Obama aims to use federal contracts as a way to lift wages

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Obama administration is planning to use the government’s enormous buying power to prod private companies to improve wages and benefits for millions of workers, according to White House officials and several interest groups briefed on the plan.

By altering how it awards $500 billion in contracts each year, the government would disqualify more companies with labor, environmental or other violations and give an edge to companies that offer better levels of pay, health coverage, pensions and other benefits, the officials said.

Because nearly one in four workers is employed by companies that have contracts with the federal government, administration officials see the plan as a way to shape social policy and lift more families into the middle class. It would affect contracts like those awarded to make Army uniforms, clean federal buildings and mow lawns at military bases.

...

The outline of the plan is drawing fierce opposition from Republican lawmakers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/business/26procure.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's smart policy making right there.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's smart policy making right there.

Proof of that statement lies in this sentence from the article:

The outline of the plan is drawing fierce opposition from Republican lawmakers.

If those asswipes oppose it, it's gotta be good.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

discriminating against companies who can't afford to do such things is a good idea....

Cmon now.

You are literally outcasting a lot of small businesses out there who might be able to pay their employees more if they got a contract like this or even to be able to buy more enviromentally friendly equipment.

I'd say have an agreement on how that money should be used, but a company shouldn't be discriminated against just because they don't already meet that criteria.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

8 more months of this lunacy

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

8 more months of this lunacy

Actually, the Admin can do this without Congress. So try 3 more years

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Another payoff to the unions, I imagine. I see the White House is going into campaign mode, getting all its ducks together in time for November.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Actually, the Admin can do this without Congress. So try 3 more years

I'll get back with you

[one...two...tree 2,762]

discriminating against companies who can't afford to do such things is a good idea....

Cmon now.

You are literally outcasting a lot of small businesses out there who might be able to pay their employees more if they got a contract like this or even to be able to buy more enviromentally friendly equipment.

I'd say have an agreement on how that money should be used, but a company shouldn't be discriminated against just because they don't already meet that criteria.

This is perfect example of how you cannot sever the relationship between public and the private sector. Many of these types of jobs were handled by government employees, but Libertarians such as yourself, have long advocated giving such jobs to private industry, albeit using public funds. Given that it is taxpayers funding these private firms, the public has every right via the President they elected to set forth the criteria by which they operate. That's how democracy works.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This is perfect example of how you cannot sever the relationship between public and the private sector. Many of these types of jobs were handled by government employees, but Libertarians such as yourself, have long advocated giving such jobs to private industry, albeit using public funds. Given that it is taxpayers funding these private firms, the public has every right via the President they elected to set forth the criteria by which they operate. That's how democracy works.

The private sector usually does things better, that's why. You'll usually get better quality of results.

I didn't say that the contracts couldn't have a 'criteria' that needed to be met in acceptance of the contract, I'm just saying it's not fair to make that a pre-qualifier that they already have met that. Some simply can't already meet that criteria.

Though things like wages shouldn't be the business of the government to begin with, BUT they can say what wages should be paid in contracts that they award.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

administration officials see the plan as a way to shape social policy

one small step for obama's administration, another giant leap for socialism.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is perfect example of how you cannot sever the relationship between public and the private sector. Many of these types of jobs were handled by government employees, but Libertarians such as yourself, have long advocated giving such jobs to private industry, albeit using public funds. Given that it is taxpayers funding these private firms, the public has every right via the President they elected to set forth the criteria by which they operate. That's how democracy works.

Actually, it's the law, as a concession to the Unions, passed during the Franklin Roosevelt administration as part of the Lend-Lease agreements, if my memory serves me correctly. For instance, you can't use the Army, or the National Guard to build roads and highways.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Another payoff to the unions, I imagine. I see the White House is going into campaign mode, getting all its ducks together in time for November.

Exactly. He has to keep paying them off.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The private sector usually does things better, that's why. You'll usually get better quality of results.

I didn't say that the contracts couldn't have a 'criteria' that needed to be met in acceptance of the contract, I'm just saying it's not fair to make that a pre-qualifier that they already have met that. Some simply can't already meet that criteria.

Though things like wages shouldn't be the business of the government to begin with, BUT they can say what wages should be paid in contracts that they award.

They are in effect, the executives shaping the business, through contracts. What I find funny is that a Libertarian such as yourself would call such preconditions, unfair, when one of the principle ideas among Libertarians is that contracts are entered into willingly and freely. A double standard if you will.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

They are in effect, the executives shaping the business, through contracts. What I find funny is that a Libertarian such as yourself would call such preconditions, unfair, when one of the principle ideas among Libertarians is that contracts are entered into willingly and freely. A double standard if you will.

'willingly and freely' is the key. If you're reading what I said, I said that if the company agrees to the stipulations of the contract, then they should be awarded the contract if they can provde they'd adhere to it. I'm just saying there shouldn't be an expectation for the workers to already be at a certain level when that may not be feasible.