Davis–Bacon Act

Davis–Bacon Act

Enacted by the	71st United States Congress
Citations
Public Law	Pub.L. 71-798
Stat.	ch. 411, 46 Stat. 1494
Codification
Legislative history
Signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931
Major amendments
Relevant Supreme Court cases

Sen. James J. Davis (R—PA) and Rep. Robert L. Bacon (R—NY-1), the co-sponsors of the Davis–Bacon Act.

The Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.

The act is named after its sponsors, James J. Davis, a Senator from Pennsylvania and a former Secretary of Labor under three presidents, and Representative Robert L. Bacon of Long Island, New York. The Davis-Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931.^[1]

History

Prevailing wage laws in the U.S. date back as far to 1868 when the Congress passed the National Eight Hour Day and directed its public works contractors to limit work to eight hours per day without any reduction in the rate of pay, which was paid on a daily rate at the time.

The first state level law passed in 1891, when on the state level, Kansas instituted this first such law. Forty-one states followed suit in the years to come. These state laws were the fruit of the "Progressive Era," which instituted statutes such as child labor laws, public schools and workers' compensation insurance.

But it took the worldwide Great Depression -- which at its height saw one out of four Americans unemployed—to fuel the passing of the Davis–Bacon Act by a Republican Congress and a Republican President, Herbert Hoover. Representative Bacon initially introduced the bill after a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in his New York district.^[2] Complaints about "negro" or "colored" labor taking federal construction jobs appear sporadically through the legislation history of both prior bills that anticipated Davis-Bacon,and Davis-Bacon itself.^[3] Beyond that, the legislative history of Davis-Bacon reflects a clear desire by Congress to reserve jobs on federal projects for local workers. Not only did local workers complain about non-locals taking these jobs, but Congressmen were frustrated that their efforts to bring "pork barrel" projects home to their districts did not result in jobs (and therefore political support) from their constituents.^[4]

Opponents to the Davis–Bacon Act have emphasized the racist intent to the law, but critics have countered that this is a red herring, claiming that the law was a sincere attempt to preserve federal jobs for local workers and to maintain local wage standards against migratory workers of any race. Critics dismiss the claim that racist sentiments expressed in the legislative history were a significant factor in the passage of the act.

While Davis-Bacon (and associated "Little Davis-Bacon" state laws) do encourage the hiring of skilled local workers, advocates emphasize that they also work to train young people to become skilled tradesmen and tradeswomen. Despite anti-union criticism, union apprenticeship programs (which Davis-Bacon tends to promote), which were once closed to African Americans, today actively recruit and train minorities^{[citation needed]}.

Union supporters of Davis-Bacon point to a 2002 case known as Brazier Construction vs. Elaine Chao, Secretary of the Department of Labor. In it, Judge William B. Bryant rejected that Davis-Bacon was a Jim Crow law, stating: "Americans of all races were in need of aid from the government during the Great Depression. Congress enacted the DBA (Davis-Bacon Act) to assure workers a fair wage, provide local contractors a fair opportunity to compete for local government contracts and to preserve its own ability to distribute employment and federal money equitably through public works projects." With the claim rejected, the plaintiffs did not appeal. Despite notable attempts to repeal the Davis–Bacon Act, the law for the most part continues to enjoy often bi-partisan local support across the nation.^{[citation needed]}

Controversies

As noted above, it has been argued by critics that this law is a Jim Crow law, claiming that it was passed to prevent African Americans from working on government projects. Congressional representative John Cochran of Missouri said that he supported the Davis–Bacon Act because he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors' employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." ^[5] Congressional representative Clayton Allgood of Alabama said that he supported Davis-Bacon because "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." ^[5]

Modern proponents of the law, however, argue that while elements of racism may have provided some support for the bill, the major motivation was to enable a locality to protect itself economically from "a race to the bottom" in wage rates. Peter Philips and Dale Belman reviewed the legislative history of prevailing wage regulations that culminated in the Davis–Bacon Act and found that a number of the laws were in fact intended to keep out laborers of Northern European ancestry as well as out-of-area workers from the upper Great Plains. ^[6] In a 1971 article in Harper's, Civil Rights Activist Bayard Rustin forcefully dismissed concerns about the racial impacts of prevailing wage laws, calling them a divisive distraction from the real task of building alliances between construction workers of all races.^[7]

Amendments

The Davis–Bacon Act was amended in 1935 to ensure that contractors bidding on public works projects would not lower wages in order to achieve a lower bid; and to permit government agencies, which were required to accept the lowest bids, to employ contractors who paid a fair wage.

The Act was modified again in 1964 to include fringe benefits in the calculation of prevailing wages.

