Talk:Davis-Bacon Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] United States Code

The article states that it is 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148, but that code wasn't present in FindLaw. The closest I could find was 40 U.S.C. § 276a. Can anyone advise? --Arcadian 02:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

This article needs a major overhaul. It is currently written from a specific (and rather marginal) POV - namely, that the Davis-Bacon law was racist in intent and effect. This is presented as fact, when it is actually one of the sides of a political dispute. For instance, there is nothing in the article indicating that the NAACP is currently a staunch supporter of the law [1] [2]. Nor are arguments in favor of Davis-Bacon given anywhere near as much room as those in opposition. I am going to try to clean this up, but until that is done, I'm slapping a {{NPOV}} tag on. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ask some questions about how to improve the article, and I want to see if you can avoid accusing me of "debating the underlying issues".
The article originally was supported to help unions at the expense of blacks. It did at the time reflect the described desires. Making it NPOV would not mean whitewashing history, but adding that that is no longer the reason it is supported. Minorities are disproportionately impacted. In any case, these matters are limited to the end of the intro and beginning of the first sections. The rest of the article seems okay NPOV-wise. I don't know where you get "rampant" violations or whatever. I had to edit some of the pro-DBA stuff, like calling it worker "protections" (replaced with "wage floors"). MrVoluntarist 05:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the racial intent is a very important point to make if it is reflected in the effect. Intuitively this makes sense - if "prevailing wages" must be paid, there is no reason to use cheaper, more transient labor. If this class of people is disproportionately minority, the effect continues. --Ajdz 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I support user Crotalus horridus's initial comments. I don't have time to elaborate, but will come back to it later. For now, if the article is to discuss race then it must also discuss Jim Crow laws, segregation in the South, and the ways in which African-Americans were repressed there long after slavery ended, and the violent and brutal repression of attempts to organize unions there, thus creating pools of underpaid labor. Otherwise the article becomes a shallow, static (vs. evolving), reductionist view of economic history, without context. Davis-Bacon was designed to prevent the "whipsawing" of labor, not to repress blacks. There is some analogy to present-day shipping in of Chinese workers to the Marianas Islands to assemble textiles. (E.g.http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/marianasupdate.html) A static snapshot only of the Marianas ignores the brutal repression of Chinese labor, the denial of basic human rights there including due process of law, the repression of migrant workers within China, etc. Without the creation of communities (countries, states, unions, ethics boards, legal communities, etc.) whip-sawing of labor can and certainly does occur. (Look at the brutal treatment of sailors aboard ships for one clear example.)
Wow, another anonymous troll supports the POV-pushing of a repeatedly blocked user? I'm shocked. Let's see if we can't keep the original research out. MrVoluntarist 21:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Davis is Standard Spelling

Davis is the standard spelling of Senator Davis's name. Leave it alone. BruceW07 18:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Davis-Bacon and foreign workers

Can anyone advise if this Act has any provisions for foreign workers? Are they entitled to the same wage calculations?

Thanks so much, K8

[edit] Created as a Jim Crow law

This section clearly contradicts the intro section. Vgranucci 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I cited my sources that it was created as a Jim Crow law. Grundle2600 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You cited your sources but 3 of your 4 sources did not cite theirs. Only the final Walter Williams article did. He quotes the Congressional Record and finds that Southern supporters of the bill argued in favor of supressing the use of minority labor. If you read that article you would find that the bill's author Representative Bacon, did not share that view.Chops79 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)