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

Skip to comments.

Obama hiking minimum pay for new federal contracts
Associated Press ^ | Jan 28, 2014 7:40 AM EST | Jim Kuhnhenn

Posted on 01/28/2014 7:29:50 AM PST by Olog-hai

President Barack Obama will sign an executive order setting the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts at $10.10 an hour, the White House said Tuesday. The president will announce the increase during his State of the Union address.

The increase from a national minimum wage of $7.25 an hour will not affect existing federal contracts, only new ones. Moreover, contract renewals will not be affected unless other terms of the agreement change.

The order would be one of the biggest examples in the State of the Union of Obama’s vow to use presidential authority to push for policies by circumventing Congress. …

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 1dontsearch; abuseofpower; executivefiat; executiveorder; federalcontracts; liberalagenda; minimumwage; obama; penandphone; seebreakingnews

1 posted on 01/28/2014 7:29:50 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
RE :”Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a six-term conservative and tea party favorite, said that Obama’s proposal is unconstitutional. “We have a minimum wage. Congress has set it. For the president to simply declare I'm going to change this law that has passed is unconstitutional,” King said Tuesday on CNN.”

If the law really has a set minimum wage then the contractors could take the Federal government to court, although they might not want to.

They could after the fact for damages.

2 posted on 01/28/2014 7:32:48 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'Any path to citizenship for illegals isa special path')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Chavez and the Castros are real proud of the DICTATOR.


3 posted on 01/28/2014 7:33:39 AM PST by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear. -Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I have never seen a government contract that had any minimum wage workers on it as direct charge. But it means an instant raise for all union employees on the contracts as their contract says they are x% above minimum wage.

The government has increased costs in firm-fixed-price contracts. That should be illegal.


4 posted on 01/28/2014 7:34:07 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I have to ask, just curious. Does the president have the authority to do this on his own, without Congressional legislation?

I know the liberals and the media won’t ask this question. I don’t know if John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will ask. But that’s what I really want to know, does this fall in the area of legal executive action?????


5 posted on 01/28/2014 7:34:58 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I don’t get the well-off ranting about income inequality. The obvious course of action for them is to publicly vow that they will never take more money per annum than what the average Joe makes.The Obamas can easilt refuse any more than say $50,000 while President and then refuse all the speaking fees and book deals afterward. People need to call them on this.


6 posted on 01/28/2014 7:35:20 AM PST by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

More ideological delusion from Good King 0. More pandering for votes with no thought about the consequences of his action(s).


7 posted on 01/28/2014 7:36:13 AM PST by szweig (HYHEY!! (Have You Had Enough Yet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“”””RE :”Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a six-term conservative and tea party favorite, said that Obama’s proposal is unconstitutional. “We have a minimum wage. Congress has set it. For the president to simply declare I’m going to change this law that has passed is unconstitutional,” King said Tuesday on CNN.”

If the law really has a set minimum wage then the contractors could take the Federal government to court, although they might not want to.

They could after the fact for damages. “””””””

I won’t stand out in the cold today waiting for him to do anything about it. Huff, puff, cry , cave. Repeat as necessary.


8 posted on 01/28/2014 7:36:39 AM PST by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

OK. Higher mandated wages= higher contract bids= higher government expenditures= even deeper government debt.

I suppose Yo-Mama will now win the Nobel Prize for economics.


9 posted on 01/28/2014 7:38:31 AM PST by Walrus (America died on November 6, 2012 --- RIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Probably not, but Congress ignoring the action is de facto assent, and an attack on the Constitution by both executive and legislative branches. The GOP-e is blatantly complicit.


10 posted on 01/28/2014 7:38:50 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This doesn’t change anything for current Federal Contract workers. It is mostly a symbolic poitical move. The increase can only be applied to new Federal Contracts and the number of workers covered by Federal Contracts that make less than $10.10 per hour is next to zero.


11 posted on 01/28/2014 7:42:27 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; All

This one would be good for a Supreme Court Challenge.


12 posted on 01/28/2014 7:43:06 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This policy obscures the fact that MANY active contracts in the federal government have labor rates in the $100 - $200 p/hour range. This is especially common for IT contracts, but the rates can easily be even higher.

Now assume there are 50 contractors working for one year at those kind of rates...


