 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Associated Builders and Contractors v. Director7/19/2005
that the Congress passed the Davis-Bacon Act in order to insulate white construction workers from competition by "cheaper" African American workers from the south. It may well be that the Michigan Prevailing Wage Act has reduced employment opportunities for African Americans in this state. It may well be that the Prevailing Wage Act's reliance on collective bargaining agreements as determinative of prevailing wages in a locality is misplaced. It may well be that the overall impact of the Prevailing Wage Act is to increase the cost to the government for public works construction projects over what they would cost in the open market. It may well be that each of these factors is an "affront" to Michigan citizens and taxpayers.
Unquestionably, however, these are public policy questions. Equally unquestionably, there is nothing in our judicial commissions that empowers us, as compared to the Michigan Legislature, to address them. Our legal training makes us no more qualified to resolve these public policy issues than teachers or truck drivers, no more able to sense out and act upon the public will than funeral directors or firefighters, no wiser in charting a course for sound labor policy in the state than plumbers or physicians. If the Prevailing Wage Act should be reconstituted or even repealed, then it is the Michigan Legislature-popularly elected by teachers and truck drivers, funeral directors and firefighters, plumbers and physicians, and the rest of our diverse society to address precisely these types of public policy questions-that must undertake this task.
Thus, my personal opinion on the fairness or the soundness of the Prevailing Wage Act- and, quite frankly, the opinion of the Saginaw ABC on the same public policy issues-has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Act is unconstitutional by reason of unlawful delegation or vagueness. The Legislature is free to adopt bad policy; it is free to act unfairly; it is free to pursue ostensibly counter-productive or even downright foolish objectives, all without the judicial branch acting as a super-legislature and substituting its own version of what constitutes sound public policy. While this freedom is not unlimited-it is for this reason, among others, that we the people enact constitutions-our scope of review is extremely limited and we must exercise it with the greatest restraint. As this Court has said:
That a statute may appear undesirable, unfair, unjust or inhumane does not itself render the statute unconstitutional and empower a court to override the Legislature. Doe v Dep't of Social Services, 439 Mich 650, 681; 487 NW2d 166 (1992). Arguments that a statute is unwise or results in bad policy should be addressed to the Legislature. People v Kirby, 440 Mich 485, 493-494; 487 NW2d 404 (1992).
If arguments that a statute needs change, or even repeal, should be addressed to the Legislature, then it most certainly follows that the courts should not step in to do what the Legislature has not done. And, as the attached chart shows, since 1972 there have been 13 proposed amendments to exempt certain projects from the Prevailing Wage Act. During the same time period there have been ten attempts to repeal the Act. However, no proposed amendment, or repeal, of the Act has passed. In essence, the Saginaw ABC invites us to do what the Legislature has refused to do: repeal the Prevailing Wage Act. As is clear from the majority opinion, today we have declined that invitation.
William C. Whitbeck
Michigan Prevailing Wage Act
History of Proposed Amendments
Year Title Primary
Sponsor Description Status
2005 HB 4351 Rep.
Hilde
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|