(IL) governor candidate Bob Daiber talks prevailing wage, right to work

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

Prevailing wage, PLAs supported

By Kelsey Schulz
POSTED ON JANUARY 29, 2018

WOOD RIVER – Bob Daiber expressed his support of prevailing wage and project labor agreements, as well as his opposition to “right to work” laws, during a press conference in Wood River Monday.

Speaking at the Carpenters Union Hall, 277 E. Madison Ave., the Democratic candidate for the governor touched on those topics and more in front of a crowd that included 19 local labor leaders.

“As many of you know I’ve been a strong advocate for organized labor my entire political career,” said Daiber, who is also the Madison County Regional Superintendent of Schools. “I’m here today as a candidate for governor to continue my ongoing pledge to labor that we can move forward in this state collectively with good paying jobs.”

…

On prevailing wage: “I support prevailing wages, I always have. There’s no place in the workplace to drive down wages. If we do away with prevailing wages in the state then we are going to be competing with as to who as a worker is going to work for less and that is not a place that we want to go. When we have good jobs in the state that are based on prevailing wage we have workers that are being able to make a living wage and are less dependant upon the state for benefits and that’s the direction I want to move Illinois.”

On project labor agreements: “The project labor agreements are simply agreements between labor and management that help get jobs done on time, on budget with no shutdowns and workers being able to go to work each and every day without any work stoppages.”

On right to work: “Last year, I signed a pledge saying ‘no’ to right to work (for less) in the state of Illinois, because I am an advocate for collective bargaining both in the public and private sectors. As governor, I will sit down with AFSCME at the table and we will work out a contract for all state workers in Illinois because they too deserve to have good paying jobs and benefits.”

(Read More)

Study shows prevailing wage led to more work done at a lower price (MI)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

By Erika Geiss
Jan 24, 2018

The word “Michigan” is practically synonymous with building and manufacturing.

From the auto industry that made our state famous to the “mighty” Mackinac Bridge that travelers still marvel at decades after its construction, our skilled tradesmen and women have driven us forward practically since statehood.

Yet we have trouble filling jobs in the skilled trades. It’s expected that Michigan will add 15,000 jobs in the professional trades every year through 2024, but we lack people with the training and experience to fill them.

One of the incentives these jobs offer is a good salary. That’s why it’s even more astonishing that special interests are trying to repeal Michigan’s prevailing wage law. These special interests, mostly contractors who hope to be able to pay their employees less, have worked to gather signatures to put the issue before the state Legislature or on the 2018 ballot.

Contrary to what you might have heard, the law doesn’t force companies to pay workers union wages or require that only union workers be hired for a construction job. It stipulates that for state-funded work projects, employees receive a pay rate based on a survey of actual wages and benefits in the area.

Studies suggest that if Michigan’s prevailing wage law is repealed, salaries for construction workers would drop by 20 percent to 50 percent. Just think about what it would be like to have your salary cut in half. Would you want to stay in that job? Most likely, you’d be looking for a new line of work. At a time when Michigan is trying to attract more skilled trades workers, repeal would be a terrible mistake.

…

Not only does prevailing wage ensure a good quality of life for people who choose these careers, it ensures that our roads and schools are built on time and on budget. It allows the workers to provide for their families and support local businesses while laying the groundwork – quite literally – for a well-built Michigan that will attract further investment.

We must protect Michigan’s prevailing wage law.

State Rep. Erika Geiss (D-Taylor) represents the 12th District.

(Read More)

Stiffed electricians get watt they deserve as sleazeball boss forks over $750G (NY)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

BY ANDREW KESHNER
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, December 20, 2017, 2:37 AM

Five electricians got an early Christmas gift Tuesday in a check for more than $750,000.

The windfall was way overdue for the hard-working men who were stiffed out wages by a crooked boss.

Now that their greedy superior, Michael Riglietti, has a grand larceny conviction on his head, he’s finally opening his wallet to fully pay the men.

Acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez and city Department of Investigation Commissioner Mark Peters presented the five checks.

The funds were the money the men deserved for their time on various public works jobs, including many schools. Though they were supposed to be compensated prevailing hourly wages around $50, they were getting a fraction of that – between $13.50 and $25 an hour.

“I am so happy to be able to hand you these checks, which were hard-earned and well-deserved and really will help make your holidays brighter,” Gonzalez said.

Riglietti, 50, pleaded guilty last month to grand larceny and his company, MSR Electrical Construction Company, once in Red Hook, copped to violating labor laws on prevailing wage requirements.

(See Article)

Without prevailing wage laws, guess who loses? Taxpayers. (IL)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

By: JAMES M. SWEENEY
November 28, 2017

James M. Sweeney is president and business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150.

Mark Glennon recently argued in a column for Crain’s that municipalities’ budget challenges can only be solved by lowering wages of workers who build our schools, transportation systems and other public infrastructure projects.

