We've all heard about Bush waiving the prevailing wage requirement of the Davis-Bacon act for construction workers because it had a loophole that allowing him to do so in the event of a natural disaster.
We've also assumed that service workers would protected by the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act because it does not have a similar loophole.
Well, I don't know about you, but that's enough for me. I'm sure we can trust George W Bush to protect the rights of workers. He would never try any dirty tricks to get around the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act provisions. Nope. Not Bush.
Oops, it looks like we may have misunderestimated him again. Thank goodness he is looking out for us. According to Lou Dobbs last night:
DOBBS: The Bush administration says it can cut red tape and inefficiency in the disaster region by denying construction workers there the prevailing wage. And it may also extend to the Gulf Coast services sector. Concern is now growing that the Bush administration may relax wage and hiring standards that have helped Gulf Coast service workers make ends meet.
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Janitors and housekeepers cleaning up for the federal government in the gulf region may have their wage protection stripped away. There's talk in Washington the Labor Department may roll back the 1965 McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act that guarantees service employees working for the federal government the prevailing or average wage.
Here is the transcript of the entire show. The discussion of the McNamara-O'Hara act occurs about half way down the page. It is quite long but it is a worthwhile read.
Apparently, President Bush has been referring questions on this to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao who has some not so reassuring things to say:
LISA SYLVESTER: Labor Secretary Elaine Chao was asked last week if the contract act would be suspended. She reportedly answered, "I don't believe so." Today, the Labor Department said there are currently no plans, but lawmakers insist the administration is still looking for a way to lift the requirement.
How could they do this?
Now, the service contract act does not have the same provision [as the Bacon Davis Act], making it much more difficult. But according to lawmakers, the Labor Department may be able to get around that by simply issuing a new interim rule or seeking a change in legislation -- Lou.
Why would they do this? What could be their logic?
DOBBS: The administration has said that lower wages result in
greater competition capacity on the part of the American worker. There's no competition here. This is entirely domestic. Any economic rationale advanced for this?
SYLVESTER: There really doesn't seem to be any explanation, other than what they have said before, which is the standard line that they want to try to reduce and cut down on the red tape and bureaucracy. But ultimately, it's going to be the workers who will be hurt, Lou.
I wonder when we will hear about greater competition capacity on the part of the American corporation?
Lou Dobbs also interviewed Rep. George Miller, Sen. Kennedy and Rev. Jesse Jackson about this issue.
How much are these service workers making?
According to Sen. Kennedy:
"We're talking 22, 23, 24, 25 thousand dollars a year without benefits. That doesn't seem to be excessive to me. That barely reaches the area of being fair.
Meanwhile, these cost-plus contracts, the contractors themselves will walk away with tens of millions, hundreds of millions in profit. And that is not what the American people want. They want to have a hand out to people, but not a hand out to these major contractors."
Luckily this hasn't happened yet. Hopefully we can prevent this.
You can send questions or comments to:
Lou Dobbs
Senator Edward Kennedy Tel: (202) 224-4543
I tried to get Elaine Chao's email address but my computer keeps timing out so if someone has that info, I will update. Also let me know if there are any other people that we can contact to help on this issue.