The White House is looking at a new policy that would give an advantage in bidding on government contracts to companies that offer a "living wage" and generous benefits. The policy is known as "high road" contracting. This goes along with Obama's efforts to strengthen the middle class and promote higher labor standards. The plan is to examine the wages and benefits a company pays its employees (e.g., health insurance, retirement benefits, paid leave) as a factor in the contract award process. Another factor would be whether a contract bidder is a repeat violator of labor and employment laws. Businesses with legal violations are already supposed to be restricted from winning bids under current contracting rules, but the new policy would create a better system for tracking those companies. A Labor Department compliance office would compile a score on contract bidders based on the new criteria.
Labor unions advocate this new plan. They say too many jobs financed by government contracts come with low wages and limited benefits, and often support companies that violate employment laws. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that nearly 20% of the 2 million federal contract workers in the U.S. earn less than the poverty threshold wage of $9.91 per hour. David Madland, the director of the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress, said that research shows that better-paid workers are more efficient and productive. He also added that raising labor standards and wages also saves taxpayers from hidden costs when employers pay so little that their workers rely on publicly funded health insurance and other safety net programs. Another thing he didn't address is that if businesses paid their workers more, the workers would consume more; and that would help businesses more, so then businesses wouldn't feel like they need to cut wages to save money. It's a vicious cycle.
Those opposed to this plan are business groups. They say they're opposed to it because it would shut out small businesses from competing for contracts (yeah, because small businesses are usually a huge priority for these groups... You know a big part of their problem with this plan is that businesses are going to have pay workers more and have benefits, and you know how much they hate that). Critics also say the policy would increase the cost of federal contracting (and is that so terrible if workers are being paid a better, more livable wage? Or getting better, or any, benefits?). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the pro-business lobbying group, called the policy a payback to labor unions. They argue that unionized companies that already pay workers higher average wages and offer better health and retirement benefits would be in a better position to compete with non-unionized contractors. Uh...isn't that the point? That companies should be rewarded for having good labor standards and paying their workers well -- and that that should be an incentive to other companies to improve their labor standards? That's exactly the point. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a unionized company, just one that has good labor standards. (Full Story)
I think this plan would be a great incentive to get employers to improve the wages and benefits of their workers. Laborers in this country get so under-payed that it's a travesty. It's sad we even have the term "living wage". There shouldn't need to be a separate term that specifies someone getting paid a decent wage that they can actually live on (and be above the poverty line). It should simply be "wage". It's sad we need the phrase "living wage" to differentiate what is, most often, the status quo wage. A living wage should already be instituted (and instituted as a minimum wage) and it should be common sense to pay a living wage.
The Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi called for a jihad, or holy war, against Switzerland. He said Switzerland was an infidel state that was destroying mosques (the Swiss voted in a referendum to ban the building of minarets). He said during a meeting that marked the Prophet Mohammad's birthday, "Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against Mohammad, God, and the Koran...The masses of Muslims must go to all airports in the Islamic world and prevent any Swiss plane landing, to all harbors and prevent any Swiss ships docking, inspect all shops and markets to stop any Swiss goods being sold." Uh...wow. That is incredibly dangerous rhetoric. Gaddafi said "this is not terrorism." He explained, "There is a big difference between terrorism and jihad, which is a right to armed struggle." Yeah, they sound pretty similar to me -- especially the way you're using it.
This isn't the first time Libya and Switzerland have had conflict. In 2008, Gadaffi's son was arrested at a hotel in Switzerland and charged with abusing domestic servants. He was released shortly thereafter and the charges were dropped. But Libya still retaliated by cutting off oil supplies to Switzerland, withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss bank accounts, refusing visas to Swiss citizens, recalling some of their diplomats, and arresting two Swiss businessmen working in Libya (you'd be crazy to think Muammar Gadaffi doesnt hold a grudge...). One of the businessmen have been released but the other was forced to leave the Swiss embassy where he had been sheltered and was moved to a prison to serve a four-month sentence on immigration offenses. Libya says the case of the two businessmen are not linked to the arrest of Gadaffi's son in Switzerland (they just coincidentally happened right after in each other, in the same month...). Furthermore, earlier this month Libya stopped issuing visas to citizens from many European countries. Libya did this after Switzerland allegedly blacklisted 188 high-ranking Libyans, denying them entry permits. The Swiss ban is said to include Muammar Gadaffi and his family (and if not, I would imagine he is "uninvited" from Switzerland now after his comments...).
A top UN official has condemned Gadaffi's call for jihad. The U.N. chief in Geneva said, "Such declarations on the part of the head of state are inadmissible in international relations." (Full Story) (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment