Prevailing Wage

[Tskware]

Where I work, this issue will be a lot bigger than the right to work. Those of you in the construction industry, how do intend to address the need to normalize everyone's pay due to the repeal of PW law?

To be clear, a lot of companies bid on both private and state jobs (Fed jobs, by the way, are unaffected by the Ky legislature), but use the same crews. For example, if guys are used to making $40/hr half the year, and $20/hr the other half of the year, then they are used to making $60K per year (2000 hours times avg wage of $30 per hour)

But . . . even though the private jobs have been $20 per hour, I cannot believe you will keep most of your work force if all of a sudden they go from making $60K per year to $40K per year (2000 hours X $20/hr), lots will walk out the door.

Curious how construction companies intend to adjust their pay scale after the repeal of PW.

 

[louisvillesux]

I'm curious about that was well. I've worked for pw before, it's a good gig. Wondering how construction companies will adjust.

 

[Lexie's Dad]

If they can't hire enough workers at a low wage, they will raise wages to attract more workers.

 

[Bill Derington]

If they can't hire enough workers at a low wage, they will raise wages to attract more workers.

Or hire illegal immigrants.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

More Green cards.
That's what the US Chamber of Commerce wants, hire anyone from anywhere and cheap as possible.

 

[UKserialkiller]

I'm curious about that was well. I've worked for pw before, it's a good gig. Wondering how construction companies will adjust.

I'm curious as well. I work for Shulte Homes as a design tech. We are currently revamping our model to fit more closely with PW. However, there is some blowback happening with potential unionization. Our CEO is actually going to supplement the costs within the budget

 

[phunterd]

I have a company that does work exclusively in the public domain so I was watching this one very closely. We do projects that are both state and federally funded. It will impact federal jobs slightly as the local wages are still higher than the federal so we still have to pay local prevailing wage.

You are correct that there will be a shock coming to the workers. There's a big difference between having to pay a prevailing wage for electrical (can be $45/hour or higher) versus what the market rate is. However, it's always better when things like this are left up to the market rather than some local bureaucrats. One of the advantages I see is that it will allow us to reward better employees with a better rate. When everyone is making a base rate of $37/hour, there's not much room to pay your better guys more. Now the wage can legitimately be based on the value you produce thus incentivizing performance.

We do occasional work in TN, where the rates are lower regardless, so I'm hoping that will offset any potential turnover as they're somewhat used to seeing smaller paychecks.

 

[-LEK-]

You guys do know this doesnt affect federal contracts or anything associated Davis Bacon. Almost all state contracts, if mixed or touched by federal dollars, Davis-Bacon then becomes controlling.

 

[bluelifer]

Now the wage can legitimately be based on the value you produce thus incentivizing performance.

Now that's a novel approach.

 

[louisvillesux]

Now that's a novel approach.

that just means the wage will be based on who will work the cheapest...hello mexicans

 

[Lexie's Dad]

that just means the wage will be based on who will work the cheapest...hello mexicans

No. Just no. I teach economics. Please take one of my classes. Labor productivity is king.

You would rather pay $50 to get 100 widgets than $10 to get 18.

 

[Dig Dirkler]

Widgets suck, no matter how much they cost. TMFS.

 

[louisvillesux]

No. Just no. I teach economics. Please take one of my classes. Labor productivity is king.

You would rather pay $50 to get 100 widgets than $10 to get 18.

i have taken many. i have also spent 25 years working in the economy.

 

[bluelifer]

that just means the wage will be based on who will work the cheapest...hello mexicans

You definitely know more about rtw and prevailing wage than I do, I certainly won't argue that, but the answer to everything isn't "because mexicans". In most cases it's probably quite a bit more complex than that.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

No. Just no. I teach economics. Please take one of my classes. Labor productivity is king.

You would rather pay $50 to get 100 widgets than $10 to get 18.

I prefer small batch widgets.

 

[Hank Camacho]

This is only tangentially related to the original topic, but if you want to see some fantastically terrible financial decisions, go follow around a construction crew that's been making a prevailing wage for a month.

Half the crew will have a newly leased truck and/or a bass boat, guaranteed. And there won't be a chance in hell they can afford it once they go back to market wages.

 

[louisvillesux]

You definitely know more about rtw and prevailing wage than I do, I certainly won't argue that, but the answer to everything isn't "because mexicans". In most cases it's probably quite a bit more complex than that.

