On 10/3/05 6:30 PM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fortunately the original purpose has prectically no relation to DBAs > current purpose, now that racism is no longer in vogue.
I'm still not all that hip on the "it was conceived for the wrong reasons, but now it's OK" line of thinking. I still don't think it's necessary today. It's a bigger concern to me to stress quality and its value to a society. But that¹s the manufacturing engineer in me. > Somewhat true, but even then it kept contractors from competing by > lowering wages, which is what it does today. It also keeps contractors > who hire the unskilled from bidding competitively, since the Gov. > *has* to take the lowest bid. I think that the "lowest bid wins" line of thinking should go to. That would help union jobs more than ANY benefit of DBA. > Yes........and what party did the sponsers belong to?????? > Ah yes......the party that calls itself the "Party Of Lincoln"! > I'm glad you recognise the delicious irony. Racisim is not a one party trait. I didn't look at the party affiliation of the primary sponsors because it would have been a bad correlation. > Ah.......minority businesses get preferential treatment on government > contracts. I've worked for minority contractors and have seen it > firsthand. It is a good thing IMO, but DBA does *not* keep minority > contractors out of the loop since they have other resources to draw I don't like preferential treatment either. But that's another topic... > You've mentioned this a couple of times. I suppose you have never > heard of apprenticeship or "helpers". Jeez....our union takes in > non-union workers all the time (in addition to your regular organizing > campaigns). Of the 9 journeymen working on my job ATM, 3 are organized > hands. Technically, I was organized into apprenticeship, and I have > done organizing work for my local. Yes, I know about apprenticeships. But under DBA work, everybody has to get paid the same wage. So somebody makes money on the apprentice's back. You can call this "paying someone's dues". But historically this has always been the case. For example Ben Franklin's apprenticeship with his brother. >> What was the effect on wages after Bush 41 repealed DBA because of >> Hurricane Andrew? You know there is a history on this if you want >> to >> find it. > > It has been done, but that doesn't make it right, then or now. Nobody had their pay reduced because of it. In fact, jobs were created in the process. It hurt no one. This suspension will hurt no one either. I guess that could be the big danger the union has is; if the DBA is not needed to save jobs, why do we need it? > Sounds like a case of patent infringement. Are you in one of those > situations where skilled labor will not increase efficiency enough to > remain competitive? My company has been around 100 years. Our products are in 85% of America's homes. Most of our stuff has been on the market for more than 25 years. It would take 4 Mexican or 6 Chinese laborers to equal the output of 1 of my union workers. Three words - health care costs. > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in this sentence. If a contractor has a choice of Military, Government, or private industry work, who do you think they will choose? They don't call it government work for nothing, Matthew Bos _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
