Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Documents confirm White House pushing pro-union contracting policies
The Daily Caller ^ | 02/23/10 at 3:53 pm | Gautham Nagesh

Posted on 02/23/2010 1:41:26 PM PST by Former Military Chick

Documents obtained by The Daily Caller confirm the White House is seriously considering adopting a series of proposals that would favor unionized companies bidding on federal contracts. The documents acknowledge the proposals are likely to increase the cost of government contracting and the size of the bureaucracy.

The proposals, collectively known as “High Road Contracting Policy,” were first reported earlier this month. The basic elements of the policy would give preference to companies bidding on federal contracts that pay their hourly workers a “living wage” and provide health insurance, employer-funded pension plans and paid sick days.

Following the report Republicans slammed the proposal, with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma referring to it as “backdoor card check.” Other critics, led by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, worry the new rules would increase the cost of government contracting by as much as 20 percent, or more than $100 billion annually, while further slowing the procurement process.

Proponents of the proposals, including the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute, argue government contracting should be used as a vehicle for expanding the middle class and many of the workers that would be impacted by the changes end up costing the government more through public assistance programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. David Madland of CAP also pointed to studies on the state and local level that show no cost increase following the implementation of similar policies.

However, in a draft of the policy obtained by The Daily Caller the administration acknowledges the proposals would increase contracting costs as well as the size of the bureaucracy. By the administration’s calculations the proposals would impact as many as 26 million people:

“Some part of the resulting increase in labor costs is likely to be passed on to the government in the form of higher bid prices … In addition, modest staff increases may be necessary to administer the policy.”

The document says those increases would be offset by savings on public assistance, productivity gains and increased price competition. Glenn Spencer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce disagreed.

“One worry would be that some companies decide it’s just not worth it to engage in government contracting,” Spencer said. “What’s a little bit disturbing about [the proposal] is that it doesn’t require you to pay the higher wages and additional benefits just to workers on a specific contract, but to every employee in country. The impact on employers is likely to be far greater than actual cost of contracting. On that, it’s pretty clear costs will go up.”

EPI vice president Ross Eisenbrey pointed out that may federal contractors earn hourly wages below the poverty threshold and argued that preference should be given to companies that pay higher wages and provide other benefits.

“By favoring [high road companies] we would lift the entire workforce, which as we know has been suffering wage declines and stagnation for decades,” Eisenbrey said.

When contacted with regards to the documents, some of which are dated August 2009, a spokesperson for Vice President Biden sent the following:

“We are not certain of the origins of this memo, but it appears to be a broad examination of the landscape surrounding these issues; it is out of date and not reflective of the current policy review ongoing in the administration. The president made it clear that he is committed to reforming government contracts to save taxpayers money while protecting workers and the environment. The administration is currently gathering data and examining the best ways to do this.”

Several observers have pointed out that the measures appear to be aimed at boosting organized labor, which has been dealt a series of setbacks in recent months. Union membership is at its lowest point in decades, making the $500 billion federal contracting market attractive grounds for expansion.

“Would it be advantageous for unions? That depends,” Eisenbrey said. “Yeah, I think it’s possible that union firms could benefit. I would hope that they would, that they’re winning contracts that provide paid sick leave and health benefits and so forth.”

The Service Employees International Union is one of the groups most actively lobbying on behalf on the proposals but has declined multiple requests for comment in recent weeks. Spencer said organized labor is pressing for the administration to take action on this and other labor issues without involving Congress.

“Unions have had a hard time advancing some of their issues through Congress,” Spencer said. “They’ve found some of their ideas they’d like to implement are not all that popular on the Hill. Right now they’re not that popular on the Hill. They’re trying to work every angle they can to get some of this stuff done.”

The documents also confirm that a central office would be responsible for collecting and evaluation the labor practices of all companies bidding on federal contractors. The office would then assign a score that contracting officers would have to take into account during the award process.

Every agency would also have a labor standards advocate that would “have the authority to vary this score to a reasonable extent, taking into account bidders’ credible commitments to implement good labor standards on the contract in question.” Critics contend the process would become a de facto screening for unionized companies.

“The implications are not just for federal contractors across entire work force, but also state and local governments,” Spencer said. “It does appear to be an effort to impose some fairly ambitious social policies across wide swaths of the economy without having to resort to legislation.”


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; agenda; bho44; bhounions; february; obama; unions
Several observers have pointed out that the measures appear to be aimed at boosting organized labor, which has been dealt a series of setbacks in recent months. Union membership is at its lowest point in decades, making the $500 billion federal contracting market attractive grounds for expansion.

This is yet another despicable underhanded political decision by this administration.

There are more than just unions in this country. Union thug leader's say republicans should be glad that they are protecting the middle class, NO THEY ARE DOING THIS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS!!

Something really needs to be done about union's, and their influence on the democratic party.

BTW, I give huge props to TheDailyCaller.com as a new news organization for getting these documents and laying it out for American's.

Leave it to Biden's staff to tapdance around the question.

