house Bill H. Joint Res. 37
Should a Rule Requiring Federal Contractors to Disclose Their Labor Law Violations be Repealed?
Argument in favor
The Obama administration’s rule went too far by blacklisting contractors on the basis of unproven allegations, thus forcing tax dollars to be spent on less qualified contractors.
03/06/2017
The reporting of labor law violations should unquestionably be mandatory, particularly in the context of federal procurement. However, to mandate disclosure of unverified complaints and to consider allegations to be equivalent to infractions is a policy written in flagrant disregard to the pillars of liberty.
03/06/2017
This rule should be altered rather than repealed. Using hearsay rather than undeniable proof should not be commonplace in the United States. Court records and actual violations should only be considered when determining eligibility. How would you like it if you couldn't get a job over some he said she said b.s?
03/06/2017
Too much Federal Government. If records are developed covering alleged violations, then our mighty government can keep their records for 5 years.
Argument opposed
The federal government should avoid doing business with companies that violate labor laws and cut corners with safety. The Obama administration’s rule helped accomplish that.
···
03/06/2017
Can't believe this is being proposed. Some regulations are meant to protect people. So, protect people.
···
03/06/2017
I am a veterinarian and any violation is publicly available, as it should be for anyone with a professional license. Transparency in the workplace is vital.
03/06/2017
I don't see any good reason to overturn this law, if we are looking at the big picture. Transparency is beneficial, and this administration doesn't like that.
The reporting of labor law violations should unquestionably be mandatory, particularly in the context of federal procurement. However, to mandate disclosure of unverified complaints and to consider allegations to be equivalent to infractions is a policy written in flagrant disregard to the pillars of liberty.
Can't believe this is being proposed. Some regulations are meant to protect people. So, protect people.
I am a veterinarian and any violation is publicly available, as it should be for anyone with a professional license. Transparency in the workplace is vital.
I don't see any good reason to overturn this law, if we are looking at the big picture. Transparency is beneficial, and this administration doesn't like that.
Congress should be concerned about making America safer, cleaner, and greener, not the opposite as this bill seems to do. This country belongs to the people, not to the corporations who hide their profits to avoid taxes, who bribe our congress people and whose only concern is more profits.
This rule should be altered rather than repealed. Using hearsay rather than undeniable proof should not be commonplace in the United States. Court records and actual violations should only be considered when determining eligibility. How would you like it if you couldn't get a job over some he said she said b.s?
How exactly is repealing all of the progress that we made over the past eight years "making America great"? CUT IT OUT!!!
Another attempt to take more protection away from the working class.
Are you serious?! Please stick to your morals and let's not cut corners
The federal government should avoid doing business with companies that violate labor laws and cut corners with safety.
Too much Federal Government. If records are developed covering alleged violations, then our mighty government can keep their records for 5 years.
NAY! NAY! NAY! This bill obviously came out of some North Carolina Republican Christian pipe dream of the perfect world that exists where unrestrained free market capitalism reigns supreme. In this magical world, there is no evil, no impulse to greed or violence, humans are perfectly rational & the only time anyone falls prey to the horrors of the free fall is when they deserve it!! If your child has cancer, you sinned! If your job is shipped overseas, you didn't work hard enough. If the police shoot your husband or son for walking or driving while black, he shouldn't have been in that place at that time. This is true social Darwinism. The weak are always wrong. The strong are justified for every human rights abuse. Welcome to the USSR! This means you, Rep DeSantis, who never met a person who wasn't wealthy whose rights mattered & you, Sen Rubio, who never met a value that couldn't be abandoned for the right price (immigration reform, remember when you stood for something?)
Yet another worker protection Congress will take away. Why would these things even be considered? It's because these regulations and protections this Congress and president are taking away are of benefit to big business, who bought elections for just this reason.
The federal government should demand safe business practices from its contractors. The health and safety of our population is too important.
The H.J. Res. 37 regarding the internet was from the 112th Congress. We are now on the 115th. This bill has nothing to do with the internet. Please double check before getting outraged. This is regarding 81 FR 58562, "DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, which is designed to increase efficiency and cost savings in Federal contracting by improving contractor compliance with labor laws. The Department of Labor is simultaneously issuing final Guidance to assist Federal agencies in implementation of the Executive Order in conjunction with the FAR final rule." I vote Nay. Fair pay and safe workspaces are good, and don't need removing.
Another Obama restriction initiated at the end of his presidency that is both unnecessary and punitive. If it was so important why did it not get implemented at the beginning? Having worked as a PM for many federal contracts through 2015 there is already piles of compliance requirements that must be submitted before you can be considered for award of a federal contract. So much so that many companies have to hire bureaucratic consultants to be able to complete the paperwork. Eliminate most of these requirements and the cost will be lower.