80th Assembly District Update - April 3, 2009
Reject Prevailing Wage Provision
In a time when the state of Wisconsin should be doing everything it can to promote economic development and job creation, there has been action taken at the state level that would do just the opposite. The WI Department of Workforce Development (DWD), backed by a proposal in Governor Doyle’s Budget, has changed its interpretation of the state’s laws regarding prevailing wage. Although prevailing wage situations are not a commonly discussed topic, the expansion of prevailing wage law will have the result of increasing construction costs and will slow future business development in our state.
Currently, state and local governments must pay the prevailing wage rates on highway construction and other public works projects. The prevailing wage is determined by the DWD for geographical areas, based on a small survey of the pay and benefits received by a majority of the workers in the respective trades in that locality. In general, the prevailing wage rate is the rate paid to union workers.
However, the DWD has recently issued retroactive rulings for 13 communities that would reverse the long-held assumption that projects where government is not the contracting party are not subject to prevailing wage. In addition, the language on page 727 of the Governor Doyle’s budget would echo this interpretation and change state law to subject private construction projects receiving any public assistance to the prevailing wage. This new requirement would apply even to projects privately constructed that would continue in private ownership after completion.
To illustrate the negative potential these policies will have on economic development, we can look a recent ruling by the DWD on a project in Monroe, WI. In this case, the DWD issued a ruling that the City of Monroe is required to seek a prevailing wage rate for the Wal-Mart and Menards projects. Although they are both private projects, the new ruling would mean a higher wage would have to paid, thus increasing the project costs by thousands. It is possible that if these businesses would have known about the increased costs in the future, they would not have chosen to expand, construct, and invest in our area.
In summary, the expansion of the prevailing wage laws would result in much higher construction costs and therefore make Wisconsin a less attractive place to do business. In fact, lower bids from area smaller, non-union contractors would not be allowed. The DWD rulings and Governor Doyle’s proposal would force development companies to hire contractors that pay the high union-level wages to all of their employees. The result of this anti-competition measure will increase the cost of construction and development projects and deter economic development in our state. I will continue to push for the removal of this provision from the budget and will support the passage of legislation that would reverse this interpretation of the law.
State Representative Brett Davis
State Capitol - Room 308 North - Post Office Box 8952 - Madison, Wisconsin 53708
(608) 266-1192 - Fax (608) 282-3680 - Toll Free: (888) 534-0080
Email: Rep.Davis@legis.wi.gov
On the Internet: www.brettdavis.us
The Evansville Observer Archive: The unofficial history of Evansville, Wisconsin from 2005-2013: Thousands of Video and Audio and Articles; Free: To Search scroll to the Search this Blog line and enter name of person, topic, or issue. Then scroll up to see all articles. Or use Google Search by topic. Enjoy.
So, in Brett's mind, it's not enough that Menard's and Wal-Mart are holding up the taxpayers of Monroe for concessions to build there. (Does Monroe need a new Wal-Mart? Would Wal-Mart have moved to Argyle if the council had said no?) Now Brett wants it to be okay for the contractors to use labor at below prevailing rates.
ReplyDeleteI think he's wrong this time.
Oh please.. What should we do allow slave labor?? It's about time companies and states have to start paying a decent wage.. Shame on Brett.
ReplyDeleteSince when is a fair market wage "slave labor?" Construction workers get paid well, union or non-union. Prevailing wage rates are WELL ABOVE marketing wages. They are like AIG style wages for the construction industry. You can't sustain those types of inflated wages or the industry will implode much like the auto industry.
ReplyDeleteI applaud Brett for his stance.
I feel both of you are wrong. I have worked for prevailing wage and have been paid almost twice what I had already agreed to work for. My work rate did not increase, my quality did not improve, my knowledge level did not rise just because I was promised more money per hour. Not everyone in construction makes $25-$35 an hour. I have made a living most of my life off what "Anonoymous" hails as "slave labor". It was honest hard work, and I was paid what I agreed to work for.
ReplyDeleteThe bidding process needs to be as highly detailed as possible, but should have absolutely no say on what pay scales should be. You cannot fault a company for having an employee making less than prevailing, if that employee is content with that.
The best qualified construction company should win, they should have to meet all local, state, and federal restrictions except prevailing wage.
