I don't think the racist roots of the act are relevant today. The ability of the act to exclude blacks was because the blacks were treated as a lower class of society during that time. Blacks couldn't get the same pay as whites and so were a cheap source of labor. The act sought to prevent companies from lowballing government bids by requiring employees get prevailing wages. Since blacks were treated as a lower form of society, an employer being forced to pay prevailing wages at that time would go with a white crew since the financial incentive to hire cheap black labor was removed. However, blacks have equal opportunity today in the workplace since discrimination based on race is illegal. However, prevailing wage requirements means that employers on a government contract can seek out the most talented workers since the wages are at a premium. If blacks are not proportionately represented in the group of talented labor, that is not the fault of the employer or some government law.
If blacks aren't 77 percent of the labor in a government contract in Detroit, then that says something about the individuals in their race, not necessarily the hiring practices of the employer. I would want to know what percentage of the carpenters in Detroit are black before claiming a government act is racist against black carpenters. Employers are looking for the most productive individuals, if a black carpenter is running circles around white coworkers, then he has the best chances of getting the job. Smart employers make up for high labor costs by increasing labor productivity. It would be stupid for an employer working under the act to hire a lazy person who happens to be white over an efficient worker who happens to be black. Remember, these companies think with their wallets, not with their biases.
Re: Another Shop Votes Yes!
Member #: 40846
Registered: 9/19/2005
Posted:
1493
Name:
Duane Vick
Name:
Duane Vick
Company:
Self-Employed
Occupation:
Installer
Location:
Phoenix AZ
There are 0 replies to this message
