Oh...This is really fabulous!

[PrincessFiona]

President Bush issued an executive order Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage.

In a notice to Congress, Bush said the hurricane had caused "a national emergency" that permits him to take such action under the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act in ravaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Bush's action came as the federal government moved to provide billions of dollars in aid, and drew rebukes from two of organized labor's biggest friends in Congress, Rep. George Miller of California and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.

"The administration is using the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to cut the wages of people desperately trying to rebuild their lives and their communities," Miller said.

http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickabili...partnerID=2200

This government sucks...and I'm stickin to that!

kris

I'm sure the Halliburton people are getting below minimum wage or have taken a cut in their normal fees to help out with costs, too.

Right.

[Vanquisher]

Do we really need to add more to the list of reasons to hate our president? What a jacka$$!

You go along in your day thinking he couldn't possibly do anything any more stupid or cruel, and then he comes right along to prove us all wrong. WTG Dubya!

[Rapunzel]

Hold on, hold on. Let's all take a deep breath from the "Bush is Satan" ranting and look at this logically:

By temporarily lowering the prevailing wages in the area contractors will be able to hire more employees. More employees can mean reconstruction projects can proceed much more quickly. Additionally, it is estimated that tens of thousands of people in the area are now without employment. Allowing employers to afford more workers allows more people to get some sort of income to feed their families until the area is restored enough to allow for those tens of thousands of jobs to be brought back into thearea and filled. This action allows companies participatingin reconstruction efforts to get more done in a set amount of time while providing much needed employment to the suddenly unemployed thousands and while keeping the costs of reconstruction (that come from our tax dollars) down as much as possible

Would it be better to hire less of the newly unemployed in the area? Would it be better for the reconstruction projects to take a longer amount of time?

Jennifer

[PrincessFiona]

Would it be better to hire less of the newly unemployed in the area? Would it be better for the reconstruction projects to take a longer amount of time?

Jennifer

Yes, of course it would be if it means better jobs that will allow people to establish themselves again financially, earn aliving wage, buy a home and pay taxes/buy goods...and...lets not forget that they will likely provide better quality work.

I suppose you also support Northwest Airlines request to give their mechanics a 30% paycut so that the CEOs can keep their cushy benefits and salaries while your mechanical work is done by people with less and less training, who make less money and can afford less?

If the workers don't get a minimal sustained salary for this reconstruction, neither should the CEOs.

Imagine your dh's hospital CEO saying...."your salary officially will be going from 100,000 to 66,000. Your living expenses and debt will remain the same, as will your mortgage. Sorry if this is an inconeniece to you, but if you don't comply we'll simply hire other doctors who will except less and will work more. I'm sure that would go over like a ton of bricks.

Capitalism has gone awry in this country and we have lost our sense of values and how this nation was established....on the backs of hardworking people.

I, for one, hope all of these bigwig CEOs from halliburton et al head off for a convention somewhere in the pacific in a plane chartered by Northwest and crash into the depths of the ocean thanks to shoddy repair work done by some underpaid, overworked employee that can't afford to buy a car to get out of New Orleans because he's living hand-to-mouth.

[PrincessFiona]

In case you're wondering, my brother will naturally be affected by this policy. He is working for an agency employed by fema now and instead of getting the initial wage promised before he went out there, he will of course get considerably less.

He might as well have stayed in Dallas and gotten a job at Burger King.

[Rapunzel]

Hmmm.... I was under the impression that the jobs primarily affected in that area would be for construction - as in literally rebuilding the cities in the region. A construction job generally means jobs for locals - we've got a couple of friends who own prosperous construction companies so I get this from reliable sources.

So...I'm not sure where airlines come into play here.

I think that it's a good idea to allow the people in that area the chance to be employed in the face of losing tens of thousands of jobs to a natural disaster as well as allowing the construction companies involved to more easily get the job done quickly. In suspending the Act that Bush temporarily suspended he allows for just that to happen. I know of no Act he could suspend to force CEO's to take cuts in their salaries. I understand your gripe about CEO's and their sky-high incomes, Kris. But, in the end, that is not something Bush has control over. However, he does have tiny bits of leverage to push things back into place in New Orleans including temporarily suspending the Act.

But, this is my logical conclusion based upon what I see in that area. I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning from the White House itself on the matter. I don't know if that reasoning is yet to be forthcoming or if the media is just choosing not to air it.

Jennifer

Would it be better to hire less of the newly unemployed in the area? Would it be better for the reconstruction projects to take a longer amount of time?

