Providing Workers

Tweet

The Davis-Bacon Act cannot be a "relic" because the reasons for its passage are as current today as they were in 1931. The arguments Charles George presents (Speaking Out, June) for repeal have also remained unchanged during this time; however, they also are not "relics" because a relic by definition has outlived its usefulness. These arguments were not useful then for the same reasons they are not useful now. Itinerant labor produces a shoddy product because it cuts local wages and the incentive to excel.

When a group of workers covers a geographic area as large as the New England states and northern New York, I would classify the workers as itinerant. When they claim to have skill and expertise in several diverse and highly technical areas, I would expect them to command an extremely high price -- much higher than mine, because I claim skill and expertise in only one area. When they are willing to accept 57% to 62% less than the prevailing wage, I would question their definition of "expertise" and "skill." These types of workers compete on price and price alone.

In the unionized sector of construction, unlike industrial areas, there is no seniority on the basis of longevity. An employer can lay off or fire a worker after one day of service or after 20 years. If he doesn't produce at any time, he is out because his replacement is paid the same. When workers are paid the same "down to the penny," they compete on the basis of ability, knowledge, and productivity. If they don't, then they don't last.

Why should this open-door system provide an incentive to improve skills? After the worker trains himself, what prevents an inexperienced worker from replacing him or forcing him to lower his price? Why should employers attempt to seek out and retain competent and conscientious workers who constantly compete on the basis of skill and expertise when they can replace them with a steady stream of inexpensive and inexperienced trainees?

Davis-Bacon is not a relic from the Depression. It serves the same purposes today as it did in 1931: to provide the country with a large pool of highly skilled construction workers, assure quality work on federal construction projects, and prevent unwarranted disruptions in local construction markets.