Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Kill prevailing wage law

September 6, 2013

The prevailing wage law should not have the amount raised. It should like more and more states kill it completely....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(22)

Tedeaux

Sep-06-13 2:16 AM

Is the amount of unemployment compensation one of the "four" remaining factors? $574 a week for, I believe 99 weeks doesn't put a lot of pressure on a fellow to get off the couch and go back to work.

15 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Sep-06-13 5:42 AM

"$574 a week for, I believe 99 weeks doesn't put a lot of pressure on a fellow to get off the couch and go back to work." - Tedeaux

*

Is there anything you KNOW (for a fact, regarding that UC rate)...or, is what you "believe" sufficient-enough, for you, to consider it an actual-fact?

1 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Sep-06-13 5:53 AM

MrShaman - 5:42 AM

"Is there anything you KNOW (for a fact, regarding that UC rate)...or, is what you "believe" sufficient-enough, for you, to consider it an actual-fact?"

Once again Sham.....too lazy to do your own research? If you really wanted an answer, you would look it up. You just want to be a prick!

You can be counted on for only two things, either wanting others to do your research, or bloviating!

15 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-06-13 6:22 AM

Labor accounts for less than 20 percent of project costs on "prevailing wage" projects so repealing will have a negligible effect on costs. The control factor for government bid jobs should be in the costs of the supplies and the profit of the companies doing the job. I don't like the limiting profit model, but when you are a business owner bidding on a taxpayer funded project I believe after a cursory look at the profit made off the backs of taxpayers you will find a markup rate of nearly 60%. If I did that in my business I'd be out of business. Killing the prevailing wage law will do nothing to control or cut costs, it will only increase profits.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Sep-06-13 7:08 AM

Carl:

You throw figures out that do not reflect reality.

Most projects consist of more than 50% labor. Reducing that by at least 20% means a 10% savings to taxpayers. That means more projects can be executed using the same amount of funds.

The 60% profit figure is way out. Many of these projects result in 5%-10% profit margins.

This is from my experience in bidding and winning these projects.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-06-13 7:12 AM

Is there anything you KNOW (for a fact, regarding that UC rate)...or, is what you "believe" sufficient-enough, for you, to consider it an actual-fact? -Shaman

Actually I believe the maximum amount is 573.00 a week as of 2011, but hey Shaman, why don't you check it yourself if you doubt it. You constantly comment as to the validity of facts by others, when you could just as well check them yourself. That is a sign that you have nothing else to dispute those facts.

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Sep-06-13 7:22 AM

$574 p/week is not going to support anyone very well unless there is another employed individual in the home. second, you would originally made about $53,000 per year to draw the max. Remember UC is not ever equal to your paycheck. Do individuals who made $53,000 take their UC rather than taking a $15,000 a year job? Of course. Should someone lose their home and car because of a lay-off or closure? Remember they lose the value of medical insurance after 30 days and are then paying out-of-pocket. Erik - is willing as always to stick it to someone else while he is a salaried employee. Its's always easier to take away from another? How much would you willingly cut your own salary?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-06-13 8:00 AM

Where is this employment progress figure at?

Every time someone writes or posts that PA is in the bottom five, it isn't.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-06-13 8:03 AM

Spike, I agree. I was drawing the max several years ago in MD and it was only a fraction of what I was making and when you are budgeted for years at a certain salary, to lose half of that salary is a huge burden. Why should I be expected to except a job making a fraction of what I was making just to stop UC? I continued to look for employment and I eventually found a job making a comparable salary to my last position. That's the way the system is suppose to work.

Concerning prevailing wage, I think it should be eliminated all together. I think in the last several decades it's just been a political payoff and strong abuse of public money to support labor unions.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Sep-06-13 8:15 AM

Let market forces dictate the prevailing wages, just like they do with prices. It's true that U/C is not a livable wage, but in O's miserable job market, he's decided you can live on a little less.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-06-13 8:46 AM

Do you all know what prevailing wage is?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-06-13 8:56 AM

eriklatranyi - Nowhere did I state anything about 60% profit, I stated markup. Profit and markup are not the same. Net profit is after all expenses and markup is the percentage used to gain that profit not taking into account the expenses. And as for throwing figures around, I never do, I have all the info to back it up. An old study by Fraundorf in 1984 on "prevailing wage" is what government and business leadership generally quote from as to labor costs being the motivating factor in higher cost in these projects. There have been subsequent studies that discovered the Fraundorf authors left out a key variable — differences between public and private building design specs. Once these differences are accounted for, later studies do not replicate the conclusion of Fraundorf and find no impact of prevailing wages on contract costs. So I'll stand firmly by my previous post.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Sep-06-13 8:59 AM

CarlHiller, Your 6:22 post shows that you have no grasp of economics. The bidding process itself controls profit. The only way to get the low bid is to take the low profit. Prevailing wage laws just guarantee that the labor cost will be high. What the prevailing wage does is prevent workers from competing with each other. It is just a political gift to the unions, who of course reciprocate come election time. It's a way for politicians to funnel tax dollars into campaign funds. It's not very efficient, but who cares, it's just taxes.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-06-13 9:20 AM

Do you all know what prevailing wage is? -Reeder

Yep... but I sure would love to hear your explanation...

