Jump to content

Prove the Objective Truth of this Quote


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

How is the present dollar threshold for Davis-Bacon bad for the system and the country? What's your argument?

 

One could try comparing the unemployed+discouraged worker rate in right-to-work states to that of union-friendly states.

https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/

I imagine that’s been argued, and those that don’t see any truth as objective have undermined the argument.  So the question in this case then becomes, how does one prove truth is objective?  A middle ground of “objective enough” must be found.

Not understanding this angle of debate from your opponent is why there is such a vast schism on the issues today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First, some definitions I’ve gathered over the years.

Modernity: the truth is knowable for anyone equipped to know - like looking through a window.

Postmodernity: the truth is largely unknowable and those who say they know only know themself - like a mirror.

Critical realism: the truth is knowable but hard to know - like a darkened window.  The relativity and psychology that can pollute historical knowledge is not an insurmountable barrier to truth - it doesn’t mean it’s not worth basing your life on it.  We just need to be aware of our own worldview lenses.

Critical realism allows for the middle ground I mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

@WifWaf What are you trying to prove about Davis-Bacon? What is your assertion? What are your facts?

My point is, the opponents I mentioned above have a point.  Even with a portfolio of facts, I cannot know on such a grand scale as the whole country of 330M peoples why the majority of discouraged workers are having trouble joining the labor force.  So it is unwise to even try.  Instead, anyone in power over a government decision that could even remotely discourage a labor force should have a bias against action.

Unnecessary mandates are heavy handed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern, the specifics are that a $2000 construction job probably wouldn’t take more than a day or so at the most. The labor is only a small fraction of the total cost, including materials, any equipment and materials plus the overhead and markup. The administrative costs for a contractor to comply with the D-B wage rate requirements for a minuscule job involving  a few man hours would likely be burdensome, especially for a small business, non- union contractor.

I doubt that many if any Union contractor would bother with a small job. Many union contracts include show up pay requirements, such as at least four hours, even for a one to three hour workday.

There are also strict limitations on what Union employees are allowed to do, leading to the need for additional crew members and/or separate trades for routine work that one or two persons can accomplish. Add the additional paperwork burden to that. 

Only between 10-12% of the nationwide construction workforce is unionized. Many of those work on large projects.

Apparently you believe that the 88-90% non-union workforce are being taken advantage by their employers and it would serve the nation well to pay everyone union  wages and benefits.

If a non-union employee performs more than one trade on a small job, do they have to keep track of the different trade times? Probably just get paid the highest rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@joel hoffman The Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Act dollar thresholds are not going to change in the foreseeable future. You don't have an argument that will convince Congress and the President to change them. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, but it doesn't matter. They don't care what we think. You know that. Why go on?

The only way you could increase those thresholds or repeal those laws would be if you had an overwhelming Republican majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican president. Do you see any signs of that happening any time soon? Even then it would be no sure thing. The socioeconomic programs are political rules, and only politics can change them.

I am not going to discuss this further. All that's going on here now is whining.

I'm have written something somewhat along these lines, only taking a broader approach, for an upcoming issue of The Nash & Cibninc Report. That won't matter, either, but at least I get paid for it.

Signing off the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2024 at 7:52 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for specifics that will explain your point of view

@Vern Edwards Ok. See next post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You know that. Why go on?

@Vern Edwards Because Saturday, you asked me to go on (“provide specifics”).  Did you forget? 

I thought I’d already made my point. You had appeared to believe that there was some value to the construction workforce in keeping the threshold at $2000.

However, in response to your Saturday request, I provided some specific details for my reasoning against retaining the threshold.

Yes, “I know” and am glad we agree that the DB threshold should be changed and that we agree Congress and the President won’t change it.

None of them know anything about it. It’s purely political, in almost meaningless support for the 10-12% portion of the US construction industry labor force that is unionized.

That’s why the $2000 DB threshold is practically or seemingly “semi-immortal”.

Those unionized construction firms likely won’t bother seeking or taking on a $2000 or even larger small construction contract. Those can be relatively easily procured from local small business firms using simplified acquisition methods.

Seemingly Immortal laws and regulations was a point in the original post quoting Elon Musk and in wifwaf’s summation, both of which you challenged.

it’s interesting that even some of the largest US construction firms have separate Union and non-union companies (e.g., Bechtel). It’s called “Double-Breasted Operations”.

I’m done too, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@joel hoffman and other interested persons:

See the September 26, 1980 memo from GAO to OFPP, subject: Should Small Purchases Be Exempt from Complying with Social and Economic Program Requirements.

