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

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

'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.

There are plenty of stipulations of an employee contract that aren't written. In fact, most places I've worked for, there was no long, drawn out legal contract, so the Libertarian definition of contract doesn't exclusively mean a written, legal document.

Edit: Libertarian's definition of a contract is anything that both the employee and employer knew of and therefore agreed to as a condition of employment.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

If two companies are competing on the same contract and one is managed well enough to afford those working for it e decent pay and banefit package while the other isn't, then it's reasonable to award the contract to the well managed firm over the not so well managed. Awarding the contract to the latter only puts it on life support by the taxpayer with little or no tangible benefit to the country. The fit survive and prosper while the unfit don't. It's how the market works.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If two companies are competing on the same contract and one is managed well enough to afford those working for it e decent pay and banefit package while the other isn't, then it's reasonable to award the contract to the well managed firm over the not so well managed. Awarding the contract to the latter only puts it on life support by the taxpayer with little or no tangible benefit to the country. The fit survive and prosper while the unfit don't. It's how the market works.

You mean, they are not going to do it the usual ways, by giving the contract to the lowest bidder, and then going back to Congress to pay for the cost overruns, or, specifying the contract, so that only the firm that generously donated to the chairman's campaign coffers, can qualify a bid?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You mean, they are not going to do it the usual ways, by giving the contract to the lowest bidder, and then going back to Congress to pay for the cost overruns, or, specifying the contract, so that only the firm that generously donated to the chairman's campaign coffers, can qualify a bid?

This too.

Government contracts with stipulations on higher wages is actually a disservice to taxpayers. It's always supposed to be (has been) the lowest bidder on a project and even then usually those bids are quite a substantial amount of money.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Government contracts with stipulations on higher wages is actually a disservice to taxpayers. It's always supposed to be (has been) the lowest bidder....

Actually, no. Giving contracts to the lowest bidder who then turns around and off-loads the benefit cost of the employees doing the work on the same taxpayer that pays for the contract is what a disservice to the taxpayer looks like. Quietly absorbing that hidden cost leaves those companies that take their responsibility to their employees seriously at a competitive disadvantage. Seeing that our health care system, for example, is largely based on employer sponsored coverage, discouraging employers from covering their staff is not the smartest move for the taxpayer. Unless we're looking to get rid of the employer sponsored coverage scheme altogether...

You mean, they are not going to do it the usual ways, by giving the contract to the lowest bidder, and then going back to Congress to pay for the cost overruns, or, specifying the contract, so that only the firm that generously donated to the chairman's campaign coffers, can qualify a bid?

Corruption is a very serious but separate issue.

[scandal 951]

Private corporations make such deals with their suppliers (E.g. Starbucks FairTrade), and then proudly promote these practices in their marketing.

Why shouldn't our government be able to do exactly the same thing?

[Ali G. 37]

Will e-verify be mandatory?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Will e-verify be mandatory?

This we could agree on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Private corporations make such deals with their suppliers (E.g. Starbucks FairTrade), and then proudly promote these practices in their marketing.

Why shouldn't our government be able to do exactly the same thing?

Because, apparently it's evil if the gubmint does it.

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

If you play with snakes, you're gonna get bit.