Certainly true. Was trying to be funny, and failed. Regardless, it leads to whichever employees will work the cheapest. I am not in construction much anymore so it doesn't effect me. but I would rather the govt pay better wages, that will encourage private businesses to increase their pay when possible. When I was making pw, other companies increased their pay to keep their people from coming over to us.

 

[starchief]

Trump is going to bring good widget-making jobs back to America. American-made widgets would last a lifetime. Chinese-made widgets are crap.

MAGA.

 

[mrhotdice]

If they can't hire enough workers at a low wage, they will raise wages to attract more workers.

If they do like companies in Las Vegas, they say they can't hire enough locals and bring in Mexicans and Filipinos to do the work. Because these foreign workers want to join a union, the unions allow this and accept the situation.

 

[Tskware]

If they do like companies in Las Vegas, they say they can't hire enough locals and bring in Mexicans and Filipinos to do the work. Because these foreign workers want to join a union, the unions allow this and accept the situation.

Well, is that statement true - the one about they can't hire enough locals? Lot of folks I know in the construction industry say it is true, can't get locals to pass drug tests and/or show up at 3 AM to pour concrete at industrial jobs, or to lay brick, or to install roofs, they quit after about two or three days.

 

[Lexie's Dad]

Well, is that statement true - the one about they can't hire enough locals? Lot of folks I know in the construction industry say it is true, can't get locals to pass drug tests and/or show up at 3 AM to pour concrete at industrial jobs, or to lay brick, or to install roofs, they quit after about two or three days.

And if wages increase the ones who can't pee clean or

i have taken many. i have also spent 25 years working in the economy.

Perhaps you should pass one.

 

[3 fan_rivals214492]

No. Just no. I teach economics. Please take one of my classes. Labor productivity is king.

You would rather pay $50 to get 100 widgets than $10 to get 18.

Or you would rather pay illegals $20/hr for 100 widgets without benefits...

 

[louisvillesux]

And if wages increase the ones who can't pee clean or

Perhaps you should pass one.

oooh, burn, such wit. but if all you know about economics came from a classroom, your thoughts mean little.

 

[bluelifer]

Certainly true. Was trying to be funny, and failed. Regardless, it leads to whichever employees will work the cheapest. I am not in construction much anymore so it doesn't effect me. but I would rather the govt pay better wages, that will encourage private businesses to increase their pay when possible. When I was making pw, other companies increased their pay to keep their people from coming over to us.

This line of thinking generally revolves around the thought that it's good or acceptable for government to pay well over the market rate for anything it purchases, be it goods or services. Last time I checked, the government gets it's money to pay for **** from me and a bunch of other suckers like me. People sometimes forget that when these topics come up.

 

[Tskware]

This line of thinking generally revolves around the thought that it's good or acceptable for government to pay well over the market rate for anything it purchases, be it goods or services. Last time I checked, the government gets it's money to pay for **** from me and a bunch of other suckers like me. People sometimes forget that when these topics come up.

I have never actually looked up the origins of the prevailing wage law, why was it passed in the first place? I had some renovations done in my home a couple of years ago, and my builder was charging me cost plus a fee so I saw the actual bills. The master carpenters were charging $65 an hour, which I gladly paid, they did good work. But $65 per hour seems like a living wage to me, what was the impetus for PW to begin with?

 

[bluelifer]

I have never actually looked up the origins of the prevailing wage law, why was it passed in the first place? I had some renovations done in my home a couple of years ago, and my builder was charging me cost plus a fee so I saw the actual bills. The master carpenters were charging $65 an hour, which I gladly paid, they did good work. But $65 per hour seems like a living wage to me, what was the impetus for PW to begin with?

@bananapants would probably be a better resource on the ins and outs of the law. I'm probably out of my element there. My gripe is more with the government jobs costing more just because they're government jobs. I'm a big fan of goods and services actually costing what the open market determines they're worth.

 

[louisvillesux]

This line of thinking generally revolves around the thought that it's good or acceptable for government to pay well over the market rate for anything it purchases, be it goods or services. Last time I checked, the government gets it's money to pay for **** from me and a bunch of other suckers like me. People sometimes forget that when these topics come up.

I don't disagree with you buddy. As a taxpayer, I want my money to be spent as wisely as possible. I buy store brand peanut butter, I want the govt to shop for bargains also. But, doing away with the prevailing wage laws will not lower our taxes. Govt will still have that money. I would rather it be spent on pw laws that pay workers more, and encourages non govt contractors to do the same.

 

[mrhotdice]

No. Just no. I teach economics. Please take one of my classes. Labor productivity is king.

You would rather pay $50 to get 100 widgets than $10 to get 18.

