Davis-Bacon Act Of 2004 Dbq

781 Words4 Pages

I will discuss the historical significates of the Davis-Bacon Act as well as the present day implications of the Construction Wage Rate requirements Statue. During the great depression the lack of representation and enormous discrimination of minorities provided an unfair advantage to white unionized workers. The Davis-Bacon Act was a direct reflection of this ideology, according to Institute for Justice, “with the specific intent of preventing non-unionized black and immigrant laborers from competing with unionized white workers for scarce jobs…” (Bullock). The Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 is named after, James J. Davis, a Senator from Pennsylvania and Representative Robert L. Bacon of Long Island, New York and was passed by Congress and signed …show more content…

This not only gave an essential benefit to large union companies but it also prevented minority laborers and mechanics the ability to compete against unionized skilled workers. Also, small minority companies where forced to pay their employees a set wage instead of being able to pay an employee based off the nature of the job or their individual skill level. These prevailing wages forced many small minority owned companies to file bankruptcy or close their doors for good. The prevailing wages created by the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was designed to favor large unionized companies and discourage small business from competing for federally funded …show more content…

The majority of these claims have be on the bases of unfair advantage for the unionized workforce. On April 27, 1979 the, currently named, Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited several reasons why the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. The three reasons consisted of “(1) there have been significant changes in the economy since 1931 which we believe make continuation of the act unnecessary, (2) after nearly 50 years, the Department of Labor has yet to develop an effective program to issue and maintain accurate wage determinations, and it may be impractical to ever do so, and the act is inflationary, and (3) results in unnecessary construction and administrative costs of several hundred million dollars annually.” (The Davis-Bacon Act Should Be Repealed, 1979). Also, according to a National Review article Repeal Davis-Bacon “…only 13.2 percent of the private construction workforce in unionized nationally, Davis-Bacon has the effect of discriminating against 86.8 percent of construction workers.” While the Institute for Justice challenged the Davis-Bacon Act on behalf of small, minority-owned contracting business in 1993. They contended that the law corresponded with the wages paid to union workers therefore provided large union organizations with a prevailing advantage over small, minority-owned