Taking the High Road in Federal Contracting
Here’s an idea worth watching: New proposed Federal procurement rules would reward contractors who pay living wages, provide benefits and adhere to sound environmental practices. The proposal is tentatively named the “High Road Procurement Policy.” It’s about time our government rewarded socially responsible businesses. This is a good idea for several reasons. Here are a couple:
• It ties government contracting to social goals that benefit all working people and the environment by saying: we should not be awarding contracts to companies with a record of breaking labor, environmental or consumer laws. These proposed rules, with an emphasis on ‘taking the high road’ make it clear the government is no longer encouraging ‘race to the bottom’ (low road) forms of competition.
• We will get better quality products and services from government contracts. Studies show that contractors who cut corners on labor costs tend to cut other kinds of corners, leading to shoddier products, lower quality services and a greater potential for cost over-runs, all of which, eventually, cost the public more. And, of course, short-changing workers means those workers need more public services. Allowing contractors to ‘externalize’ these kinds of costs means we, the public, end up paying more for less.
To improve this proposal, let’s encourage the Administration to include ‘targeted universal’ elements. For example, how do current contract procedures make it harder for minority contractors to compete successfully? How can these rules be targeted to help minority contractors comply with new rules?
Who opposes this plan? The usual suspects: the US Chamber of Commerce, organizations representing federal contractors who like the Bush-era rules (an era in which cost-over-runs and no-bid contracts were the norm), The Republican Party leadership. Their arguments: 1) It will favor organized labor (or as they put it, ‘it will give big labor an advantage in federal contracts). 2) It will cost too much; we cannot afford it, especially in these tough economic times. 3) It will hurt small businesses who cannot afford the inflated levels of compensation and benefits that these rules will force upon contractors. 4) They use anti-regulatory language in their arguments. My favorite: it will create ‘blacklist regulations.’
The first argument is a ploy to paint this as a rule that favors ‘special interests.’ Well, of course, organized labor tends to favor policies that foster living wages and benefits and occupational safety. And so do many community an faith-based groups. Because what’s good for workers is good for all of us --- workers' rights are not 'special' interests; they should be the norm. Government procurement policy should honor work, and reward businesses that honor work. The second argument is specious; it ignores the fact that ‘business as usual’ has many hidden costs that are passed on to the public. The third argument is a favorite; no doubt, some small businesses will not be competitive (they are not competitive under existing rules, either). If conservatives really care about small business contractors, they could add in any number of measures that would give those businesses a boost.
Finally, to any business person who really believes the government has no right to place conditions on the contracts it rewards (based on some vague ‘free market’ logic), I say: put your money where your mouth is and refuse federal money of any kind. Go it alone. Good luck with that.
---Sandra Hinson
