"We would be extremely pissed if a Republican President used an executive action to lower the minimum wage, but I still hope President Obama raises it. Could easily be a dangerous precedent, but it would help so many people. "
...do you think it would be prudent for a Republican President to use an "executive action" to hurt millions of people?
An August 2013 NYT editorial:
The Government as a Low-Wage Employer
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
In 1965, in a nation torn by racial strife, President Johnson signed an executive order mandating nondiscrimination in employment by government contractors. Now, as President Obama has observed, the nation is divided by a different threat: widening income inequality. He could respond much as Mr. Johnson did — with an executive order aimed, this time, at raising the pay of millions of poorly paid employees of government contractors.
<...>
Many laws and executive actions, mostly from the 1930s and 1960s, require fair pay for employees of federal contractors. But over time, those protections have been eroded by special-interest exemptions, complex contracting processes and lax enforcement. A new executive order could ensure that the awarding of contracts is based on the quality of jobs created, challenging the notion that the best contractor is the one with the lowest labor costs.
Mr. Obama also could tell federal agencies to conduct reviews of contracts to see if the work should be done in-house. There is compelling evidence that using private-sector contractors is often costlier than using government employees, even when contractors pay workers little.
Nearly 50 years after one executive order helped to end discrimination in government contracting, another one is needed to help ensure fair pay in that same sector.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/the-government-as-a-low-wage-employer.html?_r=0
<...>
So an executive action by President Obama is especially appealing. And while the President cannot unilaterally increase the minimum wage for everyone, he can change federal contracting procedures to favor contractors that pay their employees enough to live and raise a family on. This week, the
New York Times published a powerful editorial calling on the President to do it. Drawing on a recent Demos study of low-wage contract employees and other federally-supported workers, as well as research from the National Employment Law Project, the
Times made the case that:
Nearly 50 years after. . . President Johnson signed an executive order mandating nondiscrimination in employment by government contractors… (President Obama) could respond much as Mr. Johnson did — with an executive order aimed, this time, at raising the pay of millions of poorly paid employees of government contractors. . . challenging the notion that the best contractor is the one with the lowest labor costs.
Over at the Roosevelt Institute, Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch agrees, pointing out that “In the 1930s, and again in the 1960s, the federal government helped raise wages for workers. Congress passed laws and presidents issued executive orders that required businesses with federal contracts to pay their workers their industry’s prevailing wage. That meant better pay.”
Jared Bernstein, former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, says this is an “an executive order whose time has come.” And while Dr. Bernstein apologizes for bothering the President while he’s on vacation, the truth is that many of the federal contracting jobs in question don’t come with paid vacation days anymore than they pay a living wage.
- more -
http://www.demos.org/blog/8/16/13/yes-he-can-momentum-grows-executive-order-raise-wages-low-paid-contract-workers
= new reply since forum marked as read