February 3, 2009 1:42 PM
Should state contractors pay 'prevailing wage' on state jobs?
If Colorado contractors are forced to pay 'prevailing wage' to workers on state construction projects, would it so increase the cost of projects that fewer of them would get done or provide decent salaries and health care for workers?
Ed Sealover reports:
House Bill 1208, by Rep. John Soper, D-Thornton, would require contractors to pay "prevailing wages," set by the U.S. Department of Labor.Prevailing wages are routinely paid by union shops but not by independent contractors.
With Colorado expecting hundreds of millions of dollars for public-works projects as part of a federal stimulus package, the proposal is likely to kick up a huge debate.
"It very much creates a federal stimulus earmark here in Colorado for union shops only," Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, said of the bill.
Gardner and other opponents argue that establishing a floor on wages would hike the cost of projects.
If the state has to pay more to contractors to cover salaries, that is less money for actual construction and fewer highways that can be fixed, they said.
Also, if companies can't bid on jobs because they don't pay enough, that would narrow the pool of competing firms and put fewer people to work at a time when job creation is critical, they said.
Good idea? Fair to workers who need jobs with good salaries and health care? Fair to employers?
February 3, 2009
2:28 PM
NeoCon Sheep writes:
Hell no! The economy is just fine. People are making more than enough money and if they make a fair wage, that may cut into CEO's profits. Can't let that happen. These peasants should be happy just having a job!
February 3, 2009
5:31 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
AND LET'S DO HOOT-SMALLEY JUST TO GUARANTEE ANOTHER 1929.
Is Obama's union election-IOU more important than America?
February 3, 2009
6:29 PM
LCDR Mandingo, aka 40 Acres-mule writes:
Heck no! That would defeat Ray-Gun's (WWII draftdodger) reason for allowing criminal & illegal Mexicans to invade America. Their mission is to lower wages and benefits, bust our labor unions, and to nullify Black votes.
February 3, 2009
6:41 PM
incognitoboy writes:
hmmm. sounds like a big ol' can-o-worms. the regressives LIKE being able to hire non-union labor cheaper and with fewer benefits so that the CEO can take more vacations in the bahamas. the heck with ensuring that properly trained and/or licensed folks are building infrastructure projects. we overburdened taxpayers don't mind driving on roads and bridges which may or may not actually conform to specs, built by marginally qualified and underequipped crews working under rushed deadlines, right? keep those low bids coming......we'll all have nice bonuses at the E.O.F.Y.
compensate the workers well, you're more likely to have happy, qualified workers who MIGHT actually care enough to do a good job? heck, if more companies did that in the first place, why would we NEED unions?
greed is good......but only when it's 'trickle down'. (the corporate mantra)
February 3, 2009
9:05 PM
DougH writes:
Truly the dumbest thing I have heard from a politician is: "if companies can't bid on jobs because they don't pay enough, that would narrow the pool of competing firms and put fewer people to work at a time when job creation is critical".
If everyone is required to pay the prevailing wage, then there is no competitive advantage or disadvantage for anyone because of labor costs.
Surely we would get more bridges built by bringing in a bunch of undocumented workers at half the price. I wonder of that is what Rep. Gardner wants us to do.
February 4, 2009
7:25 AM
Jeremy writes:
We used to have this thing called a "free market". What it meant is that companies were free to offer whatever wage they wanted, and workers were free to demand whatever wage they wanted, and they settled somewhere in the middle. If a worker demanded too high of a wage, the company would hire someone else. If a company paid too little, the worker would find a job that paid the going market rate elsewhere. It was a well-oiled system, and no side could take advantage of the other because the other side could go elsewhere and get "market value".
February 4, 2009
8:19 AM
George Hayduke writes:
Davis-Bacon has been around a long time, since 1931 I believe. I don't have a problem with limiting a contractor's ability to bring in cheap labor. All the 'free market' arguments aside, if a contractor can bring in slave labor from say Lower Absurdistan he will do it. The free market fails in the face of corporate greed. Local economies need some protection from the more unethical companies out there.