Setting aside the irony of a self-described lawyer and venture capitalist calling for middle-class construction workers to take a pay cut, let’s unpack these assertions a little.
Read more: Illinois prevailing wage mandate hurts the economy

Prevailing wage functions as a local market minimum wage on skilled construction work that is paid for by government. It ensures that things like schools, bridges and roads are built by local people who are trained to do the job right the first time, and that local tax dollars do not undercut local wage rates by attracting low-wage, unskilled workers from other parts of the country. Most prevailing wage workers complete three to five years of industry-financed, post-secondary apprenticeship training for occupations that are consistently recognized as among the nation’s most dangerous.

While construction wages and benefits represent just 22 percent of total public works costs, legions of economists have reached the consensus that prevailing wages have no impact on total project costs because they result in higher productivity, fewer safety issues and less spending on materials, fuels and equipment.

If you don’t believe in peer-reviewed facts, consider that Republican Indiana Rep. Ed Soliday said last year that Indiana’s repeal of its prevailing wage law “hasn’t saved a penny.”

What is also known is that states without prevailing wage laws have more income inequality, see more of their tax dollars shipped to firms out of state and spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on programs like Medicaid, food stamps and low-income tax credits for construction workers.

In other words, without prevailing wage laws, taxpayers lose far more than just good local jobs and quality workmanship.

For the record, unions do not set prevailing wage rates. These rates are based on surveys of what union and non-union employees are actually paid in the marketplace. For each craft in each community, the most common wage rate prevails.

(Read More)

Employees of TIF projects in Portland to receive prevailing wage (OR)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

NOVEMBER 22, 2017

The Portland City Council voted to require contractors working on Tax Increment Financing-funded projects in the city to pay their employees a prevailing wage.

“We will be the first community in the state to put this in their TIF rules,” Mayor Ethan Strimling told the Portland Press Herald.

Prevailing wages are set on an annual basis by the Maine Department of Labor on a county-by-county basis for state construction projects exceeding $50,000.

However, the city council shot down another provision requiring contractors on TIF projects to participate in an apprenticeship program registered by the state or federal government, a move supported by union workers. Instead, the council will explore offering grants for a broader job-training program that would help other industries as well, the newspaper reported.

Also removed was a requirement that at least 25% of work hours be performed by Portland residents, minorities, women or veterans.

(See Article)

New York’s prevailing wage law

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

A cost-benefit analysis

(A working paper from the Economic Policy Institute)

By Russell Ormiston, Dale Belman, and Matt Hinkel
November 1, 2017

…

The cost of state prevailing wage laws has been a considerable focus of independent, academic economists over the last 15 years. In study after study, the results demonstrate a clear consensus: state prevailing wage laws have not been shown to increase taxpayer costs on the biggest components of state construction budgets (roads and schools). If this seems counterintuitive, consider that high-wage contractors employ the most skilled and most productive workers and use the industry’s most advanced technology and equipment; this allows them to place bids on public construction projects that are competitive with-if not better than-those of low-wage, low-skill contractors. Essentially, state lawmakers “get what they pay for” when it comes to hiring contractors and workers to build public construction projects.

…

There is another fundamental problem with the current narrative on state prevailing wage laws: it entirely ignores the many benefits that the law provides a state’s residents and communities. In a time when economic opportunities for blue-collar workers are slipping away-devastating families and communities-prevailing wage laws are one of the few effective policies available to state lawmakers that increase the standard of living for these workers, incentivize employers to provide opportunities for training and skill development, and offer a clear pathway to the middle class for non-college educated state residents. Prevailing wage laws also advantage in-state and law-abiding contractors, reduce illegal employment practices, and improve workplace safety for a state’s residents. Any public discussion about state prevailing wage laws that ignores the benefits of the policy does an incredible disservice to a state’s workers, families, and communities.

(Read More)

(PDF Copy of Report)

Here’s why California developers must pay construction workers a fair wage

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

BY SAMANTHA DRAPER
Special to The Bee
OCTOBER 27, 2017 5:00 AM

Eighty five percent of the costs associated with housing construction in California are unrelated to the wages or benefits paid to the workers who actually build it.

And since 1990, those wages, adjusted for inflation, have actually decreased by 25 percent and been redistributed into profit margins for developers, which are growing 50 percent faster than the cost of materials or labor.

Developers got most of what they wanted in housing reform legislation that Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this month. And yet the building industry continues to complain about wages that are going to be paid to construction workers on certain projects.

The builders claim that they will need to raise prices to grow their already bulging bottom lines if they have to pay their workers enough to live. But there’s no real evidence to support this assertion.

In reality, the elimination of red tape on new housing construction likely will save most developers far more than any modest increase in their workers’ wages.

Peer-reviewed research on prevailing wages shows no impact on total project costs, because these standards promote skills training and quality workmanship that increase productivity and reduce spending on fuel and materials. And because they are market rates that reflect local cost of living, they save taxpayers the cost of subsidizing below market wages with welfare expenditures.

