Home / General / This Day in Labor History: March 3, 1931

This Day in Labor History: March 3, 1931


This post is a special request from Anna in PDX to help her work out some thorny issues she faces in her local. If this series can be of use to your local or organizing needs, drop me a line.

On March 3, 1931, President Herbert Hoover signed the Davis-Bacon Act, establishing a requirement for the government to pay local prevailing wages on public works projects. Even since its passage, it’s been tainted with an accusation of racism, which will be the subject of today’s post, as we try to untangle the complex knot of race and labor in American history.

The law was prompted by Robert Bacon, a congressman from New York who allied with former Secretary of Labor (1921-30) Senator James Davis. A contractor in Bacon’s home district built a new VA hospital. Rather than hire local workers, he brought in low wage African-American laborers from Alabama. Bacon worried about the government undermining local wages and he sought to put a stop to it. It took the Great Depression to make Bacon’s bill a political possibility. Congress rejected it the first 12 times Bacon introduced it, but the desperation of the Depression created a political force that would lead to the construction of America’s labor law regime. One of the first victories in this was Davis-Bacon. The Hoover Administration itself requested that Congress take up the bill once more in order so that it could seem like it was doing something about falling wages. The law only covered government contracts greater than $5000 (amended to $2000 in 1935) and did not force contractors to hire union labor. As federal labor law often does as well, many states created little Davis-Bacons to cover state contracts, helping to raise the standard of living for construction labor.

James Davis and Robert Bacon

From the time of its passage, opponents portrayed Davis-Bacon as a racist law intended to protect white workers from black competition. Race and labor can’t be separated in this country. The racism that has divided this country since the beginning has also divided workers. Labor deserves no more but also no less blame in perpetuating this than other American institutions, including corporations who openly used race and ethnicity to divide workers, paying black workers lower wages and constructing white workers and black workers as competition against each other. Davis-Bacon intended to stop employers from undermining local standards of living, which they often did by taking advantage of the nation’s inherent racism to bring in workers of color. Today, one certainly cannot blame these black workers for taking jobs significantly better than the cotton plantations of the Jim Crow South, but I don’t think it particularly useful to condemn unionized northern workers for protecting their own jobs either, even if those protections by definition took on a racist tone. After all, feeding their families was a completely legitimate priority.

One however can shake their head at how labor used racist rhetoric to justify what could in principle have been a very reasonable bill. AFL president William Green in supporting Davis-Bacon noted in talking about why it was needed in Tennessee, “Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates.” The debate in Congress over the bill also took on the racial overtones of American life in the early 30s. Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood said in support, “Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country. This bill has merit, and with the extensive building program now being entered into, it is very important we enact this measure.” Some wished it could be extended to protect “white” labor from immigrants as well. Fiorello LaGuardia was among those expressing these sentiments, noting “the workmanship of this cheap imported labor was of course very inferior.”

The law’s wording was pretty vague and both unions and employers have fought over its meanings ever since. For the building trades, Davis-Bacon directly benefited them and they fought for its vigorous use. For contractors, “prevailing wage” was totally undefined and frustrating. It never proved easy to determine or enforce when determined. The Department of Labor was tasked to determine just what the prevailing wage was for a region, but the formulas were increasingly complex and had to cover individual job classifications. In 1979, the General Accounting Office issued an appeal to repeal the law, citing four decades of it not working well.

In 1956, Congress extended Davis-Bacon to cover highway construction, the only controversial piece of the Federal-Aid Highway Act. Southern senators like Harry Byrd sought to reduce union influence by trying to exclude Davis-Bacon from the bill. In 1964, Davis-Bacon was expanded to add fringe benefits, including medical insurance, pensions, vacations, and sick pay into the calculations. This expansion also increased the reach of the law to include the states and municipalities receiving large federal grants for capital construction projects, ranging from schools to roads.

I think the debate over the origin of the law is a separate question over its value today. There is a whole history of terrible racist laws in this country, not to mention good laws passed with racist intent. Are we going to overturn hunting and fishing regulations because they were enacted to save the nation’s game for rich white people to use and overturned hundreds of years of subsistence food traditions by Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, poor whites, and European immigrants? No. Neither should we eliminate Davis-Bacon. Is the law racist today? That’s the key question. And the answer is no.

