I just had a friend tell me this.

[busaunit 0]

Quote

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)

$30 and hour two people getting $15 dollars an hour?




think its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour

and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour,

thats the problem


Well bush made the payments to dead troops familys
less after the war started,Y would he stop there?

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

think its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour

and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour,

thats the problem

another fine example of how you know nothing about which you speak.

"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

think its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour

and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour,

thats the problem

another fine example of how you know nothing about which you speak.

What has been done to prevent profiteering by the owners of the companies hiring workers at below prevailing wage?

...

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

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

What has been done to prevent profiteering by the owners of the companies hiring workers at below prevailing wage?

i dunno...law going back several decades. the workers get paid what the owner offers, as long as, and here's some of the law part, it's above minimum wage. if they don't like what they are to be paid, they have the option to not work for that money.

what has been done to ensure unfair profiteering by the owners of the companies hiring workers?

"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

What has been done to prevent profiteering by the owners of the companies hiring workers at below prevailing wage?

i dunno...law going back several decades. the workers get paid what the owner offers, as long as, and here's some of the law part, it's above minimum wage. if they don't like what they are to be paid, they have the option to not work for that money.

what has been done to ensure unfair profiteering by the owners of the companies hiring workers?

I dunno either, but it seems to me that combining no-bid contracts with a license to pay below prevailing wages is an invitation to abuse. It's not like corporate ethics are stellar these days (Worldcom,Tyco, Enron...)

...

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

what has been done to ensure unfair profiteering by the owners of the companies hiring workers?

That's what he asked you isn't it? You then made a statement about minimum wage... which isn't the issue here, only "prevailing wage" which Bush has just created a law to waive (ie... what this whole thread is about).

Kallend is asking what has been done to prevent companies hiring workers and then profiteering... essentially the same question you ask if you don't care about whether or not the workers are being paid above or below the prevailing wage... either way no one's any the clearer about whether or not something is in place to stop companies profiteering.

[rehmwa 2]

Would someone explain the term "profiteering"? It seems to imply making a profit is a nefarious thing. Apparently that particular term has a bit more meat to it than that?

...
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

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

That's what he asked you isn't it?

nope. he asked me what has been done to prevent it. i asked what has been done to ensure it. he made the valid point that human nature is bound to tempt some of the contractors into unfair profiteering and my point is that making a profit is what capitalilsm allows. finding the balance where everyone is happy is the tricky part.

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Would someone explain the term "profiteering"? It seems to imply making a profit is a nefarious thing. Apparently that particular term has a bit more meat to it than that?

One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.

I guess price gouging and profiteering could go hand in hand.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Who defines "excessive" in terms of a labor supply?

Wouldn't the bidding process (both governement and private) have people capable of determining the fair/competitive cost of a works project? Including labor rate assumptions?

I don't see anywhere in the original post that the one change is contingient upon bidding evaluations requiring a blindfold during the review and approval process......

...
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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ah I see. You want to ensure profiteering?

I think you probably mean you want to ensure profiting. That's good - profit is necessary in a capitalist economy as you rightly point out.

Profiteering in these circumstances is where companies get paid by the govt. with public money (ie your taxes) and they are paid say (for example) based on their paying workers $30/hour plus overheads materials etc etc and a fair profit on the contract. They then employ workers at $10/hour (again simple example figures) and pocket the difference. So they’re pocketing $20/hour/employee.

This law ensures that is possible because they are able to pay below prevailing wage. If they had to pay prevailing wage there would be no way to companies to skim off the top and jip the taxpayer out of their money.

This way, you end up with big businesses pocketing millions of dollars of tax payer's money. That in these circumstances is profiteering... and it's your money that's going into their pockets to buy them their yachts.

Profit - good
Profiteering - bad

That is of course, not to say this is actually going on... just that this law makes it easier for it to happen. That's what people are getting in a tizzy about.

[mnealtx 0]

And the contracting companies have to pay for office space and supplies, computer and telephone support, admin/executive personnel, etc... It's called overhead, and it is factored into every contract I've ever worked (several over the last 15 years) - usually as part of the hourly wage for the employees. It's also perfectly legal.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

$30/hour plus overheads materials etc etc and a fair profit

Yes yes, that was supposed to be included in the etc etc. I didn't want to have to write out an exhaustive list of everything a construction company has to take into account in costing a contract.

That would indeed be legal. Skimming a government contract funded by taxpayers money though? I don't know, I'm not that kind of lawyer, nor from the states... I do question it on moral grounds though.