These aren’t abstract academic theories.

In 2015, the state of Indiana repealed its prevailing wage law. Earlier this year, the Indiana Assembly assistant Republican floor leader was asked about the effect on project costs. His response: “It hasn’t saved us a penny.”

(Read More)

Prevailing wage called “imperative” to housing bills

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

Oct. 10, 2017

State Building and Construction Trades Council President Robbie Hunter established a context in support of the prevailing wage in a Sacramento Bee story this week when he discussed how decent pay buys a highly skilled and trained work force that in the end cuts down on construction costs.

“Build it once, build it right,” the newspaper quoted Hunter as saying.

The Bee’s Oct. 8 story focused on the prevailing wage component included in five of the bills that were part of a housing package that was signed into law on Sept. 29 by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Three of the bills included an expedited approval process for contractors to get their projects built, including one piece of legislation, Senate Bill 35, which bypasses delays imposed by city councils and by a redundant environmental review process.

“Therefore,” Hunter said in a later statement, “it was imperative to have prevailing wage rates and a skilled workforce to assure that workers are paid a fair wage.”

As Hunter said in the video that accompanies the story, “If there is not a fair wage paid to the workers who are building a project, the very workers will be the ones who need the affordable housing.”

(Read More)

Understanding Wage Rates Under California’s Prevailing Wage Law

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

8-16-17
Richard E. Donahoo

California’s Prevailing Wage Law requires contractors to pay specific wage rates on public works projects. The rates are published by the State’s Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). The published rates include many different prevailing wage rates, which are based on the geographic location and the type of work that is performed. The rates are organized and published by the DIR in General Prevailing Wage Determinations, which set forth the rates for worker classifications (e.g., Laborer, Carpenter, Plumber, Operator). The specific rates applicable for each craft, classification, or type of work, and for each geographic locality throughout the state, can be located on the DIR website at http://www.dir.ca.gov. Understanding how to read a General Determination is important to understanding the required rate.

Prevailing Wage Determinations

California Labor Code (section 1774) states that workers must be paid not less than the “specified prevailing rates of wages” to all workmen employed in the execution of the contract. These specific rates are found in the General Determinations, which correspond to the type of work actually performed by individual workers. As explained in the State’s Public Works Manual,

“A worker’s title or status with the employer is not determinative of an individual’s coverage by the prevailing wage laws. What is determinative is whether the duties performed by the individual on a public works project constitute covered work. An individual who performs skilled or unskilled labor on a public works project is entitled to be paid the applicable prevailing wage rate for the time the work is performed, regardless of whether the individual holds a particular status such as partner, owner, owner-operator, independent contractor or sole proprietor, or holds a particular title with the employer such as president, vice-president, superintendent or foreman. For example, a “working” foreman or a “working” superintendent – one who performs labor on the project in connection with supervisorial responsibilities – is entitled to compensation at not less than the prevailing rate for the type of work performed.”

The Basic Hourly Rate vs Total Rate

General Determinations include both a Basic Hourly Rate and the Total Hourly Rate for each location and classification. Employers are required by California law to pay employees the Basic Hourly Rate as the minimum hourly wage for all hours worked. The Total Hourly Rate includes the Basic Hourly Rate and additional compensation for “employer payments” which are typically fringe benefits such as health insurance, vacation, pension and other “fringe benefits.” Employers can choose to pay fringe benefits directly to employees as part of their wages or can obtain an offset for the employer’s “actual cost” of the benefit provided to the employee that was paid into a bona fide health, pension, vacation, or fringe benefit plan. Either way, the total compensation paid by the employer to the employee must match the Total Hourly Wage set by the Director in the General Determination.

(Read More)

Builders, construction workers settle fight over California wage theft bill (CA)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

BY ALEXEI KOSEFF
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 9:52 AM

A contentious proposal that would put California builders on the hook for wage theft violations by their subcontractors has advanced to Gov. Jerry Brown after a last-minute agreement between the author and opponents.

The Assembly on Wednesday sent to the governor’s desk Assembly Bill 1701, which would allow construction workers who have not been paid for a job to seek their back wages and benefits, with interest, from the general contractor, even if they did not work directly for that company on the project.

Both the building industry and construction trade unions lobbied heavily on the measure, by Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, D-Richmond, in the final weeks of session, plastering websites with digital advertisements, passing out fliers on the sidewalk outside the Capitol and setting up an electronic billboard across the street.

Unions argued that AB 1701 gives workers a legal remedy when subcontractors skip town or file for bankruptcy before paying employees, while the building industry warned that it could drive up the cost of construction and worsen California’s housing crisis by potentially forcing them to pay twice for labor.

Yet the measure received overwhelming support Wednesday when it came up for a vote in the Assembly, passing 52-13. Just before that, Thurmond said, he submitted a letter to the Legislature stating his intent to carry a follow-up bill. It will remove a section of AB 1701 that builders worried could be used to hold them liable for further monetary damages.

(Read More)