February 4, 2009
8:56 AM
JMH writes:
This is pretty simple and what the "Obama revolution" is all about. For the past decade jobs have been outsourced, given to illegal's for a cheaper wage or just lost because we all want cheap goods imported from China and such...
Thus as more and more people lose well paying jobs and our whole manufacturing base is given away in the name of "free trade" (ie. greed)... then more and more people have less money to spend, thus less money to buy products, thus causing a recession, thus getting us here!
It is this shortsigted GREED that has killed our economy. How do you expect the economy to grow when no one has any money to spend, much less a job at all?
For the past decade ALL of the wealth created in this country has been sent to the top 2%... Not one NET job was produced under the Bush administration, no worker protections were ever seriously put into place to protect American workers wages from being undercut by illegal immigrant labor and these un-American trade treaties have sold out our entire manufacturing base. Wages for the average American worker have remained stangnet and have even gone down in most industries this past decade... Is anyone suprised that the economy is in the worst shpae ever, especially if you factor in all the corruption and de-regulation that occured on top of this all!
Enough is enough!
Time to put America back to work. With well paying jobs!!! Call it protectionism if you want, but it is time to scrap NAFTA and the other trade agreements and negotiate better ones, time to put tariffs on some imported goods and time to STOP trading with China (they devalue their currency unfairly & don't have any enviromental or worker protections). Our "WalMart" attitude is killing us... it is all very shortshighted!
All you "Free market / traders" can kiss my a$$!!! These policies are the ones that are killing us all!
That all said, I would like to be the first person who voted for Obama to scream about his shortsightedness when it comes to his speaking out against some of the "Buy American" provisions that are being attempted to put in the Stimulus plan!
Mr. Obama... WTF?!!! This is stupid. I want my tax money going to buying goods in THIS country, not f*cking China! Put the "buy American" in, or this is just another giveaway to forign countries and you are no better than Bush when it comes to trade. Granted you couldn't be worse, but this is wrong!!!
February 4, 2009
3:00 PM
Broncos1 writes:
Contractors on state highway projects are already required to pay davis-bacon wages. Most of the contractors pay prevailing wages already. I don't know what the big gripe is with the unions.
Most of the construction workers I have worked around don't want to be in a union.
February 4, 2009
4:24 PM
Elwood writes:
Want to see the unions start kicking and screaming? Pay all the workers prevailing wage. There would be no advantage to being in the union then and their declining membership would really shrink.
Personally, I would prefer to employ 100 workers at a lower wage (as long as they are citizens) than 75 workers at union wages . You'd get the job done in less time as well.
February 5, 2009
10:35 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
Since its all taxpayer money, are we not owed the very lowest labor and material costs on every job? Union wages and "Buy America" are nothing but union election IOU payola.
Perp walk the crooks who support this.
February 5, 2009
4:47 PM
GladysKravitz writes:
They should either pay the prevailing wage or living wage or provide sufficient health care. Otherwise, no contract for you!
February 5, 2009
4:49 PM
freemarketworks writes:
Davis-Bacon was a mob driven law enacted to ensure that mob bosses would get their cuts from union jobs. It's completely irresponsible and wasteful to not force union shops to compete with non-union shops. Contracts should go to the bidder that can legally do the job better, cheaper and faster than thier competitors.
If unions can meet their claims of providing more reliable and skilled workers than non-union workers, than they should have no problem competing for government contracts on the basis of being able to do the job better, cheaper and faster than their non union competitors.
February 25, 2009
8:58 AM
Pride in what you do writes:
All the projects should be open shop!
The best way to get more bang for your buck is to hold a great bid campaign.
I have worked with both union and non-union labor. I can tell you that quality has everything to do with the worker and pride. It has nothing to do with being union or non-union.
The union people call non union workers scabs. The union version of that is a slug and belive me there are plenty on both sides. The only difference is how much they are paid!
Everyone that pays taxes should be entitled to a chance to bid as long as they are capable of performing the tasks on the project at hand.