Saturday, July 15, 2006

Prevailing Wage (Public Works): Republican versus Democratic administrations-it's all in the debarment statistics

This afternoon, I talked to a friend and a former construction contractor. We discussed how Prevailing Wage debarments are (pretty much) non-existent in a Republican DLSE administration, and how the pendulum swings completely the other way in a Democratic DLSE administration. He then asked me my thoughts on Prevailing Wage enforcement. Mind you this quote was as a private person, not in any official capacity* (*-Barrister's luncheon disclaimer!).
If someone breaks the law, then hold the law-breaker accountable. It shouldn’t matter what political party is in office at the time of labor law enforcement.” Ideally, that’s the way it should be.
Political affiliation should play no part in enforcing the law; otherwise, Victoria Bradshaw should streamline the buracracy and just demand that her field enforcement agents inquire about the labor law violator’s political affiliation. This way, her minions can "vigorously enforce the law" upon anyone who’s not a Republican and simultaneously turn a blind eye to anyone who votes in a similar fashion that she, Jose Millan, John Rea, Vanessa Holton, Robert Jones, and Arnold Schwarzenegger vote. Her agency’s mission statement would not only be realistic, but also less obtuse. I don't think this could be a legal policy, so I don't think it should be considered. On the other hand, I don't see any real distinction between this hypothetical policy and the lack of obtaining statistically equal amounts of debarments in Republican/Democratic administrations. Maybe someone could explain "standard deviation" to the DLSE leaders and how it applies to statistics, assuming someone cared enough in the administration.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home