Democrats' Anti-Worker Provisions Hidden in H.R. 2
Press Release
H.R. 2 includes harmful, anti-worker provisions which were added to the bill in a last-minute amendment offered by House Democrats at the behest of their Big Labor allies.
Vastly expands Davis-Bacon wage requirements.
This expansion forces contractors to pay "prevailing" wages, which are calculated by unscientific government surveys that tilt the scale in favor of union wages. This mandate adds red tape, burdens employers, and inflates the cost of taxpayer-funded construction projects.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Davis-Bacon Act requirements will cost taxpayers an additional $8.6 billion annually.
Compels anti-competitive project labor agreements.
H.R. 2 requires federal contractors to enter into anti-competitive, project labor agreements (PLAs) as a condition of being awarded certain construction contracts.
PLAs force contractors to use the union hiring hall to obtain workers and to obey the unions' restrictive and inefficient work rules and job classifications. These requirements deny opportunity to more than eight out of 10 U.S. private construction workers who do not wish to belong to a union.
Revives Obama-era blacklisting rule.
This flawed and unnecessary Obama-era rule will add another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy into a federal procurement system already plagued by delays and inefficiencies.
Under Republican leadership, Congress repealed this duplicative rule because there are processes already in place to deny federal contracts to bad actors who violate basic worker requirements.
Makes it easier for unions to blackmail and intimidate workers.
So-called "neutrality" provisions are a form of blackmail in which the employer agrees to support the union (or remain silent) during a union organizing drive in exchange for a union promise that it will not picket the business.
This harmful provision makes it easier for House Democrats' Big Labor allies to intimidate employers and employees in order to force workers to pay union dues and fees, regardless of whether they wish to be represented by a union at all.
Limits workers' entrepreneurial opportunity.
By improperly reclassifying independent contractors as employees, H.R. 2 advances the Democrats' socialist scheme to subject more workers to unionization. Once again, Democrats prove they are more concerned about the wishes of union bosses than American workers.
Opens another door for trial lawyers to sue businesses.
Sub-contracting allows for a cost-effective and flexible method of employment that allows employees to negotiate directly with the business that controls their immediate terms and conditions of employment.
In H.R. 2, House Democrats want to replace this clear and concise standard with a broad, vague definition of joint employment that makes third-party businesses liable for employees they do not directly control -- all to benefit labor unions and trial lawyers. Prohibiting contractors from hiring employees through a temporary staffing agency is a first step toward eliminating this cost-effective and flexible method of employment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, you know, the gentleman, I think, maligns the State of North Carolina. I didn't think I would have to really stand here and defend what a wonderful State North Carolina is, but I think it is the fourth largest growing State in the country. People are coming there in droves. It is considered one of the best States in the country for workers. The minimum wage may be $7.25, but I think we know only about 2 percent of the people in this country are making the minimum wage, and they are entry level people. I think we are talking more about an average wage of about $20 an hour for people in North Carolina. So that is a straw dog that he is bringing up.
We have a wonderful State, and people are flocking there. The quality of life is great. And I will put up our quality of life in North Carolina against the quality of life in Oregon or anywhere else in the country as a great place to live.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Davis-Bacon stifles competition and discourages small and minority- owned businesses. Small business owners often do not have the financial resources to bid on or win Davis-Bacon contracts. These restrictions mean less infrastructure and fewer jobs in America, but more jobs and higher pay only for union members, concentrating wealth in the hands of the few while many Americans are out of work. That is something our colleagues seem to be opposed to in every other situation.
Suspending this mandate would make each public construction dollar go at least 10 percent further. This would create more bridges and buildings at the same cost to taxpayers. It would also employ hundreds of thousands more construction workers.
Repealing these restrictions would allow the government to build more infrastructure and create 155,000 more construction-related jobs at the same cost to taxpayers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, you know, the attacks on this amendment are truly uncalled for. No Republican is calling for people to be paid $2 an hour or to be abused, nobody.
You know, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they have a right to their opinion but not to making up things and not to putting words in our mouths. That is just uncalled for.
So, I am not going to really dignify those comments by trying to respond to them except to say that. We are getting sick and tired of people telling others what we think.
Let's just talk about what we do. And what this bill does is waste hardworking taxpayer dollars, and that is what we are trying to protect.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, under the nearly $500 billion surface transportation reauthorization piece of H.R. 2, the Highway Trust Fund, HTF, which pays for Federal highway and transit programs, it will require a $145 billion general fund bailout to cover the cost of the majority's irresponsible spending decisions.
Instead of trying to find a responsible way to pay for this huge increase in surface transportation funding and address the HTF's long- term solvency issues, the bill simply piles more debt onto future generations.
Infrastructure is vital to our economy and the flow of commerce, but it is reckless to push such a massive bill that relies so heavily on more deficit spending, adds billions of dollars to programs without providing any reforms to reduce costs associated with the infrastructure project approval process, and ignores the Highway Trust Fund's solvency issue.
In addition, these partisan changes to our Federal transportation programs focus more on climate change and less on building infrastructure projects, creating more uncertainty for transportation workers and businesses.
Rather than kicking the can down the road and burdening future generations with the spending habits of today, we need to recognize and address inefficiencies that have lingered for far too long.
By repealing the Davis-Bacon Act for transportation projects, we can stretch taxpayer dollars further while updating, improving, and advancing the development of our Nation's critical infrastructure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source