1 posted on 02/23/2010 1:41:26 PM PST by Former Military Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Just tryin’ to squeeze out the non-union, non-illegal immigrant middle-class people who want to work hard and keep their families off welfare.


2 posted on 02/23/2010 1:43:39 PM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
"Documents obtained by The Daily Caller confirm the White House is seriously considering adopting a series of proposals that would favor unionized companies bidding on federal contracts."

Well duh! Obama signed an executive order the first month in office to that effect!

3 posted on 02/23/2010 1:44:34 PM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; ...

The list, ping


4 posted on 02/23/2010 1:46:57 PM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Thus the “keep your eye on the Evil, Fat Cat Cankers and my insane push for legislation which almost no American wants” ploy.


5 posted on 02/23/2010 1:54:27 PM PST by cake_crumb (Can we impeach him NOW??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb

Excellent comment, I will have to remember it. Thanks.


6 posted on 02/23/2010 2:01:20 PM PST by Former Military Chick (Please pray for our troops as they selflessly serve in harm's way say an extra one for my beloved!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Thursday, February 11, 2010

“High Road Contracting Policy” Could Change How Government Contractors Compensate Their Employees

According to an article posted on the DC Crawler website

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/04/white-house-considers-pro-labor-policy-for-government-contractors/

, the “Obama administration is considering a proposal that would heavily favor government contractors that implement policies designed by organized labor.”

Under current policy, government contracts are awarded based on an analysis of price, past performance, and the ability to meet the contract’s specific requirements. The proposal, dubbed the “High Road Contracting Policy,” would give preference to labor-friendly contractors that provide its workers with wages and benefits over and above what is required under existing laws. Specifically, a procurement preference would be given to employers that provide its workers with a “living” wage, to include, at a minimum, health insurance, employer-funded retirement plan, and paid sick days. Contractors found to have violated labor laws would be restricted, and possibly barred, from being awarded federal contracts.

The Department of Labor would be responsible for examining the labor records of federal contractors, giving it unprecedented power and influence over the federal procurement process.

Critics contend that the proposal would introduce an arbitrary variable into the procurement process and raise the price tag on federal contracts. Stay tuned.


7 posted on 02/23/2010 2:04:10 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Wasn’t ACORN embarrassed awhile back for not paying a living wage? Am I remembering this correctly?


8 posted on 02/23/2010 2:04:34 PM PST by married21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

“Documents obtained by The Daily Caller confirm the White House is seriously considering adopting a series of proposals that would favor unionized companies bidding on federal contracts.”

In other news, water is wet and Michelle Obama has a fat ass!


9 posted on 02/23/2010 2:14:29 PM PST by Batman11 (Sarah Palin: "Illegal immigrants are called illegal for a reason!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
The documents acknowledge the proposals are likely to increase the cost of government contracting and the size of the bureaucracy.
Thanks Former Military Chick.
10 posted on 02/23/2010 2:34:23 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Happy New Year! Freedom is Priceless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Thats one way for boeing to win the tanker competition. That division of NG is non union.


11 posted on 02/23/2010 2:35:05 PM PST by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

ping for later


12 posted on 02/23/2010 2:39:43 PM PST by Bush_Democrat (Ex-Dem since 2001 *Folding@Home for the Gipper - Join the FReeper Folders*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Obama is 80 years too late. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 already assures that the federal government will pay top dollar for all projects. The Department of Labor Wage Determinations set the pay scale and benefits for all federal public works jobs. There is no relationship to value or regional prevailing wages in the determinations in spite of representations to the contrary. Both union and non-union contractors must pay the minimum wages and benefits stipulated by the feds.
The idea of saving the government is just another one of Obama’s many lies.


13 posted on 02/23/2010 2:42:41 PM PST by RLM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
David Madland of CAP also pointed to studies on the state and local level that show no cost increase following the implementation of similar policies...

Like a similar situation with labor union preferences with the Big Dig? And, the higher costs were not just during the contracts... but well after, when shoddy work became quite apparent, even killing an innocent woman.

14 posted on 02/23/2010 2:45:45 PM PST by C210N (A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Yay for Senator Coburn in blasting this proposal. He is consistent in fighting pork.


15 posted on 02/23/2010 2:55:42 PM PST by katiedidit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
and America takes another one in the........

16 posted on 02/23/2010 2:56:44 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLM
Obama is 80 years too late. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 already assures that the federal government will pay top dollar for all projects. The Department of Labor Wage Determinations set the pay scale and benefits for all federal public works jobs. There is no relationship to value or regional prevailing wages in the determinations in spite of representations to the contrary. Both union and non-union contractors must pay the minimum wages and benefits stipulated by the feds.

Yep. I work for a small, private company and we're *required* to meet Davis Bacon prevailing wage on all jobs over a certain dollar amount. It usually means the Post Office pays out the rear. We can do things the sane way, but it's out of the question for them.