13 posted on 01/28/2014 7:43:18 AM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
I have never seen a government contract that had any minimum wage workers on it as direct charge. But it means an instant raise for all union employees on the contracts as their contract says they are x% above minimum wage.

Which is the real reason for all the agitation about the minimum wage. The RATS are paying off the unions for the next election cycle.
14 posted on 01/28/2014 7:43:28 AM PST by Dahoser (Separation of church and state? No, we need separation of media and state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

George Bush Forced him into this!..


15 posted on 01/28/2014 7:43:29 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

16 posted on 01/28/2014 7:46:15 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I have to ask, just curious. Does the president have the authority to do this on his own, without Congressional legislation?

Probably, yes. As much as it is being described otherwise, this is not, strictly speaking, a "minimum wage" law. All Obama's EO does (and all he has the Constitutional authority to do) is say that the Federal government will not enter into new contracts with contractors who pay less than $10.10/hr for work done in connection with the contract. The President has pretty broad authority to determine the terms of contracts entered into by the Federal government. That authority is, of course, subject to limits imposed by law, but in this case, he is not violating those limits (e.g., he's not requiring contractors to pay less than the statutory minimum wage), but exceeding them.

17 posted on 01/28/2014 7:49:50 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

the number of workers covered by Federal Contracts that make less than $10.10 per hour is next to zero.

*******
Totally agree with that. The actual labor rate for someone being paid at that level would only be about $25 to $30 (which includes overhead, fringe, G&A & fee). And extremely low labor rates like that are often viewed as unrealistic (i.e., insufficient experience or skills) and can backfire on the offeror. The point is, nobody is paid that low.


18 posted on 01/28/2014 7:53:05 AM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

At the same time that military retirements are being gouged.


19 posted on 01/28/2014 7:53:20 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Thank you. So much is discussed on EO and Obama pushing the envelope. But, if he does have this authority, then we can’t say it’s an illegal power grab. And, if we can elect a GOP president next time, that president can revoke this order.


20 posted on 01/28/2014 7:55:21 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

And what do you base any of that on?


21 posted on 01/28/2014 7:59:06 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

If it is symbolic, then just what is it symbolic of, is the question.


22 posted on 01/28/2014 8:00:03 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

He has no such authority. Bad thing is, there is too much precedent.

The only thing the Constitution says is that the President has to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, section 3, clause 5); that has been abused for a long time as an implication that a POTUS can make executive orders with the power of a royal decree.


23 posted on 01/28/2014 8:07:53 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
And what do you base any of that on?

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution says that "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Part of the "executive power" is entering into contracts, and part of entering into contracts is negotiating/determining the terms of those contracts.

24 posted on 01/28/2014 8:18:59 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

How, exactly, would you propose that the terms of Federal contracts be negotiated? Should every contract be subject to approval by Congress?


25 posted on 01/28/2014 8:19:46 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Absolutely. You trust an executive with that much power?

BTW, thanks for evading my question.


26 posted on 01/28/2014 8:21:13 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Absolutely. You trust an executive with that much power?

BTW, thanks for evading my question.

I didn't evade your question, I answered it - Presidential discretion concerning Federal contracting is a necessary component of the "executive authority." I recognize, as the Framers did, that in order for the President to fulfill his duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (and in order for him to serve effectively as Commander in Chief), he must have the practical ability to take the steps that are necessary in order to execute the laws. That includes entering into contracts on behalf of the Federal government.

Your solution (putting each and every Federal contract up to a vote) would effectively cripple the Federal government, and would make it impossible for the President to fulfill his duties under the Constitution.

Obviously, the size and scope of the Federal government is out of control. There are way too many contracts, and way too many goods and services contracted for. But that's a separate issue.

27 posted on 01/28/2014 8:32:37 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

You evaded the question. This makes a second time.

Whenever someone talks of “crippling” the federal government by insuring the separation of powers (as the framers of the Constitution intended), that is an anti-conservative viewpoint. The federal government was never intended to grow like a cancer, and no, it’s not a separate issue when the POTUS makes a decree to further its growth (a process that you contradict yourself with by decrying the “crippling” of same).


28 posted on 01/28/2014 8:45:01 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

To which my leftist friends reply, “Bush did the same thing with all his ‘signing statements’.

