The Davis-Bacon Act is a United States federal law that established the requirement that prevailing wages must be paid on public works projects. In this book, Armand J. Thieblot argues that the law was passed under false pretenses and based on flawed economic logic. Despite this, the law continues to expand in scope and increase in cost. The act is supported by a substantial bureaucracy within the Department of Labor that has resisted all efforts at substantive modernization or reform. Today, the Davis-Bacon Act is the bedrock upon which stands one of the last bastions of private unionization in the construction industry. This book provides a compelling list of fifty-four separate reasons why the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. Thieblot deals with the history, purposes, and administrative concepts of prevailing wage laws, providing an overview of the act's administration. He covers the survey and determination process, and delves into how the act is administered. Thieblot summarizes its direct and indirect costs, evaluates counterclaims on the economic impact of Davis-Bacon, and considers compromises short of full repeal. Also included are seven appendices that provide full support for the conclusions summarized in the main text. Thieblot documents a case against Davis-Bacon that is neither judgmental nor political, but he does question whether there is compelling public interest in maintaining a federal prevailing wage law. He puts forward a list of reasons why the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed, making a convincing case that deserves action and not just simple consideration. This work should be read by all economists, lawmakers, and government officials.

Revised Second Edition: This Second Edition includes updates to the 2010 edition and covers the general requirements and principles of federal Davis-Bacon and California prevailing wage compliance, including apprenticeship obligations. The book is written for the average contractor who may be considering performing public works for the first time or reentering the public works field after an absence of some years. It includes not only an overview of the requirements, but also best practices, tips and examples to understanding some of the more complex aspects of prevailing wage compliance. Finally, the book will also briefly touch on other states prevailing wage requirements. The book will discuss the new workforce tracking requirements for contracts which are using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). An in depth discussion will be had on California's prevailing wage statute, only because it is the most complicated. Finally, the book will also briefly touch on other states' prevailing wage requirements. The book is a basis for understanding current prevailing wage requirements. As the law changes frequently, a contractor would be wise to check the references and webistes noted in the book for the most up to date information"

In Only One Place of Redress David E. Bernstein offers a bold reinterpretation of American legal history: he argues that American labor and occupational laws, enacted by state and federal governments after the Civil War and into the twentieth century, benefited dominant groups in society to the detriment of those who lacked political power. Both intentionally and incidentally, claims Bernstein, these laws restricted in particular the job mobility and economic opportunity of blacks. A pioneer in applying the insights of public choice theory to legal history, Bernstein contends that the much-maligned jurisprudence of the Lochner era—with its emphasis on freedom of contract and private market ordering—actually discouraged discrimination and assisted groups with little political clout. To support this thesis he examines the motivation behind and practical impact of laws restricting interstate labor recruitment, occupational licensing laws, railroad labor laws, minimum wage statutes, the Davis-Bacon Act, and New Deal collective bargaining. He concludes that the ultimate failure of Lochnerism—and the triumph of the regulatory state—not only strengthened racially exclusive labor unions but contributed to a massive loss of employment opportunities for African Americans, the effects of which continue to this day. Scholars and students interested in race relations, labor law, and legal or constitutional history will be fascinated by Bernstein’s daring—and controversial—argument.