17 posted on 02/23/2010 3:06:58 PM PST by grimalkin (This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read. - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
 
Relevant video collection -
 
 
Obama SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda - 2007 speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM
 
 
Obama Leads SEIU Chant After Vowing to Paint the Nation Purple - 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQj-xBH30-I
 
 
Friends in Low Places: President Barack Obama and ACORN Are BFFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFSY2dnTSZQ
 
 
Ranking Member Issa discusses his Team Oversight investigation and explosive video exposing President  Barack Obama's long-denied ties to disgraced community organizing group ACORN. - Monday Feb. 22, 2010 Fox News Channel's Hannity Program broadcast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBWRgKQfiY
 
 

18 posted on 02/23/2010 3:15:51 PM PST by lapsus calami (What's that stink? Code Pink ! ! And their buddy Murtha, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Obama: Say one thing to the cameras, but do the complete opposite when he turns his back..


19 posted on 02/23/2010 3:24:41 PM PST by Beaten Valve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

20 posted on 02/23/2010 3:51:10 PM PST by GalaxieFiveHundred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Pay your taxes.

A bunch of overpaid union thugs sitting on their asses desperately need the money. :)


21 posted on 02/23/2010 4:14:41 PM PST by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

“EPI vice president Ross Eisenbrey pointed out that may federal contractors earn hourly wages below the poverty threshold...”

BS. No skilled trade gets paid “below poverty level.” In the private sector, they are paid what they are worth. No less for the government, no more, either.


22 posted on 02/23/2010 4:22:17 PM PST by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

“Something really needs to be done about union’s,...”

Sarah Palin


23 posted on 02/23/2010 5:08:00 PM PST by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Same thing the UAW is doing to Toyota. The UAW is in the background with Obama’s goons doing the dirty work.


24 posted on 02/23/2010 5:45:48 PM PST by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

>“Something really needs to be done about union’s,...”
>
>Sarah Palin

The unions own Sarah Palin?
{”’s” is the possessive (or possibly the contraction of “[word] is”), not the pluralizer.}


25 posted on 02/23/2010 5:50:43 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RLM
Yes, but this goes beyond Davis-Bacon.

Notice that it also includes a description of benefits including health insurance and a pension plan.

26 posted on 02/23/2010 6:03:16 PM PST by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

That was quote from the poster I was responding to, duh.


27 posted on 02/23/2010 6:29:38 PM PST by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

EVERTHING this administration does is clearly aimed at destroying the American Economy.


28 posted on 02/23/2010 6:56:46 PM PST by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

Take a look at Pelosi’s campaign contributors thus far for 2010 at opensecrets.com. Unions are her friends.


29 posted on 02/23/2010 7:00:10 PM PST by Thidwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

It was revealed just recently that the government is the biggest source of unions (and union money to Rats) in the nation. Naaaa, it’s just a coincidence that Rats favor bigger government.


30 posted on 02/23/2010 7:02:03 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Truth - Reality through the eyes of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
EPI vice president Ross Eisenbrey pointed out that may federal contractors earn hourly wages below the poverty threshold and argued that preference should be given to companies that pay higher wages and provide other benefits.

What an udder crock!

31 posted on 02/23/2010 7:47:08 PM PST by torchthemummy (No Obama: Not Because He's Black But Because He's Red)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

I’m sure there will be a clause in there for a 1:3 worker to supervisor ratio.


32 posted on 02/23/2010 7:59:49 PM PST by ledzep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

RE: “Under current policy, government contracts are awarded based on an analysis of price, past performance, and the ability to meet the contract’s specific requirements.”

ahem... let us not forget that GOV, DOD, and the SBA give preference and in some cases set asides to minority owned businesses. Taking tax payer monies and redistributing it versus simply cutting taxes tends to by default favor subsidizing affirmative action intiatives more than it does economic recovery premised upon capitalist principles...


33 posted on 02/23/2010 10:11:11 PM PST by DBeers ( †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

IMHO, federal contracts are the “people’s” contract and let the lowest and best get the job. That would normally precluded unions, which is a good thing!


34 posted on 02/24/2010 5:10:04 AM PST by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012! 2012 - The End Of An Error!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLM

Isn’t that how we ended up paying for $900.00 hammers?


35 posted on 02/24/2010 5:44:56 AM PST by 3catsanadog (If healthcare reform is passed, 41 years old will be the new 65 YO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Study: States must fill $1 trillion pension gap http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35448576/ns/us_news-life HARRISBURG, Pa. - States may be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes or slash government services to address a $1 trillion funding shortfall in public sector retirement benefits, according to a new study that warns of even more debilitating costs if immediate action isn't taken. Another time bomb waiting to go off. I've been reading this for years. Gubermint unions are bankrupting our country...it' s us VS. them (private sector against public) --nowhere is it more true than CA an NY. They are the models of our pending demise. don't expect in government to take any serious action . http://www.pensiontsunami.com/public.php

36 posted on 02/24/2010 6:14:51 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

ugh


37 posted on 02/24/2010 6:44:38 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

38 posted on 02/24/2010 8:46:31 AM PST by americanophile (Good luck Team USA! Bring home the gold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson