BestOfBid.com

Do you think it is wise for Obama to prohibit awarding federal contracts to non union contractors?

Why would he do this? He is cutting out the small mom and pop operations. I don't think this is even legal. Brad, You ask which cigar I like best. Open up your email and I can give you a list.

Public Comments

1. Nope, it is not legal. I can see the lawsuits fly on this one
2. Like he cares about the law or what's right? He's proteting his union thugs buddies--that's allthat's about--he's crook and so are his cabinet members--IRS thieves--and his welfare plan is meant to coorupt our economy even more..God sure f--ked us with bo.
3. Why would he do this? Because he wants union money, silly.
4. That's how it'd done Chicagoland Style. Quid Pro Quo. Not one penny of stimulus money may go to the military.
5. We liberated Iraq because of these tactics. I guess the next war will be right here on our own soil.
6. Mom and pop operations have union members too. And, the fact that non union jobs don't have living wages and union jobs do, it's smart for Obama to prohibit federal contracts to non union contractors. It supports workers and workers rights by supporting unions including more safety protections from the union and OSHA.
7. I don't know about the legality of the situation by I do understand the misguided intent. He doesn't want to farm contracts out to employers who pay bottom dollar to their employees and basically "reward" employers who aren't treating their workers properly. The end result is small businesses are cut out of the loop altogether with this and that isn't a good thing. Good idea, bad application. I would have to see more details to see if there are any "loop holes" for the size of business.
8. It's good politically for him, since they're his base, but you're right - it shows what the "stimulus" is really about - a Washington power-grab.
9. As soon as the federal government awards its first contract to a "mom & pop" outfit that isn't George and Barbara Bush, we'll talk about whether this is legal. In the meantime, yes, it's not only wise, it's mandatory under present circumstances.
10. Wow... he is doing that!! Fascist!!
11. It is politics as usual, no change in D.C. Only reward those that follow your socialist ideas.
12. Don't think it will fly. Non union contractors still have to pay union wages on government contracts but as a general rule, a company with a large contract is going to be union anyway.
13. Which cigar do you like best?
14. Like 'em or hate 'em Unions do help protect jobs and employee rights. They also help to create fairer workplace conditions and standards. I'm a union worker and while it certainly has drawbacks, it's good to know that someone's got your back and you have protections.
15. He has been in the pocket of unions since he started running. This is not legal in right to work states and eliminates any competition. Under these regulations, we can be assured that all projects will cots far more than necessary and reduce the amount of workers employed by these projects.
16. It should be legal for him to award to non-union contractors as long as they pay their workers prevailing wage according to the Davis Bacon Act. This law applies to federal projects. Why/how he can circumvent this law I don't know.
17. not at all. notice how the stimulus bill has next to nothing for small business. what the hell is up with that. stupid is all I can say.
18. It's something that could come back to bite him later on. I think I see where he's going with this, wanting to give the work and contracts to bigger companies that employ more workers; but it's the grass roots guys that really matter. Bout every time these voters, whether conservative or liberal, have been crossed and left out in the cold (meaning the mom and pop, or in this case non union companies) things have gone very bad for whatever presidency is in office.
19. The unions helped him get elected. Now, he is repaying them. Chicago politics. I can hear Sinatra singing "Chicago, Chicago....." Yes there will be a lot of problems with this.
20. Of course. Everyone who wants to see the recovery of the middle class (rather than it's complete destruction), knows it's wise. When employers keep 80%+ fo the profits from everyone else's labor, than the people who do all the work don't have enough money to live on. When unions were strong, ALL employees benefited. The economy as a whole was strong. As they've vanished, standard of living for the vast majority of Americans has plummetted. Only those who applaud our return to an economy in which 1% of the population owned 99% of the wealth, and everyone else was their slaves, disagrees.
21. He is paying back favors and not only is it unwise it guarantees the costs will be phenomenal