Or would you rather pay $50000 for a robot that makes 1000 widgets that never complains, is never sick, never strikes, has no Union and works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Welcome to the future.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

This line of thinking generally revolves around the thought that it's good or acceptable for government to pay well over the market rate for anything it purchases, be it goods or services. Last time I checked, the government gets it's money to pay for **** from me and a bunch of other suckers like me. People sometimes forget that when these topics come up.

And you get your money because you live in a country with a stable government and economy. Or are you naive enough to think you would be a top 1-3% income earner worldwide if you were born in sudan?

The market may be good at establishing wages but it's also good at completely lowering its standards when it doesn't have to pay "artificially inflated" wages. Hope you all feel safe when every building statewide is built by tyrone biggums. And lmao at people thinking this will lower taxes. Wow. It may shift taxes. Then you'll just have something else to be internet outraged at.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

I have never actually looked up the origins of the prevailing wage law, why was it passed in the first place? I had some renovations done in my home a couple of years ago, and my builder was charging me cost plus a fee so I saw the actual bills. The master carpenters were charging $65 an hour, which I gladly paid, they did good work. But $65 per hour seems like a living wage to me, what was the impetus for PW to begin with?

Because the master carpenter was likely a sub that set his own rate. Not someone working for a wage.

 

[-LEK-]

I have never actually looked up the origins of the prevailing wage law, why was it passed in the first place? I had some renovations done in my home a couple of years ago, and my builder was charging me cost plus a fee so I saw the actual bills. The master carpenters were charging $65 an hour, which I gladly paid, they did good work. But $65 per hour seems like a living wage to me, what was the impetus for PW to begin with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act

Prior to the passage of the federal Davis–Bacon Act (abbreviated DBA), other jurisdictions in the United States had passed laws that required that contractors on public works projects pay the wage that prevailed locally. “In 1891, Kansas adopted a law requiring that ‘not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics, and other persons so employed by or on behalf of the state of Kansas’ or of other local jurisdictions. Through the next several decades, other states followed suit, enacting a variety of labor-protective statutes covering workers in contract production.” [3][4]

In 1927, a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in the district of Congressman Bacon.[5] Prompted by concerns about the conditions of workers, displacement of local workers by migrant workers, and competitive pressure toward lower wages,[6] Bacon introduced the first version of his bill in 1927.

Over the next few years, Bacon attempted to introduce variations on the prevailing wage bill 13 times.[7][8] Finally, in the midst of the Great Depression, with local workers complaining about cheap labor taking their jobs and Congressmen frustrated that their efforts to bring "pork barrel" projects home to their districts did not result in jobs (and therefore political support) from their constituents,[5] the Hoover Administration requested that Congress reconsider the Act once more as a means of preventing falling wages.[9] Sponsored in the Senate by former Labor Secretary Davis, it passed by voice vote and was signed into law on 3 March 1931.[3]

 

[-LEK-]

Thought this was interesting. If you ever want to read boring but cool stuff on the government waste, go to GAO.

In 1979, the U.S. Congress General Accounting Office (GAO) – (which was renamed the Government Accountability Office in 2004) published a report titled, “The Davis-Bacon Act Should Be Repealed".[11] The GAO summarized its argument as

Significant changes in economic conditions, and the economic character of the construction industry since 1931, plus the passage of other wage laws, make the act unnecessary.

After nearly 50 years, the Department of Labor has not developed an effective program to issue and maintain current and accurate wage determinations; it may be impractical to ever do so.

The act results in unnecessary construction and administrative costs of several hundred million dollars annually (if the construction projects reviewed by GAO are representative) and has an inflationary effect on the areas covered by inaccurate wage rates and the economy as a whole.

 

[qwesley]

No PW equals more updated and new schools for the children.

 

[Tskware]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act

Prior to the passage of the federal Davis–Bacon Act (abbreviated DBA), other jurisdictions in the United States had passed laws that required that contractors on public works projects pay the wage that prevailed locally. “In 1891, Kansas adopted a law requiring that ‘not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics, and other persons so employed by or on behalf of the state of Kansas’ or of other local jurisdictions. Through the next several decades, other states followed suit, enacting a variety of labor-protective statutes covering workers in contract production.” [3][4]

In 1927, a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in the district of Congressman Bacon.[5] Prompted by concerns about the conditions of workers, displacement of local workers by migrant workers, and competitive pressure toward lower wages,[6] Bacon introduced the first version of his bill in 1927.

