It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Proclamation by the President: 1931 Davis-Bacon Act Suspended

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
the whole damned area is either flattened or neck deep in a toxic sewer...you don't need any incentive to create work, there's years of work ahead of them...it's another corporate hand out pure and simple.


Nope grover, as I tried to point out earlier, this is more nearly a backdoor handout of taxpayer money to the displaced and unemployed workers of the disaster area than anything else and as such it's a damned shrewd move on the part of the administration. Admittedly whichever companies these contracts (which will invariably be one of three types--cost plus fixed fee; cost plus incentive fee, or time and mterials) are funneled through will make a profit from them, but the profit margins on those types of contracts are pretty slim.




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
How is this a move on the presidents part to create more job and rebuild an entire economy by slashing the wage constructions workers will be paid? If you are insinuating the failed economics of Reagen, then apriorism dicates how far that economic ideology went.

Luxifero


No, I am not "insinuating the failed economics of Reagen." Have you looked at what these poor people were earning before the storm? In many cases, the likely wages that will be paid will be 3, 4, or 5 times more than they were earning before. A great deal of pressure will be put on the wage structure of the entire area--they'll go up--and the average worker there will benefit as a result.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sugarlump
Funny isn't it how the davis bacon prevailing wages law was suspended AFTER they gave halliburton a clean up contract isn't it?
Now some of you might knee jerk react and say this is just another example of some peoples wish to see ill intent in everything this administration does. But the plain fact is this, that contract was awarded when davis bacon was still in effect meaning the prices were based on the assumption that the prevailing wage was going to be paid to said workers. Somehow I just don't think halliburton will hand the money back. I am sure however they will gladly use this as a bludgeon on the out of state subcontractors they hire to do the actual work.


Sugrlump if you'll look at some of the earlier posts, you'll see that the contract(s) previously awarded can't charge one man/hour rate and pay another. Besides, the very nature of the contracts means the work gets defined and performed as needed. Which is to say, there has been no massive up front contract cost. Yes, the contract(s) were awarded previously, but very little money (if any) will have been allocated to them and it won't be until specific work is identified and funded.

I don't mean to imply this entire process will be pretty, because it won't. There is usually a single contract officer assigned to oversee & administer the contract, define the work to be performed, etc., but in this case there will be many contracting officers because the work is simply to geographically separated and undefined for one man to do it all. There will be some confusion and chaos and mayby even some unnoticed duplication, etc. that will result. Invariably, there may even be some cheating, graft and corruption that takes place, but overall, federal contracting rules and regulations will be followed and that will mostly protect the taxpayers.

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Astronomer,

You can think what you would like, but the fact remains that I have in fact worked on several federal government contract construction jobs. I am not speaking from the point of a layman, I have done the paperwork, chaired the safety meetings and seen the unholy profit margin when we finished ahead of schedule and under budget. I have also seen the reps sign off on time cards to make sure the guys get their share of the booty so to speak. However without the protection of this act the only people you will see benefitting are already making high 5 to high 7 figure incomes already and hold stock in said corporations.

What I said was not speculation on my part but actual first hand knowledge of how it really is on the ground on one of these jobs. You can think what you like about the copious amount of regulations and the way things are by law SUPPOSED to work. However I prefer to deal in the reality of how things DO work.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sugarlump
Astronomer,

You can think what you would like, but the fact remains that I have in fact worked on several federal government contract construction jobs. I am not speaking from the point of a layman, I have done the paperwork, chaired the safety meetings and seen the unholy profit margin when we finished ahead of schedule and under budget. I have also seen the reps sign off on time cards to make sure the guys get their share of the booty so to speak. However without the protection of this act the only people you will see benefitting are already making high 5 to high 7 figure incomes already and hold stock in said corporations.


Sounds like you were employed on a fixed price contract. Those things do allow profit margins up to around 15% if the work is done ahead of schedule and under projected cost. It also sounds like the company you worked for (at least on the actual job you were apparently on) was committing fraud. I won't deny that happens, there are greedy people everywhere. Sounds like the workers were getting paid more than they should have by padding their time cards--again, that's fraud--to get extra money (which strangly sounds like they benefitted).



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
No on a fixed contract bids are supposed to be set at 15% profit margin, (not including parts surcharge, company truck on site charges, tool rentals, etc.) And whatever is left over is yours to keep.

And thank you btw for accusing me of fraud, and totally ignoring my point. Which was simply that the paperwork ALWAYS gets massaged. I was trying to inject some reality into your misconceptions.

I have read the rules and know how it is supposed to work and if it worked that way in theory I would not have a terrible problem with this. But the difference between the real world and section 3 paragraph two of some guidelines, and my own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE lead me to believe that this will not benefit anyone other than the shareholders of the big corporatiosn getting the contracts and subcontracting them out.