Just curious, weren't most of the people that were transported out of the area already unemployed -at what the prevailing rate of pay was- with no means to leave in the first place...which would also result in no means to return, right? With tens of thousands of people in Houston and Dallas and wherever else the "wanted" to go (as opposed to, say, Cleveland or WI!) who is going to bring them back so they can work now? The construction companies?

[PrincessFiona]

Hmmm.... I was under the impression that the jobs primarily affected in that area would be for construction - as in literally rebuilding the cities in the region. A construction job generally means jobs for locals - we've got a couple of friends who own prosperous construction companies so I get this from reliable sources.

clean-up, construction and bridge rebuilding

My brother is supposed to be involved in both clean-up and construction.

I think that it's a good idea to allow the people in that area the chance to be employed in the face of losing tens of thousands of jobs to a natural disaster as well as allowing the construction companies involved to more easily get the job done quickly.

So, you're suggesting that many of these people ravaged by Katrina who are now living in other parts of the country and have got their children enrolled in schools there now, etc who have basically lost everything would prefer a say.....$9/hour job cleaning up excrement, oil and dirt per square foot or doing the hard back-breaking labor of construction while getting the privilege of living in a tent to say.....an $8/job delivering pizza's at pizza hut in Houston? The choice is obvious to me.

In suspending the Act that Bush temporarily suspended he allows for just that to happen. I know of no Act he could suspend to force CEO's to take cuts in their salaries. I understand your gripe about CEO's and their sky-high incomes, Kris. But, in the end, that is not something Bush has control over. However, he does have tiny bits of leverage to push things back into place in New Orleans including temporarily suspending the Act.

So....government intervention is good then? Bush may not be able to sign an act forcing CEOs to take a paycut...but he could come out and discuss it openly and ask that they freely do so.

But, this is my logical conclusion based upon what I see in that area. I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning from the White House itself on the matter. I don't know if that reasoning is yet to be forthcoming or if the media is just choosing not to air it.

Of course not...our 'liberal' media doesn't want to tick of the administration or they won't get invited to the big gala events anymore.

So....government intervention is good then? Bush may not be able to sign an act forcing CEOs to take a paycut...but he could come out and discuss it openly and ask that they freely do so.

OMM!!! He could say that in response to the horrible losses suffered by the people in the Gulf coast he is not accepting his pay and is encouraging others in his situation to divert their incomes for the next 4 months towards reconstruction. Of course, his annual income from being president is only like $250k, and it wouldn't affect his investment income, but wow, that would really show em!

his annual income from being president is only like $250k

I think it was actually raised to $400K...a couple years ago or so...

Really? so a token income is $400K now? Wow, thats almost worth the 24/7 schedule.

[DCJenn]

Well, to subsist in DC, they're saying you have to have an income of at least 65k. But then again, he doesn't have to worry about food, housing, or transportation. I'm guessing that they probably didn't have to pay for the UT or Yale educations, so no school loans there. They did buy the ranch in Crawford, so I'm guessing they'll have a mortgage? A couple of haircuts, maybe a new frock for Laura? Donations to Pat Robertsons Katrina fund?

Exactly what DOES one spend money on when you have to pay for nothing?

(and this applies to all of them, not just GWB. I know the Clintons are paying off 12 years of lawyers and Kerry's wife is loaded but seriously- why exactly are we paying them so much anyway?) Ok, a nice house in Georgetown is easily 2mil, and on Capitol Hill they're easily 1mil. But- really I think the junior senator from Iowa needs that cash more than GWB. Or the newly elected representative. Not Cheney or Hastert (who by the way owns a house 5 houses away from me- but doesn't live there anymore. Guess when you're #3, you shouldn't live in the 'hood.)

Hmmmm.

[HeartRN]

I, for one, hope all of these bigwig CEOs from halliburton et al head off for a convention somewhere in the pacific in a plane chartered by Northwest and crash into the depths of the ocean thanks to shoddy repair work done by some underpaid, overworked employee that can't afford to buy a car to get out of New Orleans because he's living hand-to-mouth.

Ouch.

[PrincessFiona]

I, for one, hope all of these bigwig CEOs from halliburton et al head off for a convention somewhere in the pacific in a plane chartered by Northwest and crash into the depths of the ocean thanks to shoddy repair work done by some underpaid, overworked employee that can't afford to buy a car to get out of New Orleans because he's living hand-to-mouth.

Ouch.

No PMS here