception of the Govm't, I'll grant you that one)

illegible usually

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So in your experience, twice as many workers willing to work for half the money do a better/faster job? Who would you want building your reserves - one master rigger and one assembler who's been there for ten years (and makes decent money) or four minimum wage recent hires? Of all the reasons I've heard for changing the federal wage, this is the silliest.

Geez, you've always gotta mischaracterize things with strawman arguments.

First, we're not talking about parachutes. We're talking about common skills like swinging a hammer and a saw.

Second, as the discussion has pointed out, we're talking about the "prevailing wage", not the "minimum wage".

And I wasn't talking about changing the wage rate nationwide. Just putting forth one possible reason why a temporary suspension of this rule might make sense for the limited hurricane damage area.

Sheesh.

Next scarecrow?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Employers hire the number of workers they need, to accomplish the job at hand. No business will hire two workers when one can so the work

You didn't address the other issues I raised, about restoring full employment for people who need jobs, and getting the city reconstructed as quickly as possible.

It's not just a question of one person getting a job done. It's also how quickly the job can be done, and how many jobless people you can employ in the process.

[billvon 2,990]

>First, we're not talking about parachutes. We're talking about
>common skills like swinging a hammer and a saw.

And I'm talking about sewing. Hardly an uncommon skill.

I notice you're not answering the question, which is about what I expected. Many people have no problem with such issues as long as they don't affect them.

But to put it in a form you may be more willing to answer - do you want your house built by 20 recent hires making _prevailing_ minimum wage, or by 20 men with 20 years experience building houses? (As someone else pointed out, the idea that they will hire an extra 20 men for no good reason is silly.)

If the object is to rebuild New Orleans and give people jobs, then keep the laws as they are - they are there for a reason. If the object is to rebuild New Orleans and make companies more money - then change the law. Because that's what it really comes down to. Now, there may well be reasons for doing that; perhaps it's sort of a corporate-welfare program for companies hit hard by the hurricane. But be honest about why you're doing it.

[craddock 0]

"making _prevailing_ minimum wage"

??? define please

I used to be a Union Journeymen. I have never worked anywhere else where we could get away with cheating hours so badly. My boss would tell me how many hours to put down at the end of the day. Working for years as a non-union worker right along side Union workers I learned to develop a bad taste toward unions for their slow work. They are not all bad so don't jump me for that comment but I have been on both sides of it for many years. When I was 22 I got my first taste of "prevaling wage". I did some work for a union contractor and because I was not union they had to paid me the whole benefit package on my check. No way did I deserve to be making $28 an hour at that point in my life in Northern Wisconsin.(at that point $100,000 got you a damn nice home on a nice size lot)

Not only that but I got free hours extended breaks ect. Everytime I did work for a union contractor it was the same. I would never let guys working for me get away with the shit I've seen there.
On my own jobs or working for a non-union sub, if I needed to have a carpenter fix some of their work so we could begin ours, it really sucked if it was union carpenters on the job. I can remember more than once they sent two guys to to a job I could have done in 1/2 hour. They could turn this into 3 hour job with all the bullshitting.

I say good job Bush. Companies are not going to lower pay on existing employees but it will prevent untrained workers taken advantage of the system.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Not this old argument again. No business I have ever worked with (I currently have a book of clients that covers 245 businesses accross the entire spectrum of occupations) has ever hired more workers than they need to do the work, regardless of the salary.

Employers hire the number of workers they need, to accomplish the job at hand.
No business will hire two workers when one can so the work (with the exception of the Govm't, I'll grant you that one)

However, a Project Manager overseeing the construction of infrastructure doesn't see it in that manner.

You get a PM from CH2M Hill realizing that his project budget will be $x.xx Million will allow this many headcount performing x-many tasks, across a broader scope of infrastructure, and he'll plan it out that way.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And I'm talking about sewing. Hardly an uncommon skill.

It's not just sewing. It's a lot of very specialized knowledge. But if you really feel that parachute rigging is so simple that anyone can do it, then feel free to have the little old lady next door repack your reserve for you next time.

Quote

do you want your house built by 20 recent hires making _prevailing_ minimum wage, or by 20 men with 20 years experience building houses?

I would expect the highly-paid experienced men to be assigned to supervise the lower-paid recent hires, so that the job gets done right. And with that method, you could create more teams that would get the job done faster. The guy who is hauling bricks to the scaffolding doesn't have to possess the knowledge of the mason who is placing the bricks with mortar from atop the scaffolding.

[billvon 2,990]

>It's not just sewing. It's a lot of very specialized knowledge.

So is building a house. It's not just "swinging a hammer."

>But if you really feel that parachute rigging is so simple that anyone
> can do it, then feel free to have the little old lady next door repack
> your reserve for you next time.

Sure! Right after you let the teenager down the street replace your roof.

[UntamedDOG 0]

Quote

and the guys who will work to rebuild mostly poor locals get fucked.

Not if they don't agree to do the work.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>It's not just sewing. It's a lot of very specialized knowledge.

So is building a house. It's not just "swinging a hammer."

Sure! Right after you let the teenager down the street replace your roof.

You ignored the 2nd part of my response in message #45:

I would expect the highly-paid experienced men to be assigned to supervise the lower-paid recent hires, so that the job gets done right.

Most roofing crews are in fact people who aren't highly skilled. They haul shingles, nail tarpaper, and so on. But there are a few on the crew who supervise and teach and make sure the job is done right to building codes and technical standards. The same is true for home construction crews.

In the same way, a new rigger trainee is allowed to pack chutes, but only under the supervision of a licensed rigger.

The government doesn't certify people to sew. It does certify them for parachute rigging, to ensure that they know what the heck they're doing.

You seem to want to paint this argument with crews that are all completely inexperienced, and that's not real life.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

HAHAHAHAHA! AMERICA, you suckers!!!!!!

Bush just signed an order to save all his FRIENDS (who own) construction companies millions on wages!!!!! CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THROUGH ALL THIS BULLSHIT! SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[diverborg 0]

Quote

So in your experience, twice as many workers willing to work for half the money do a better/faster job?

I did a recent experiment and proved per the scientific method that the more you pay someone the lazier they get. I tried to show my results to the media, but they shot me down immediately saying it was right wing propaganda and they weren't even interested in my results. Its all been proved already so you should all take my word for it and believe it and don't ask any other questions or ask to see any of my data because the liberals burnt it all.