Further I am not trying to make this a partisan issue, we both know all sitting administrations throw out sweet heart deals to their benefactors. What I was trying to do was explain the outrage, Rightfully felt in my opinion, this news will most assuredly evoke.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Sugarloaf, I have to agree with you on this one. And Haliburton, despite the "fact" that Dick Cheney is "no longer associated with them" does seem to have an edge over even the GAO when it comes to billing and getting paid for the contracts they hold.

Example given, does anyone recall this story? (taken from the Boston Globe, www.boston.com...)


Audit questions $1.4b in Halliburton bills--Expenses at issue from Iraq contracts
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Internal Pentagon audits have flagged about $1.4 billion in expenses submitted by Halliburton Co. for services the firm is providing in Iraq, charges that include $45 cases of soda, $100-per-bag laundry service, and several months preparing at least 10,000 daily meals for a US military base that the troops did not need and ultimately went to waste, according to a report released yesterday by congressional Democrats.
The Defense Contract Audit Agency, which reviews Pentagon contracting, identified $1.03 billion in Halliburton invoices that it questioned as excessive, and an additional $442 million in expenses the company reported that the agency deemed to be insufficiently documented, according to the report.


The upshot? The feds are paying the disputed bills, just like they did in prior instances.

And how is it, with Cheney no longer at the helm at Haliburton, that they are getting these contracts in the first place? They are the last company on earth that deserves another spot feeding at the public trough! To see what I am referring to, take a look at this long list of Halbiurton-related scandals:
www.corpwatch.org....

Oh, and did I mention Cheney is no longer working for Haliburton? Well, someone should have told the finance department there...


Until 2000, Halliburton was headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney. On April 15, Cheney released his 2004 tax return. It showed that he received $194,852 in deferred payments from Halliburton, only slightly less than the $203,000 he earned as vice-president.


Here is the source article: www.aljazeerah.info... Opinion Editorials/May/4o/The big businesses of war, Haliburton and Bechtel, Making a killing in Iraq By Doug Lorimer.htm

And being able to cut workers' pay is somehow a windfall for employees who will work to rebuild New Orleans? I haven't heard a joke that funny since the story about how the fires from "hijacked" planes demolished the World Trade Center...who writes this material? He or she should be on TV!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sugarlump

I have read the rules and know how it is supposed to work and if it worked that way in theory I would not have a terrible problem with this. But the difference between the real world and section 3 paragraph two of some guidelines, and my own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE lead me to believe that this will not benefit anyone other than the shareholders of the big corporatiosn getting the contracts and subcontracting them out.


Sugarlump I'm not throwing rocks at you. I too have been around the block a few times and I also know how these things work. I've already stipulated the process won't be pretty. However, when you a take a wage earner from the disaster area (many of whom were only earning $10,000 or less a year) and give thim jobs where they can earn a hell of a lot more than that then those workers are benefitting. Yes, the bigwigs will benefit more. Yes the corporate stockholders will see their stock values go up. I can't stop that, but in this case I'm willing to put up with it just to see the NO area workers get a break.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
``
i wonder if all those named areas, Louisiania, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida
are now, in a-sense, 'Federalized' ?
because there is now Wage controls, at least with government contractors engaged in the cleanup.

*[ I have a sneaking suspicion that the LA Governor was reluctant to
have New Orleans 'Federalized', and that was part of the 'delay',
until the Fed. leveraged all the consessions it desired, before sending
rescue forces etc.- - - to save the soon-to-be displaced-persons - - -

But that 'Orleans Parish' specific negotiation, rescue via Federalization...
needed to be expanded to the whole Disaster-Relief-Area,
so an Executive Order was needed for all the counties in 4 states ]

* this is pure speculation

.....related item, more-or-less.....

however, trying to search out what might be going on at New Orleans
i looked at: (http)://www.fema.org/rrr/dec_guid.shtml

did a FEMA Search: Federalization of Cities

clicked this search result;
Transforming Government: The Renewal and Revitalization of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

www.fema.gov...


i got this PDF document, 32 pages long...
kinda enlightening, it even has some case studies of how Federalization
worked or needed improvement in some cities, towns after the Alaskan Earthquake event....
i'm sure the Federalization of New Orleans has very fine print and is probably sealed or will be very, very difficult to be made public.

FYI-> Hurricane Hugo- in 1989 & Hurricane Andrew- in 1992
Both also had 6 day delays to implement the rescue forces,
just like Katrinas' delay time...
(so, there was NO improvement in rescue deployments)

??I just wonder WHY ya'll assume that the flooded sections of New Orleans
are going to be rebuilt for all those poverty inhabitants to return to...
They're GONE, evicted, chased outta town, purged, extracted, there's no
replacement Ghetto planned on the Federalized land...which is presently unsuitable for building upon.... as its a Super-Contaminated-Toxic site now under Federal controls



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by without_prejudice


Until 2000, Halliburton was headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney. On April 15, Cheney released his 2004 tax return. It showed that he received $194,852 in deferred payments from Halliburton, only slightly less than the $203,000 he earned as vice-president.