If Rand Paul or Ted Cruz ever becomes prez, I hope the first thing he does is rescind ALL GW’s and BO’s EO’s and SS’s. And vow to not use them any more.


29 posted on 01/28/2014 8:54:13 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I didn’t evade the question. I’ve answered it, twice. And I’m not talking about destroying the separation of powers. I just recognize that there are certain powers that are held by each branch, and that among the powers that are held by the Executive branch is the power to negotiate Federal contracts. Separation of powers doesn’t mean that the Executive branch has no power.

You and I agree that the Federal government is way too big, and that as a result, there are way too many Federal contracts. All I am saying is that, within the limited universe of Federal contracts (which, again, should be much, much MORE limited than it is now), the President has authority to negotiate the terms of said contracts (subject, of course, to restrictions imposed by law).


30 posted on 01/28/2014 8:54:53 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

That’s three times you evaded the question. Where does the President have any such authority?


31 posted on 01/28/2014 8:59:40 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Hi.

Where does the President have any such authority?

He doesn't, plain and simple, but guess how many people are affected by this illegal (see Art 1, Sec 7) executive order? My guestimate is about 12,000 employees, max.

5.56mm

32 posted on 01/28/2014 9:18:10 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This might effect a hundred thousand people at most.

Shouldn’t the millions of democrats who voted for democrats be pissed off that they are not getting a pay raise, while a few privileged “government contractors”, who already are hated because they took jobs from public employee unions, are now going to get a big increase paid for by the taxpayers?


33 posted on 01/28/2014 9:18:31 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

A contractor bidding a new contract won’t fight this, because it is easy to come up with an “excuse” to reject a bid, so they won’t be able to prove it was because of their fight.

Easier to just bid higher for the contract, as everybody will be bidding higher so it will not effect their bid competitiveness.

Then, the government will have to spend more money on each contract, and will therefore sign fewer contracts, or will run out of money and ask congress to appropriate more money.

In most of these cases, congress has given the executive the power to set the terms of contracts, because you don’t normally worry about that level of detail. Congress would probably have to pass a law with the next minimum wage bill that prohibits the executive from requiring any contract to pay more than the minimum wage.

I doubt there is a law that says Obama CAN do it, but he might win the argument that the pay level is a valid part of “negotiating a contract”.


34 posted on 01/28/2014 9:22:39 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dahoser

I doubt any union contracts are tied to the price a president sets for government contract labor.

If the actual minimum wage was increased, THAT would drive up the union costs, and is why they fight for it.


35 posted on 01/28/2014 9:24:14 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It is a power that is an implied part of executive authority; and in many laws, it is an explicit part of the law’s implementation clauses.

Nobody expect the House and Senate to vote on the contract for cleaning services for the NSA offices, for example. Someone working in the executive branch will be tasked with negotiating and signing that contract, and the contract may specify the pay of the workers, and now the contract will say that they expect the workers to be paid $10.10 an hour.

Unless the law authorizing a department explicitly says that no contract will REQUIRE any pay other than minimum wage, it probably is not illegal for the contract to call out a wage.

My guess is there is a law that requires that all executive branch contracts be negotiated in good faith, and to be as cheap as is possible for the government while meeting the requirements. But even that clause would not prevent this, the executive might argue that by paying a higher wage, the job will be done more efficiently, saving money.

There are a myriad of rules in federal contracting, and I doubt they all were specifically included in some legislature.

The sad truth is that no government can work if the executive is so untrustworthy and immoral that you would have to explicitly define everything they can and cannot do. Imagine a general who, before every troop movement, was required first to send a request back to the states so the congress could vote on whether they really want that particular platoon to go into a particular direction.

What stopped most presidents from doing this was collective outrage from the people, fueled by a press which was trying to be egalitarian, to keep government in check. There is no such press today, and frankly what the president could get away with is scary.

Although when a republican wins again, first I doubt the press will let them get away with anything, and second they are likely to be “good” and therefore not game the system or act improperly.


36 posted on 01/28/2014 9:34:15 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Implied where? You mean in the same way that “penumbras and emanations” are “implied” for Roe vs. Wade?


37 posted on 01/28/2014 9:35:44 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
The government has increased costs in firm-fixed-price contracts. That should be illegal.

Breach of contract. Terminate for cause.