In 1994, the Davis-Bacon act was amended so that the construction, renovation or repair of buildings used by Head Start programs are also subject to the requirements of the Davis–Bacon Act.

Suspensions

In 1934 President Franklin Roosevelt suspended the Act for three weeks in order to manage administrative adjustments in light of the New Deal.

The Davis–Bacon Act was suspended by President Richard Nixon for 28 days in February 1971 in an effort to reduce inflation pressures. Labor Secretary Peter J. Brennan accused the Nixon administration of treating construction workers as patsies. Shortly afterward, Nixon reinstated Davis-Bacon enforcement and ordered the establishment of the Construction Industry Stabilization Committee.

In September 1992 President George H. W. Bush indefinitely suspended the Davis–Bacon Act during the recovery from Hurricane Andrew in 1992. After Bill Clinton became president, he reinstated the Act in March 1993.

On September 7, 2005, President George W. Bush, citing a national emergency, again suspended the Act in the areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. He reinstated it on October 26, 2005.

Efforts to repeal

The Republican Party (GOP) has long been trying to repeal the Davis-Bacon act on the grounds that the regulations are outdated, expensive and bureaucratic. In 1993 Representative Cliff Stearns [1] urged the repeal of the act. Republican Sue Wilkins Myrick tried to repeal it outright in the budget battles of 1995.[2] Weakening it was part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. In February 1999, Representative Ron Paul attempted to repeal it. [3] In 2004, Representative Marilyn Musgrave tried again. The latest effort by the GOP was put forth on January 20, 2011 as part of their over-all effort to cut $2.5 Trillion from the budget over the next 10 years, with the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act claimed to save approximately $1 billion annually.

Hurricane Katrina

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, House Representatives Jeff Flake, Tom Feeney, Marilyn Musgrave, and other members of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) urged President Bush to suspend the Davis–Bacon Act temporarily in order to expedite the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast. [4] [5] President George W. Bush then issued proclamation 7924 to suspend indefinitely the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 (the Davis–Bacon Act) in designated areas in the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi—the areas most heavily hit by the hurricane. [6] [7].

Efforts to repeal suspension

Senators have submitted S. 1749, the Fair Wages for Hurricane Katrina Recovery Workers Act, which would restore Davis-Bacon wage floors for workers involved in the restoration of the Gulf Coast. [8] Similar measures have been submitted to the House with H.R.3684, H.R.3763, and H.R.3834. On October 26, 2005, after pressure from both Democrats and Republicans, Bush rescinded his emergency order and restored the prevailing wage requirement [9]^{[dead link]}.

See also

• McNamara–O'Hara Service Contract Act
• Wage
• Worker's compensation
• Minimum wage
• Living wage
• Prevailing wage

References

1. ^ Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 411, 46 Stat. 1494. 40 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.
2. ^ Bernstein, David E., Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations and the Court from Reconstruction to the New Deal, Duke University Press 2001, ch.3.
3. ^ Bernstein, David E., Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations and the Court from Reconstruction to the New Deal, Duke University Press 2001, ch. 3.
4. ^ Bernstein, David E., Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations and the Court from Reconstruction to the New Deal, Duke University Press 2001, ch. 3.
5. ^ ^{a b} Williams, Walter Congress' insidious discrimination. Jewish World Review March 12, 2003 / 8 Adar II, 5763.
6. ^ The National Alliance for Fair Contracting, Inc. Prevailing Wages. June 04, 2010.
7. ^ Rustin, Bayard. The blacks and the unions. Harper's May 1971.

External links

Descriptive sources on Davis-Bacon

• Davies Bacon Wage Determination Database

Support for Davis-Bacon

• [10] Fact Sheets from the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.]
• UA32PAC Position Paper on "Davis/Bacon, Prevailing Wage"
• [11] Various studies in favor of the Prevailing Wage, as posted by the National Alliance for Fair Contracting.

Opposition to Davis-Bacon

• National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights: opposition group to Davis Bacon Law
• Removing Barriers to Opportunity:A Constitutional Challenge to The Davis-Bacon Act Institute for Justice
• Repeal the Davis Bacon Act of 1931 Walter Williams Capitalism Magazine December 7, 2003
• Pro-labor opposition to Davis-Bacon

Suspension of Davis-Bacon following Katrina

• Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding Hurricane Katrina President George W.Bush briefly suspends Davis–Bacon Act Sept 8, 2005;
• Proclamation by the President: To Suspend Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of Title 40, United States Code, Within a Limited Geographic Area in Response to the National Emergency Caused by Hurricane Katrina September 8, 2005;
• President signs executive order suspending wage law in Katrina wake, Sara R. Parsowith, Jurist Legal News & Research, September 10, 2005;
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act.