[rehmwa 2]

So profiteering in your example is based on companies lying about their contract cost assumptions. In other words, fraud.

This would work only if those awarding contracts are ignorant of the recent annoucement. Unlikely;

or if those awarding are crooked. Then it wouldn't matter as the award would be crooked anyway under another tactic.

This is just a bunch of chicken little stuff. Allowing lower pay may just allow more, albeit less skilled workers to get employment for simple labor under the supervision of more skilled leaders. Which is likely very needed in that area.

Still smells like a job-works program. Which smells very bad indeed.

Frankly, I don't think much of a 'prevailing wage' requirement. Inflating salaries only inflates the cost of living for all. And also promotes job stagnation because of less incentive to change to more profitable fields.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Profit - good

It's good to see that some people do recognize this, nowadays. It's not necessarily as common sense as you might think.

...
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

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Ah I see. You want to ensure profiteering?

nope. i'm saying that the bush admin. has done nothing to ensure that profiteering will happen. that choice is up to the individual contractors.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Ah I see. You want to ensure profiteering?

nope. i'm saying that the bush admin. has done nothing to ensure that profiteering will happen. that choice is up to the individual contractors.

It's a matter of perspective about contract companies.

tcn - assume innocent before proven guilty
mr2 - assume guilty before proven innocent

...
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

[mr2mk1g 10]

no quarrels with me there.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

mr2 - assume guilty before proven innocent

no no, not at all. I specifically stated that I wasn't saying any of this was going on, just observing that some here are complaining that the new laws make it easier to happen.

I personally have no complaint either way - just trying to clear up the argument others are putting so as to clarify the issues between the two sides.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

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

I did just that, could not find a contractor. I showed the boys how to strip a roof, set trusses and do the sheathing, dry in the roof and shoot shingles. I was always on the roof and they made $8 a hour. They learn a skill and I got a roof. I did not pay the "prevailing wage" but more than min wage. It's not rocket science. But the guys were not waiting for a hand out and wanted to learn a skill. win/win didn't cost the gov't a dime and they now work for a roofer who was glad to find someone....


edit to add

Doing the same thing now on my drywall. I'm sure some libs (maybe not you) would say I am cheating the young men. To me i am training them and keeping them off welfare...

[diverborg 0]

Quote

What has been done to prevent profiteering by the owners of the companies hiring workers at below prevailing wage?

Opening up the contract for more than one company to bid on it.


post edited after reading a bunch of previous posts I ignored

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

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

I did just that, could not find a contractor. I showed the boys how to strip a roof, set trusses and do the sheathing, dry in the roof and shoot shingles. I was always on the roof and they made $8 a hour. They learn a skill and I got a roof. I did not pay the "prevailing wage" but more than min wage. It's not rocket science. But the guys were not waiting for a hand out and wanted to learn a skill. win/win didn't cost the gov't a dime and they now work for a roofer who was glad to find someone....


edit to add

Doing the same thing now on my drywall. I'm sure some libs (maybe not you) would say I am cheating the young men. To me i am training them and keeping them off welfare...

Good for you, but are you as a private individual obliged to pay a "prevailing wage" to independent contractors, then? I think this is apples and oranges.

...

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

[juanesky 0]

You seem to forget, that there will be plenty of people just like bodypilot, wanting to rebuild their homes.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Good for you, but are you as a private individual obliged to pay a "prevailing wage" to independent contractors, then? I think this is apples and oranges.

That is the point. It shouldn't be apples and oranges. Why shouldn't contracting from the government have any more restrictions than contracting locally, or personally.

Further, hiring locally, obliges private work to be paid at local (prevailing) wages - by definition.

There's 2 ways that the discussion is NOT apples and oranges.

Edit: Seems to me that a 'prevailing' wages argument is strictly to ensure that employers don't 'import' more cost affordable help into a region. Seems like something a crooked union would love to have in place.

...
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

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Good for you, but are you as a private individual obliged to pay a "prevailing wage" to independent contractors, then? I think this is apples and oranges.

Why the gov't shouldn't try to save money?

I was pointing out that construction can be done by rookies with a good out come. You do not need the whole team to be journeymen level but one to direct the rest. By not having to pay prevailing wage you can accept the risk of training newbies. This then gets the trainee off the public dole and makes him a tax payer. something that should warm the hart of every liberal

Or you think the people of NO are to stupid to learn. To me, it's a win/win for everybody. Tax payers save money in the short run, home owner gets house fixed and the newbie learns a trade and the contractor makes a profit and pays taxes.