Friday, January 13, 2017

How Davis Bacon Projects Are A Government Albatross

By Frank Collins


Raging controversy has always surrounded labor and the way it is paid, necessitating the passage of acts. These usually sought to amend things, and a law was passed in America before WWII for just worker salaries to be paid by companies to workers when they were contracted. Salaries had to be the same as the standard.

In current settings, the act is still organic to the Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD. However, many contractors avoid serving the so called Davis Bacon projects in that they run counter to company income generating philosophy. The construction field is still mired in contentious litigation because of disagreements over wages provided laborers under the act.

There are also the so called Related Acts which are a set of provisions within the bill for relevant government support through loans, insurance and grants. Because of the way government red tape works, companies do not get these quickly and therefore must catch up with a need for much more finances to survive. These Acts were slated to let companies also have some kind of compensation.

Since its passing, the act has been the provider of low income mass housing projects that are not up to standard. Contractors found a way to stint on materials and other installation needs so that they can pay workers with what was legally demanded of them. But then, even workers today still have problems with the wage coverage and insurance benefits that are supposed to come their way.

The government authorities always try to assure people that mass housing is still a viable way to go for the less privileged. But then, most of the individual beneficiaries do not often have a choice and therefore subscribe to government housing. The other alternative for spending on better kinds of housing is expensive.

The delivery of services along social lines is not a strong suit of the US government. Davis Bacon further exacerbates this weakness in the way it is unable to deliver reliably on the services that it promises to provide. This makes for something that the government needs to answer for and a constant sticking point between it and the population.

People who are enrolled in the HUD programs do not have much of a choice. Housing provided by the private sector at least doubles the money needed for having a home that will not leak when it rains. Owners of these units have the privilege of spending more out of pocket for installs to improve their homes.

In 1979 a report was submitted by the General Accounting Office to the effect that it was no longer viable or relevant. A call was made to repeal it, because of valid reasons concerning the inability of government to deliver on its provisions. However, one fact was missing, and that was the way it was used prejudicial to blacks.

Many states in the nation have also passed their versions of the law in support of national laws. The legislation, however, are not effective in that political blocks have also come up with laws that make them so. There will come a time when congress and the administration will have to make a new act to replace it.




About the Author:



No comments:

Post a Comment