Follow this link: https://gao.justia.com/general-services-administration/1980/9/should-small-purchases-be-exempt-from-complying-with-social-and-economic-program-requirements-psad-80-77/PSAD-80-77-full-report.pdf

I think you'll find it interesting, especially the discussion of raising applicability of Davis-Bacon from $2,000 to $10,000. Note the discussion of arguments pro and con.

I address the memo in my N&CR article.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably is more difficult now to increase the thresholds as it was in the 1980s.  Wage determinations are online and contracting personnel can access without the delays from the past.  DoL will fight and say the administrative effort on contracting is nil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, formerfed said:

It probably is more difficult now to increase the thresholds as it was in the 1980s.  Wage determinations are online and contracting personnel can access without the delays from the past.  DoL will fight and say the administrative effort on contracting is nil.

The administrative effort on the part of non-Union contractors isn’t nil. 88-90% construction employees are non-Union, generally including those working for small business employers. Local Small Businesses would  be the industry market for very small construction contracts (generally reserved for small business anyway) assuming the DB threshold would be raised to say$10k.

Remember that the labor share of $2k-$10k minor construction/Maintnence/repair contract would generally be a small percentage of the total price, which also would likely include, materials, tools and equipment, supervision, overhead and profit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@joel hoffman @formerfed

I have followed.   In my research I found the following article, interesting read.  Makes me wonder if if there is hidden group (like 60 million workers that would like to be unionized) that help drives keeping DB and SCA alive.  The article not only generated the foregoing thought but the fact that if not all but most DB wage determinations carry both union rate and survey unit (SU) indicators.   For South Carolina that is supposedly the least unionized for construction most catagories are SU, for Hawaii the supposedly most unionized for construction most are union rate identifiers.  My point maybe DB supports both unionized and non-unionized workers.  

And, I always found the discussion of DB (SCA too) around the watercooler before I retired to be interesting.   Program folks always concerned about "wage rates" without considering they themselves might be a part of the AFGE or an equal.

All in all a very complicated topic with lots of considerations.

The article - https://www.epi.org/publication/union-membership-data/#:~:text=the public sector-,In 2023%2C 16.2 million workers in the United States were,from 11.3% to 11.2%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, did your research show you that DOL has recently decided to revert to methods used to determine Prevailing wage rates that are essentially based upon organized labor bargained rates, even though they might not be “prevailing” for the locality

This is the way it was done a relatively long time ago in the seventies and 80’s. I don’t remember when that was changed to reflect more actual prevailing rates.

Now it seems to be back during this Administration. So wage rates applicable to a small minority of the workforce may now again be considered the prevailing rates…

It was posted on WIFCON awhile back, complete with the DOL “spin”, justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2024 at 9:43 AM, WifWaf said:

I am looking for the area of statute, CFR, or case law where WIFCON believes the following quote rings most true.  Be objective with facts.  Maybe rely on the Section 809 Report's legwork, but be creative too.

Alternative, intervention-promoting viewpoints are also welcome here.

 

On 8/20/2024 at 5:16 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Six sentences. From them I extracted the following statements asserted to be facts:

  1. America's core principles include promoting freedom to operate.
  2. The hand of government gets heavier every year.
  3. The laws and regulations accumulate every year.
  4. The laws and regulations are immortal.

 

On 8/21/2024 at 11:38 AM, formerfed said:

The Service Contract Act, enacted nearly 60 years ago, has a threshold of $2,500.  That amount never was increased just to make organized labor happy.

 

On 8/21/2024 at 4:06 PM, joel hoffman said:

Davis-Bacon threshold is similarly enshrined at $2000…

 

On 8/22/2024 at 6:44 AM, Vern Edwards said:

As long as there is a chance for change there is hope (and fear). Statutory repeal and deregulation have happened and will happen again.

 

On 8/23/2024 at 8:50 AM, WifWaf said:

And the resulting complexities are daunting today.  Were they ever less daunting?

 

On 8/23/2024 at 7:39 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Are those supposed to be arguments that might persuade Congress to repeal or revise a law that is actually or symbolically important to a politically powerful constituency like labor?

Is that all you've got? Bureaucratic inconvenience and confusion?

Surely, Joel, you can do better. (I'm not sure about WifWaf.) Why don't you stop posting and think about it?

How is the present dollar threshold for Davis-Bacon bad for the system and the country? What's your argument?

 

On 8/24/2024 at 7:52 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for specifics that will explain your point of view. D-B seems like more of a problem for big contracts than for small ones.

