We all know that the big money, anti-labor wing of the Republican party generally manipulates its bigot wing to get what it wants. And we have watched these wings clash in the immigration debate. Last week, Kate O'Bierne and George Will launched another attempt to gain political support for their policy goal of ruining the lives of working class US citizens by tricking their party's bigot wing (y'know, the base Mary Cheney panders to while insulting public leaders who stand up for her rights). Specifically, they support illegal immigration because they want to grow the underground market in illegal labor that they don't have to pay minimum wages. This is really their goal: to kill the idea of minimum or living wages once and for all. Please read below the fold...
As we know, the only reason any conservatives support immigration is that they want to exploit immigrants for labor. Indeed, the less documented the immigrants are, the better: they can be more easily exploited and underpaid. It has been close to a decade since we had an increase in the minimum wage for working class US citizens, so the Republicans seem to have won that battle. Having stopped increases, they now seem confident they can destroy the idea of minimum, fair, or living wages once and for all.
Before its passage, Senator Obama attached an amendment to the Senate immigration bill to extend Davis-Bacon Act requirements to all employment of would-be guest-workers. The Davis-Bacon Act requires construction projects using federal funds to pay the prevailing local wages for labor. Applying this requirement to all guest-worker labor completely undermines Republicans' goal of exploitation of labor, as it effectively requires fair wages for them--taking away their price advantage over US citizens who need certain minimum incomes to live in the US. As such, the guest-workers would really be "doing the work Americans won't do"--as the president constantly claims--instead of doing the work for wages no US citizen can afford to live on. The upshot of Obama's amendment: the idea that people who do manual labor deserve wages they can live on survives, US citizens do not lose jobs on account of their US citizenship, and immigrant laborers are protected against exploitative wages.
Here's a short background on Davis-Bacon from an authoritative source, William Whittaker at the Congressional Research Service:
The Davis-Bacon Act (1931)
During the years following World War I, various efforts were made to bring a
greater level of professionalism to the construction industry. However, certain
practices continued that embarrassed the better contractors and complicated the
process of doing business with government. Assessing contractor and worker
credentials posed a problem. Was the firm competent to fulfil the terms of a contract
and were the workers employed by a firm competent workmen? Some contractors
would bid above their level of expertise and, having won a contract on the basis of
the lowest projected costs, would then attempt to draw together a workforce --
sometimes unsuccessfully.
It was also alleged that itinerant contractors would enter a local market, bid on
public construction work, bring onto the worksite a crew from outside the area,
complete the work, and move on. Some of these contractors did excellent work:
perhaps better than local firms could have done -- or were equipped to do. But, it
appears, there were also firms that were less-than-competent and to whom the
opprobrious title, fly-by-night operators, was given. In either case, outside firms
came under attack during the 1920s -- increasingly so as the Great Depression
dawned and as local companies and their employees became desperate for work.
As the federal government commenced major expenditures for public buildings
and public works, the broader -- more abstract -- issue of fairness (in terms of
wages, hours and conditions of work) combined with wage-based economic
competition as an issue of public policy. In part, the federal construction program
was intended to spur the economy of depressed areas by providing jobs for local
workers and contracts for local contractors. But, it appears, outside contractors, working with imported low-wage crews, would often underbid local firms and, once [PAGE CRS-4] having finished the immediate project, would move on. 8 The economic impact sought from the work was, thus, defused: the effort to provide work (and contracts) for distressed communities, frustrated. But, public contracting activity of the 1920s and 1930s needs further exploration. How frequently, for example, did outside contractors compete with local firms on an unfair basis, however defined? What were their labor practices? The quality of work of the respective firms and the economic/cost implications of dealing with local or outside contractors needs assessment. Much of what is asserted with respect to this period appears to be anecdotal.
Davis-Bacon Enacted. In 1931, as an emergency measure urged by
President Herbert Hoover, Congress adopted the Davis-Bacon Act (P.L. 71-798).9
It mandated that not less than the locally "prevailing rate of wages for work of a
similar nature" had to be paid on construction work to which the federal government
(or the District of Columbia) was a party. No specific rate was set; but the act
provided:
... in case any dispute arises as to ... the prevailing rates of wages for work of a
similar nature applicable to the contract which can not be adjusted by the
contracting officer, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of Labor for
determination and his decision thereon shall be conclusive on all the parties to
the contract.
In effect, the initial determination was left to the parties (to the contractor and the
workers) and only secondarily to the Secretary of Labor. In that manner, Congress
sought to end the wage-based competition from the fly-by-night operators, to stabilize the local contracting community, and to protect workers from unfair exploitation. Employers could compete on the basis of efficiency, skill, or any other factor except wages. Substantively, the act was contained in one relatively brief paragraph.
Still, the ever-insufferable Kate O'Bierne laments Senator Obama's amendment as a bad thing:
Among the little-noticed provisions in the Senate bill is one that shatters the economic rationale for millions of new unskilled, affordable foreign workers. When a bill depends on Democratic votes for passage, the unions are empowered to transform the business community's demand for "cheap labor" into a guarantee that guest-workers will be among the most costly labor in the workforce.
The bill extends Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage" provisions--typically the area's union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law--to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats' union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.
And the ever-disingenuous George Will has gone to the extreme of trying to rationalize that taking exploitative wages for immigrant labor off the table and putting immigrants on a level playing field with US citizens is unfair to US citizens! As he said in the last 15 minutes of This Week,
I almost think the Senate wanted to poke a stick in the eye of the House and make them reject it. Why else would they put that stuff in there about Davis-Bacon. . . . Immigration now occurs in the context of an enveloping welfare state and a whole system of entitlements. Davis-Bacon says a prevailing wage shall be paid to workers on federal projects, except the Senate bill makes it better for immigrants than it does for native Americans by saying they should be paid this by certain occupations, not just on federal projects!
OK, so to summarize: by putting a floor on the wages immigrant laborers can be paid, US citizen laborers are somehow put at a disadvantage. Also, George Will let slip that he feels that Americans who were not born here have taken advantage of native Americans. Perhaps someone should follow up on that with him!
Incidentally, it is noteworthy that the would-be guest-worker's analogue in the professional ranks, who require non-immigrant work visas (H-1B), already have an arguably more stringent requirement: their employer-sponsors are required to file Labor Condition Applications to show that the hiring does not displace any US citizen and that the hiree will be paid a prevailing wage. Immigration and Naturalization Act Sec. 212(n)(1).
Hmmm . . . . So, US citizens in white collar professions get wage protections against competition from immigrants and Kate O'Bierne and George Will don't seem to mind. But they do mind when US citizens in blue collar professions get wage protections against competition from immigrants--protection that actually has a secondary effect of protecting said immigrants from exploitation.
That sounds about right for the Republican party.