Here is the source article: www.aljazeerah.info... Opinion Editorials/May/4o/The big businesses of war, Haliburton and Bechtel, Making a killing in Iraq By Doug Lorimer.htm


The URL I mentioned above is too long to work as a "clickable" link. My attempt to shorten it by replacing "%20" with spaces unfortunately didn't work....

To read the editorial detailing the opportunistic, hypocritical, and innapropriate business dealings of the company Dick Cheney once headed, Haliburton, and the company once run by George Herbert Walker Bush, Bechtel, just select, copy, and paste the above URL into your browser.




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yeah we gotta help those federal contractors maintain their profit margins...to hell with the people...thats typical republican attitude for you. And still they have managed to bull# the working class to vote for them when they are the ones always getting screwed. Go figure.


Hummm....I just see at least a couple of people baiting Republicans to another "cat fight"....

I thought this was a no no with the new rules.... I guess as long as you don't bait Democrats/liberals etc everything is fine and it is not baiting, or breaking any of the new rules....



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
No matter how you sugar coated and try to make sense of it, it stinks, what the white house is doing is giving the corporation that will be doing the reconstruction another blank check to play around.

The are taking advantage of the ravages areas that are mostly of people that are poor, mostly black.



No they are not taking advantage of anything. In reality suspending the act will create more jobs for the poor. See back ground info here. And do make sure you read most if not all, it explains the process very well and shows this is not the first time it has been suspended.

www.ij.org...



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Thank you shots for posting that link on the Davis-Bacon Act. I was very reluctant to bring up the Union links to that act because I knew I would get flamed by all the knee jerk reactionaries on this thread and I did not have the info to back up my opinion about it. Your link is about the clearest analysis of it I have ever read, so thanks again.

Also thank you Muaddib for helping to fend off the name calling and general degradation of civility.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Hummm....I just see at least a couple of people baiting Republicans to another "cat fight"....

I thought this was a no no with the new rules.... I guess as long as you don't bait Democrats/liberals etc everything is fine and it is not baiting, or breaking any of the new rules....


Hilarious! Can I use that as my sig?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
No they are not taking advantage of anything. In reality suspending the act will create more jobs for the poor. See back ground info here. And do make sure you read most if not all, it explains the process very well and shows this is not the first time it has been suspended.


Great Link shots!
So if I read this right, one of the main reasons that companies like Haliburton get these huge government contracts is that they are one of the few businesses that have the resources to comply with laws like Davis-Baker and still turn a profit. Kind of makes you think doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Here's the link to the article that without_predjudice posted:

The big businesses of war, Haliburton and Bechtel, Making a killing in Iraq



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I was in New Orleans yesterday

Pic-phone? Pics? Come on man, don't hold out!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Thank you shots for posting that link on the Davis-Bacon Act. I was very reluctant to bring up the Union links to that act because I knew I would get flamed by all the knee jerk reactionaries on this thread and I did not have the info to back up my opinion about it. Your link is about the clearest analysis of it I have ever read, so thanks again.


No problemo, Happy to help Astromer like you I hate all these knee jerk reactions.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
Great Link shots!
So if I read this right, one of the main reasons that companies like Haliburton get these huge government contracts is that they are one of the few businesses that have the resources to comply with laws like Davis-Baker and still turn a profit. Kind of makes you think doesn't it?


Does not make me think JIM; that is what I and others have been trying to tell these die hard Chaney and Bush bashers for a long time, they are the only companies (Halbiruton and its subsidiaries) with the resources available on such a short notice. Unfortunately they refuse to admit they are wrong



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Here's the link to the article that without_predjudice posted:

The big businesses of war, Haliburton and Bechtel, Making a killing in Iraq


Boy that link was good for a laugh. It is probably one of the most biased sources around and the article was an opinion, so means nothing yet without_predjudice posted it as fact



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Does not make me think JIM; that is what I and others have been trying to tell these die hard Chaney and Bush bashers for a long time, they are the only companies (Halbiruton and its subsidiaries) with the resources available on such a short notice. Unfortunately they refuse to admit they are wrong


To be perfectly honest I don't care much for companies like Bechtel and Haliburton. The thing that these people don't understand is that laws like Davis-Bacon were passed in order to make the unions happy. These laws make it almost impossible for independant companies to bid for these contracts, making it a matter of necessity that the contracts go to companies like Haliburton. What cracks me up is that the Democrats have been in the union's pockets for decades and when they are in power they create laws like Davis-Bacon, then when they are not they complain about Haliburton. That's kind of like feeding the gator and then being mad when he bites your hand off.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join