End Racism in Federal Contracting Act (Failed)

[Cranberry]

In my opinion, this would just make the whole thing "more racist", if you want so. By employing minority workers you have to pay less, you exploit them by virtue of their "race".

I second the motion.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

If the act still applies though I simply cant see how it's a bad thing.

Same here - even if it had some racist backgrounds, by now it has just turned into a sensible practice - why should government choose the "cheapest" version over the fairest?

[Cranberry]

Since debate here does not seem that intense, and it's not even clear if this bill even applies, and I see no worth in keeping this on the floor any longer than necessary, I guess I'll second Senator TNF's motion for a final vote.

[Cranberry]

Nay

If you want an explanation - here we go: I disagree with your arguments that said act would be just for "Protectionist construction unions", instead I say it was created to ensure that workers are treated decently. I believe that it is common sense that we pay workers on government construction works the local prevailing wage, simply to allow these workers a decent standard of life in the local area. Even if we found "cheaper" workers from other areas, we should still pay them the local wage, not the "prevailing" wage in their area, as costs of living in areas with higher wages are usually higher than in areas with lower wages. Explanation enough?

[Cranberry]

Nay

If you want an explanation - here we go: I disagree with your arguments that said act would be just for "Protectionist construction unions", instead I say it was created to ensure that workers are treated decently. I believe that it is common sense that we pay workers on government construction works the local prevailing wage, simply to allow these workers a decent standard of life in the local area. Even if we found "cheaper" workers from other areas, we should still pay them the local wage, not the "prevailing" wage in their area, as costs of living in areas with higher wages are usually higher than in areas with lower wages. Explanation enough?

First of all, the question of why it was created in the first place is not up for dispute. It's historical fact that racism was the original motivator (a simple Google search will confirm this).

But, as for the contemporary issues with the law, just because a certain amount is a "prevailing wage" in a given area does not mean everyone in that area is paid that wage. Additionally, many contractors bring in hire workers from other areas (Davis-Bacon was originally proposed after an Alabama contractor attempted to bring black workers from the South to build a hospital in Long Island). Forcing these contractors to pay the prevailing wage for the specific area in which they are building something amounts to protectionism against workers from other places (the same logic could be used to justify immigration restrictions). Finally, say you have two workers who apply for the same job, one of whom is more skilled than the other. If the employer they're applying to is required to pay them a certain wage rate, he will of course choose the higher-skilled one. When employers can hire lower-skilled workers at lower wage rates than high-skilled ones, it actually makes sense for them to hire them, but when the government takes away that option (as Davis-Bacon does for Federal contractors), they have no reason to ever hire low-skilled workers. This is especially pernicious because it prevents said low-skilled workers from acquiring skills to begin with by working, thus trapping them in permanent unemployment.

I am very open to sources verifying your claim.

Well, at the same time one could argue that allowing people to hire people for less from other areas is discriminative for workers living in this area - if all jobs in that area were to be given to cheaper workers from Mexico or wherever, the workers in a respective area would have no jobs - and we both know that they simply can not compete with the wages they pay this cheaper workers - they may be Mexicans in Atlasia, but they pull the same trick here in Europe, just that the cheap workers here are from Romania or Moldavia - and there is a huge difference in the cost of living between Western Europe/Atlasia and SE Europe/Mexico - even if the cheaper workers were paid a fair wage for their are (which in no way they are!), they'd still be far cheaper than "regular" workers in that area - and there is a certain level under which you simply can not go unless you want to loose any commodities you have earned yourself through yearlong bloody hard work. No, this act does not "discriminate" against workers from other areas, this act ensures that people working hard every day with their hands and sweat get paid at least a halfway decent wage.

[Cranberry]

^So you support restricting immigration?

If you were so kind to quote me my remarks about this specific point?
To shorten the process, no, I in no way do. Quite to the contrary, I am opposed to immigration restrictions, as about the only criteria that is considered in the process is the place of birth. And we all know that you can have luck with this place, as all us Senators here did, or you can have no luck, as many people did.
But your imply is probably traceable to the comparison of "cheap" workers from countries like Mexico and Romania and "local" workers I made. As I have stated, I do not oppose them working here in this country, what I oppose is them not being paid an adequate wage, by virtue of them being born in a different place than your average "local" worker. This, Senator, is the real discrimination of foreign-born, "cheap" workers, this is the real racism.