The argument is basically concern trolling by businesses when what they really want is to avoid paying workers a living wage. Business hopes that by saying that labor law is racist, they can undermine unionism nationally. While northern African-Americans did often have very good reason to be suspicious of white labor unions in the past, today they are among the most union-friendly groups. Research consistently shows that unions have not hurt African-American employment over the years and that today they join unions to protect themselves from wage inequality (see Jake Rosenfeld and Meredith Kleykamp’s “Organized Labor and Racial Wage Equality in the United States,” American Journal of Sociology, March 2012) The NAACP supports the continuance of the Davis-Bacon Act. That support is a lot more important to me than the law’s overtones in 1931.

Opponents also claim Davis-Bacon openly favors union labor. Call the whaaambulance. It actually doesn’t favor union labor per se. It favors paying people the same wage rates unions have negotiated in areas where they control enough of the labor market to do so. Right-wingers use whiny arguments about taxpayers, noting that Davis-Bacon can increase public construction projects by 20 percent. Of course, usually it is less high than this, but those higher costs go back into the community through returned tax dollars, higher purchasing power, better schools, and happier citizens.

Also, high wages are needed for the building trades. Construction is seasonal labor. Without high wages during the work season, you aren’t going to convince young people to join these professions. You are going to lose skilled labor to build your house, fix your toilet, etc. These people have to live and eat and feed their families and I don’t think we should be giving any support for undoing some of the last legislation that helps provide workers with real benefits on the job. Employers should not be able to undermine local wages by importing cheap labor, just as they should not be able to decimate communities by a global race to the bottom to increase profits.

This is the 95th post in this series. Previous posts are archived here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • witless chum

    I’d like to have someone document for me the first instance of someone making one of these sort of arguments that wasn’t massively disengenous. See also, everything the magic fetus woman-hating cruelty brigade say about Margaret Sanger or Susan B. Anthony.

    The tell is that they never also want to throw out the entire U.S. Constitution which was written by probably not a single person who wasn’t a massive racist by modern standards.

    • shah8

      By modern standards, Hamilton was a lot less racist than the other founders. Then again, he never approved of the West Indies social system that deprived him of many of the things he held dear, like legitimacy, parents, education, etc. It seems likely that he had some real degree of comprehension about just how insidious slavery is. Not that Hamilton wasn’t crazy (and problematically authoritarian technocrat) in plenty of other ways, but he was a lot less racist than, say, John Adams, even though both were abolitionists.

      Moreover, back in the days, say 1750s through to the revolutionary period, racism wasn’t really constructed the way it is now, in the sense that systematic chattel slavery based on race hasn’t eased fully into the US picture, except in some early crops such as fruits, tobacco, indigo, some sugar plantations far far south, etc…

  • Rob in CT

    Question on the cost of construction projects:

    It’s my understanding that construction projects in the US are dramatically higher than in other developed countries. Like, way more than 20% higher. Assuming that labor costs are part of the reason this is so, what are the other reasons? A lot of money is going somewhere, and so far as I can tell it’s *not* primarily going to labor. So, who is sucking up that money and how?

    • Brett

      The best explanation I’ve heard is that it’s a combination of soft corruption and heavy reliance on outside consultants and advice due to a lack of in-house expertise (frequently with potential conflicts of interest on the side). There’s not a lot of incentives in those groups to get costs down.

      That said, there are some excellent public authorities that do good, cost-effective construction. I remember one of them came up in a long discussion over the big drill project in Seattle.

  • Bruce Vail

    There are legit concerns about whether Davis-Bacon and/or PLAs are sometimes used to exclude minority workers. In my hometown of Baltimore there are increasing calls for separate side agreements to guarantee that some percentage of jobs also go to minority workers and.or local residents.

  • Anna in PDX

    Thanks very much Erik for doing this post. I will send a link to the stewards.

    • Erik performs a service by delving into this topic, but I’d urge caution about the version of the history of Davis-Bacon that floats around in cyberspace and is most easily found.