Nine hours ago, @ji20874 posted: “Joel,Are you trying to make a case for a change?  Fine with me if you are, but I don’t think Wifcon.com is where you need to make your case.”

————————————————
ji, have you followed this thread? Yes, I responded to the subject of the thread. I simply mentioned that the $2000 Davis-Bacon threshold appears to be immortal.

It’s been the threshold since 1935. The original 1931 threshold was $5000 but was lowered, as part of efforts to end the Great Depression,  to $2000. You can read the history of the Davis-Bacon Act at Wikipedia.com

Then, I was challenged to explain why it’s “bad for the system and the country” and why it’s burdensome.

The conversation eventually got around to the likelihood of the DB threshold being increased.

It appears that it won’t likely be raised.

A dollar in 1935 is worth $22.69 in 2024. I wouldn’t advocate raising it that much. But a comparable amount of construction work within the current threshold is about 4.4% of what you could get in 1935.

And labor productivity was much lower then, resulting in larger labor crews and total labor hours to construct a project. Means, methods, materials, tools and equipment have greatly increased labor productivity.

 If most of the 88-90% of the US construction industry workforce is willing to work as non-union craft labor,  is there a need to retain a 1931 ($5000) or 1935 ($2,000) Depression Era threshold for application of primarily union based wage rates.

Almost all, if not all states, have adopted minimum construction wage rates.

In fact, when I was still active in construction contracting as late as 8 years ago, actual wages on our job sites often exceeded the DB minimum wage rates due to market competition for craft labor.

This thread intended to discuss, in part, regulations and laws that, once Instituted, tend to live forever, regardless of whether or not they are still necessary.

Unionized contractors likely won’t bother with minuscule contracts with very little labor hours but with the administrative expenses to comply and report, Union work craft rule restrictions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Carl,

Thanks Joel. 

I do not know how I would ask the millions of workers to verify my thought, while noting that some of their voices are supposedly heard through various constituencies, but maybe, just maybe it is the whatever millions of individual workers that like the idea of a very low threshold so those that speak for them of sorts regarding establishment of law, the politicians, have it right, leave the threshold low and let it live forever at a low dollar amount.  A threshold that is low and looks immortal in my life time, after that I will never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Unionized contractors likely won’t bother with minuscule contracts with very little labor hours but with the administrative expenses to comply and report, Union work craft rule restrictions, etc.

Carl, when you have to use multiple trades to perform a tiny amount of work…which is reserved for small business firms anyway, it’s not practical for Unionized contractors. So there is no need to “protect” or promote union labor on such small jobs.

But it probably will be the same for Longer time. Common sense isn’t evident here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No other agency has such a strong and enthusiastic constituency base as Labor.  Unions fight tooth and nail against anything that reduces their power.  They will view increases in contract thresholds as weakening their position as staunch supporters of labor, even if the increases are trivial by today’s dollar equivalency.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, formerfed said:

No other agency has such a strong and enthusiastic constituency base as Labor.  Unions fight tooth and nail against anything that reduces their power.  They will view increases in contract thresholds as weakening their position as staunch supporters of labor, even if the increases are trivial by today’s dollar equivalency.  

We're a democratic republic, and that's how it's supposed to work. We can change things only through rational appeal and persuasion (seasoned with political contributions).

But we can argue that (1) the coming years will confront us with serious challenges both foreign and domestic, (2) that the government depends on the procurement system to supply it with the goods and services that it will need to meet those challenges, and (3) that policies which render the procurement system less efficient, timely, and effective should be reviewed, reconsidered, and revised, suspended, or terminated as appropriate. We can then present documented facts in support or our assertions. We can also argue that too much law, policy, and regulation undermines support, and even compliance, with all. (Or so says Justice Gorsuch in his new book.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, formerfed said:

No other agency has such a strong and enthusiastic constituency base as Labor.  Unions fight tooth and nail against anything that reduces their power.  They will view increases in contract thresholds as weakening their position as staunch supporters of labor, even if the increases are trivial by today’s dollar equivalency.  

As an example, the Davis-Bacon threshold was higher ($5000) 93 years ago than it is now. They lowered it 89 years ago to $2000. That’s longer than anyone here has lived.

Trivial? That’s an understatement. A dollar then was worth over 20 times what it is today. Today a dollar can buy about 4.4 cents of what a dollar could buy back then. My dad earned $1 a day plus meals and a cot in his Army run CCC Camp in 1933. $2000 was equivalent to 2000 man days of work. 🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...