Over the next few years, Bacon attempted to introduce variations on the prevailing wage bill 13 times.[7][8] Finally, in the midst of the Great Depression, with local workers complaining about cheap labor taking their jobs and Congressmen frustrated that their efforts to bring "pork barrel" projects home to their districts did not result in jobs (and therefore political support) from their constituents,[5] the Hoover Administration requested that Congress reconsider the Act once more as a means of preventing falling wages.[9] Sponsored in the Senate by former Labor Secretary Davis, it passed by voice vote and was signed into law on 3 March 1931.[3]

Much thanks, appreciate the research.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Certainly true. Was trying to be funny, and failed. Regardless, it leads to whichever employees will work the cheapest. I am not in construction much anymore so it doesn't effect me. but I would rather the govt pay better wages, that will encourage private businesses to increase their pay when possible. When I was making pw, other companies increased their pay to keep their people from coming over to us.

The problem with this way of thinking, in my opinion, is that while it might be good for those employees who are making higher wages, it is not good for consumers in general. I'm not sure it is a net gain for the economy. What you describe, creates inflation, so buyers of those construction projects, whether government or the private sector, pay more than they otherwise would have to pay. I can't see that as being a good thing for the economy as a whole. The market does a much better job of determining the appropriate price of any product, including labor.

 

[louisvillesux]

The problem with this way of thinking, in my opinion, is that while it might be good for those employees who are making higher wages, it is not good for consumers in general. I'm not sure it is a net gain for the economy. What you describe, creates inflation, so buyers of those construction projects, whether government or the private sector, pay more than they otherwise would have to pay. I can't see that as being a good thing for the economy as a whole. The market does a much better job of determining the appropriate price of any product, including labor.

i am a strong believer in capitalism, and generally agree with your sentiment. but capitalism ran to its extreme creates walmart. its an interesting topic, for sure. but one thing is certain, doing away with the prevailing wage laws wont save us taxpayers any money. all it will do is lower wages for the workers on those jobs, and have a ripple effect throughout the economy.

 

[sluggercatfan]

Or would you rather pay $50000 for a robot that makes 1000 widgets that never complains, is never sick, never strikes, has no Union and works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Welcome to the future.

And how many goods and services do those robots buy? You have one family in this country that is collectively worth 135 BILLION dollars , but a vast majority of its employees don't make a living wage and their employees get subsidized by the government. That is a real "patriotic" gesture by those folks when we the common Joe, tax paying citizen are asked to be patriotic and sacrifice every day...where is the fairness in that.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

And how many goods and services do those robots buy? You have one family in this country that is collectively worth 135 BILLION dollars , but a vast majority of its employees don't make a living wage and their employees get subsidized by the government. That is a real "patriotic" gesture by those folks when we the common Joe, tax paying citizen are asked to be patriotic and sacrifice every day...where is the fairness in that.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the value of the labor. No offense to Walmart workers, but how difficult would it be to replace that labor with someone else? In most cases, probably not too difficult. If your labor is easily replaced, then it doesn't have a lot of value. It's why Walmart cashiers make less than mechanical engineers. The market pays what is required to attract the labor it needs to perform the job. As a consumer, why would I want any industry to overpay for its labor, materials, or anything else? As someone who owns mutual funds, etc., why would I want a company that I might have invested in to overpay for labor, material, or anything else, and make itself less competitive?

 

[sluggercatfan]

Fairness has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the value of the labor. No offense to Walmart workers, but how difficult would it be to replace that labor with someone else? In most cases, probably not too difficult. If your labor is easily replaced, then it doesn't have a lot of value. It's why Walmart cashiers make less than mechanical engineers. The market pays what is required to attract the labor it needs to perform the job. As a consumer, why would I want any industry to overpay for its labor, materials, or anything else? As someone who owns mutual funds, etc., why would I want a company that I might have invested in to overpay for labor, material, or anything else, and make itself less competitive?

How about its magagement? Never met a management guy that didn't think he was worth twice what he is paid...I'm talking about GREED and there is plenty of it in this country...and I'm a Republican and believe in capitalism, but I also believe the working class man/woman shouldn't have to struggle...read up on the Waltons they are a greedy bunch of sobs

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

How about its magagement? Never met a management guy that didn't think he was worth twice what he is paid...I'm talking about GREED and there is plenty of it in this country...and I'm a Republican and believe in capitalism, but I also believe the working class man/woman shouldn't have to struggle...read up on the Waltons they are a greedy bunch of sobs

They probably are, but that has nothing to do with what a Walmart employee should make.