Suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act

I hear that Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon act in the hurricane hit areas. The Davis-Bacon Act, passed in 1931 during the Great Depression, sets a minimum pay scale for workers on federal contracts by requiring
contractors to pay the prevailing or average pay in the region. Suspension of the act will allow contractors to pay lower wages.

It sure sounds fishy to me. What in the world is he up to now? What will the effects of this be? I really can't quite figure it all out. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the Republicians have opposed the act since it was begun, and this is a chance to knock it down. Is it an attempt to support big business while taking money from the workers? Will they now be forced to bid using the prevailing wages, but then be able to pay whatever they want?

However, I kind of wonder about the Davis-Bacon act in the first place. I can't really understand why it was ever needed. I guess the point must have been to prevent contractors from bring in cheap labor to high labor areas (for example, using labor from Louisiana to work on jobs in San Francisco). Now it seems to be turned upside down. Will contractors be able to find a workforce that will work for less than the prevailing wage in the area? If they do find such a workforce from the area, this seems to mean that the prevailing wage in the area fell to whatever they paid. I doubt that they can find a workforce in the States that would work for less. I guess the only thing that makes sense is that the contractors don't want to use the local labor, they want to import Mexicans who will do the work for far less. If this is true, sounds like Bush is trying to set it up so the contractors can outsource their labor to another country instead of using those folks who are already there.I guess it is really an effort to allow the use of non-labor workers. If that is the case, I am not at all sure what I think of it. I am not too much in love with organized labor, so don't know if I should be for it or against it. I am certainly against the idea of bring labor in from the outside instead of using the labor that is already there. However, maybe there isn't enough labor there to do they job - in which case they will have to import it from somewhere.

I woke up this morning wondering about a very similar issue. I keep hearing calls for people to donate their time and go help out in New Orleans. One of the organizations said that they need 40,000 more volunteers. I am wondering what this is all about. It seems to me that they have 100,000 or more displaced people who would love to have something to do. Is there some reason that they can't be their own volunteers? Bringing in 40,000 more people will mean finding places for them to stay, food for them to eat, etc. I don't know if these volunteers get paid too. In any case, if they can find food and housing for 40,000 more volunteers, why in the world are they not using what they already have? It somehow sounds like the displaced folks are injuried, stupid, or somehow incapable of helping. They need to be helped instead. Does this make sense?