38 posted on 01/28/2014 9:41:46 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Implied by the definition of the term “executive”.

Just like you would expect a legislator to write a bill in a form that expresses a problem to be solved, and the specific steps expected to be taken to solve the problem.

Nowhere in the constitution does it mention committees. Are committees unconstitutional? Should the congress only conduct business with the entire body? conference committees are not mentioned either. The constitution simply says that each legislative body can set their own rules.

The executive is supposed to “execute the laws”. That requires the signing of contracts, and contracts have terms, and it is an executive function to shape the terms of contracts.

Is there an explicit law that provides cover for the president to set a specific minimum wage for a contract? I don’t think so, but I also don’t know of any law that says that no contract by the executive can set a wage other than the minimum wage.

I would note that there are many thousands of employment contracts put out for bid; in many cases, they are for specific services.

So I’ll leave you with one example. The government requires an IT team to fix a computer, and rather than paying a company to do it, they decide to contract directly for employment under government control.

So, they put out a bid for a service company to provide a team of three IT people — a lead, and two subordinates. And they specify that the lead will have a salary of $80,000, and the subordinates will be paid $60,000 each.

Do you think that this would be unconstitutional because the wage specified is not “minimum wage”?

Frankly, I think the real message we should be sending here, beyond the “this president is certainly stretching his duties and responsibilities to a ridiculous length for political purposes”, is that this move is meaningless, and beneath the office of the presidency to suggest that doing this will help anybody or accomplish anything.


39 posted on 01/28/2014 9:52:55 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

is this to price out american based companies?


40 posted on 01/28/2014 9:54:36 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

in other words: Obama’s edict is meaningless as an exectutive order to stop the tides.


41 posted on 01/28/2014 9:57:23 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

The definition of the term “executive” is not the same as that of “dictator”. Negotiating and dictating are two different things, and negotiation is not unilateral.

And I think committees are unconstitutional, yes. The USSR had “committees” all over the place, remember, especially the Central Committee, which morphed into the Politburo.


42 posted on 01/28/2014 9:57:35 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I have not evaded the question. I’ve answered it, three times. The President has the authority because it is an inherent part of the President’s Executive authority to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. How can the President faithfully execute the laws without entering into contracts?

You’ve now evaded my question - where does the Congress have any authority to negotiate contracts?


43 posted on 01/28/2014 10:00:46 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

No, you did not answer the question. And this makes a fourth time you did not answer it. Why do you refuse to answer it?

The President can execute the laws without needing to unilaterally dictate the terms of federal contracts—assuming those contracts need to be tendered in the first place. United States vs. Tingey does not explicitly grant any such power to the Executive; but I would say that the Congress is the body to possess such power via the “Necessary and Proper” clause of Article 1 Section 8.


44 posted on 01/28/2014 10:08:56 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
No, you did not answer the question. And this makes a fourth time you did not answer it. Why do you refuse to answer it?

Repeatedly declaring that I did not answer your question, simply because you did not like the answer to your question, makes you look like a petulant child.

Also, I have never said that Congress has NO authority to dictate the terms of Federal contracts. To the contrary, I've repeatedly said that the President's authority is subject to limitations imposed by law. I have simply stated that, where Congress has NOT dictated particular terms of a contract, the President has the authority to negotiate those terms.

Or, as others have asked, must Congress weigh in on the terms of a contract for, say, janitorial services at the NSA offices?

45 posted on 01/28/2014 10:19:35 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

But you didn’t answer the question. It did take you a while to come up with a simple answer.

I do not see how having Congress negotiate the terms (the POTUS isn’t negotiating, remember) of the “janitorial services at the NSA offices” is in any way negative or in any way slowing down the necessary processes of government. Nor do I see where it fits in here.


46 posted on 01/28/2014 10:39:07 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

I’m no expert but most federal contracts I’ve seen have back door clauses for extra billing.


47 posted on 01/28/2014 11:43:00 AM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

There are such federal contracts already - they don’t even mention minimum wage.


48 posted on 01/28/2014 11:45:18 AM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I’d like an executive order to force the temperature to be 50 degrees. Because I love winter, but frankly I’m just a bit tired of the cold.

Kind of sorry I’m driving a Prius now, because we could use a little more global warming.


49 posted on 01/28/2014 7:53:18 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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