      University of Utah Professor and construction economics expert Peter Philips delved into the Congressional Record and found the scholarship sorely lacking. Just one teaser: remember that Allgood, the Alabama House Member quoted in paragraph 2, was a member of the minority party. Philips reveals Allgood was not a sponsor of the Davis-Bacon Act.

      You can find Philips’ exploration here: http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~philips/soccer2/Publications/Prevailing%20Wages/History/Thoughtless%20Think%20Tanks–race%203%20Michigan.doc

      The WSJ editorial page has approvingly cited George Mason Univ Professor Walter Williams as an authoritative source for the argument that the Davis-Bacon was created with racist intent. I could find only three (3!) pages in a 1977 publication that dealt with the Davis-Bacon Act. Perhaps more is out there, but that is all I could find. Compare to Philips’ 24 page article plus 3 pages of references. Hope the Philips article helps put this into context.

      Why did so many newspaper editorials of the 1990s, 2000s and the 2010s single one or two 1930s minority party House Members’ racist speeches out? Because it serves a purpose: to broaden support for weakening or repealing prevailing wage standards on public works projects. Which goes to Erik Loomis’ larger point about the “concern trolling”.

      • Anna in PDX


  • Joseph Slater

    Excellent post. It’s also worth noting that cheaper labor costs often does NOT mean cheaper project costs. That’s because cheaper labor is often worse labor, and leads to greater rates of accidents, delays, etc. Conservatives often argue tha CEO pay can’t be limited because INCENTIVES, but apparently you can pay working class folks less and less with no loss of quality.

    • Anna in PDX

      Not to mention specific to the building trades you often have to do multiple rehabilitations and restructures because the work was done shoddily to begin with.

  • Bruce Vail

    “I think the debate over the origin of the law is a separate question over its value today.”

    This is very much to the point. All kinds of segregation and discrimination were legal, and common, in 1931. Any attempt by a building contractor or labor union to manipulate Davis-Bacon to foster discriminate against African-Americans would be illegal today.

  • shah8

    As to the greater topic of this post–I think the issue has moved on from industrial controversies into services. H1-B abuse, illegal immigration, and every other technique designed to isolate workers legally from the full protection of the law–and that isolation is pretty strongly racist. A subcontinental is a lot more likely to be chained to a green card possibility/held passport than someone here from Ireland or Poland. A hispanic migrant worker is a lot more vulnerable to ICE raids, and has quite a bit more to fear from being held in custody.

    I don’t think the germ of the controversy has truly changed. Just the actors, and if I disagree with Loomis, it’s that the current nature of Davis-Bacon is fully co-opted into the socio-political norms of the day. I’m not sure that Davis-Bacon truly *has* genuinely beneficial outcomes unique to its use, and I’m not sure it’s actually worth protecting. Saying that it’s not racist in intent or use anymore is something, but it’s not everything, and I don’t think it benefits a lot of people–any more than the immigration restriction genuinely benefited domestic workers so much as created a worker class with a Sword of Damocles perpetually over it. Better to simply focus on increasing local minimum wages as a trade for repeal. Universal, harder to stop politically, and society wins, rather than a small group of people relative to other people.

  • Pingback: This Day in Labor History: A Digest - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Therapy dogs are not only for adults they are used in nursing homes and even in hospitals.

    We speak in strange terms: of harnessing the cosmic energy; of making winds and tides work for us; of creating unheard synthetic materials to supplement
    or even replace our old standard basics; of purifying sea water for
    our drink; of mining ocean floors for new fields of wealth and
    food; of disease preventatives to expand life into the hundred of
    years; of controlling the weather for a more equitable distribution of heat and cold, of rain and shine; of space ships
    to the moon; of the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an enemy,
    but instead to include his civil populations; of ultimate conflict between a united human race and the sinister forces
    of some other planetary galaxy; of such dreams and fantasies
    as to make life the most exciting of all time. Exhibits explore: West Africa, England, Forge, Ireland, Germany, 1740s America,
    1820s America and 1850s America.

    Visit my page … big fish casino hack (http://www.spamfreeforums.net/)

It is main inner container footer text