I have been involved with jobs in parts of Illinois where workers were run off jobs because they were non-Union. The other Union trades threatened to walk off if the non-Union workers continued to be present. It was not a "Union" job, but because a Union company did not get this part of the job, that trade along with others would not work side by side with non-Union workers as if they were sub-human.
I can't wait for the day that construction Union's are gone. I think they had their time and were needed years ago. In this day and age with OSHA, Workers Comp, and many other worker advocate programs, the Unions need is eliminated. The non-Union worker does have rights and skill training possibilities. I think Union's feel they are entitled and superior to any and all who are not Union. The best company should win every time, regardless of Union affiliation. I have worked for several Union and non-Union employers, and the only difference was paying dues.
I applaud Brett for his position on this issue, and am proud that he looked at the facts and made an informed decision.
construction workers get paid well??? I don't think 10.00 a hour is well. That is poverty level , and that is what many construction companies around here that are not union. To the second anon. You clearly don't work construction.
ReplyDeleteCommercial construction $10.00 jobs are typically general laborer jobs. They are unskilled jobs for beginners or temp workers. If one is highly skilled in finishing concrete, and chooses to work for minimum wage, that is their decision.
ReplyDeleteLet the local wage market dictate what the cost of labor is. If employers have to pay more than "prevailing" to hire workers, then that is what the market deems as appropriate and vice versa.
I'll take my coffee straight, without any artificial sweeteners.
That's one of the points in FAVOR of unions, Matt--that the UNION can demand a higher wage, even in a depressed economy. In time when unemployment is high, companies can tell workers, "This is what I'm paying; if you don't take it, there are 10 in line behind you who will." Not because it is a fair wage, but because it is SOME wage. That's what Ceasar Chavez was all about. Earlier than that, look at the migrant workers after the depression. (Remember the "Grapes of Wrath"?) The fact is, left to its own, business will screw labor whenever it can. It took lots of federal laws to 'check' the disgusting habits of business--working hours, conditions, etc. One of those laws was the right to bargain as a union. And, all of a sudden, business was required to deal fairly with labor. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's better than it was without unions.
ReplyDeleteI normally agree with Brett on economic issues, but not this time. Sorry, Brett--you've called this one wrong.
I've never seen a plumber (prevailing wage or non-prevailing wage) lose his/her house when he has work. I have seen it happen when there is no work. Applying PW to private work means that the work goes bye-bye. Egg gatherers should not carry knives...
ReplyDeleteThe market should always be allowed to dictate the local labor rates. With skills that were worth $14-$18 per hour in Dane county back in 2000, I was routinely offered $7.00-$10.00 per hour for identical work in Jefferson City, Missouri. The market controls the wage.
ReplyDeleteOne can always become an independent contractor or start a new business if they feel they are being so wronged. If the worker is legal and the employer is operating legally, that is the only criteria I see that needs enforcement.
I guess I will have to agree to disagree with most of the Anon's and leave it at that.
First, Matt, I appreciate being able to have a conversation about issues without either of us 'getting personal', even if, as we do, disagree with each other. THANKS!!!
ReplyDeleteLet me suggest this: Business was perfectly willing to let children work all hours of the day--until federal law stepped in. Business was perfectly o.k. with requiring women to work in sweat shop, fire hazard conditions--Until the International Ladies Garment Workers Union stepped in (as well as a few fires that killed a number of women workers--in some cases, because Business had locked the exit doors (when there WAS a second exit) to keep the women from sneaking out on a break). Business didn't give a damn about coal dust and the coal miners. I could go on and on. My point is that, left to their own, without ANY check, business doesn't care about its workers. In the 40's through the early 80's, a C.E.O.'s MAX pay was roughly 30-40 times what the lowest paid 'worker' salary was. Reagan came in, removed some of the Govt. controls, and now we have C.E.O.'s making 400 times the lowest worker. That's not a misprint: four hundred. So, the C.E.O. of G.M. walks away from a FAILING company with a 22 million dollar severence package, and SOME in Congress (mostly the ones with "R" next to their names) are still bitching that the unions need to sacrafice more???)(BTW, that includes Obama...and HE's wrong on that one!). That's wrong, no matter how it's sliced. I enjoy debating this with you, Matt!