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

twinder

Sep-06-13 10:17 AM

I worked as project superintendent for a company who only performed Federal Construction Projects. On one project, we were to replace floor tiles in closets where fire sprinkler main lines were installed to the buildings. About 12 tiles in each closet. I was putting the tiles in when the Contracting officer for the Federal agency we were working for asked if I was paying myself twice, once as superintendent and once as a "Flooring installer." I told him there were only 12 tiles in each of the 4 closets and I was just getting it off the punch list. We were stopped under the Davis Bacon Wage act (Prevailing wage) and I had to hire a separate sub contractor to put in less than 40 tiles. Cost of that sub contract? $3400.00 The sub got paid for his worker and a 20-10-2 Labor burden, Profit, and Insurances formula that the government used. I could go on and on about prevailing wage. But everyone (except Sham) understands.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-06-13 10:35 AM

enigma - I have a very good grasp of profit/loss in business. I deal with it everyday and make a very good income in a number of different ways dealing with margins, profits and expenses.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Sep-06-13 10:43 AM

"Prevailing wage laws just guarantee that the labor cost will be high."

No, prevailing wage laws says a job will use the wages that prevail in a certain area and prevent a contractor coming in from out of the area and "lowballing" a job using unqualified workers at a lower wage.

When you have a construction project where the materials are pretty much the same cost and the labor is the same, the contractor has to rely on the quality of work his/her workers will install. The contractor relies on their efficiency. A qualified worker will take less time to install whatever they are constructing.

In the end you have a better building. As a taxpayer, what would you want? A quality installation or something less.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Sep-06-13 1:02 PM

"enigma - I have a very good grasp of profit/loss in business. I deal with it everyday and make a very good income in a number of different ways dealing with margins, profits and expenses."--CarlHiller

I didn't say you didn't know about business, I said you don't know about economics. Very different things. Admittedly related, but not the same. If more people understood that, maybe our economy wouldn't be in the toilet.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-07-13 6:43 AM

enigma, maybe I do not have as great a grasp of economics and I do not hold a BS (that doesn't stand for the usual term) degree in economics. Economics is simply a term for a type social engineering. Simply put it's the study of how people choose to use resources. Their labor, land, investments, money, income, and production, taxes and government expenditures and the herding them one way or another. There are a number of other concepts involved but this simplifies it. Economics today is simply making something that is relatively easy, difficult. It lacks the most important of science characteristics having no record of improvement in predictive range and accuracy for the whole macroeconomy. Economics is not just about money, it is a bout a whole host of issues. That is where we have the problem today, not with people not understanding economics, but of economics not understanding people.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-07-13 6:49 AM

I do know this, in order to save what is claimed as about 20% higher costs with prevailing wage projects and if wages are 20 - 30 % higher than in non-prevailing wage projects, according to the propaganda, someone will have to pay the piper so to speak. It will not only be the employee, it will be the taxpayer, due to less rebate (taxes) paid to the state, because the workers will be returning less to the state coffers because they too are also are taxed on what they make. You will get shoddier work, more employee turnover causing cost overruns and a number of other negative issues, like increased use of welfare, tax refunds due to lower incomes. These are the things the propagandists do not tell you. It is emphatically not about controlling costs, because a study of states that do not have "prevailing wage" do not show a substantial cost savings.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-07-13 6:54 AM

This is not about controlling costs it is about increasing profits on the backs of workers, America's middle class, blue collar employees. That is not economics, that's catastrophe. What is really needed is to bring comparative wages up to "prevailing wages" on private projects. People need to stop listening to the business unions, Chambers of Commerce and listen more to people. They do not have a workers best interests today, because economics has lost the science and settled on only one aspect, one motivating factor - profit.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-08-13 5:51 AM

I said nothing about "no" profit. What I said was that the other motivating factors in an economy, and especially what many deem to be a free-market, capitalist economy have been lost. That is why it is always about profit. I have no qualms with profit, it's how I make a very good living, but profit cannot be the only factor in an economy or you end up with low wages, part time employment and workers who end up making up the difference in a livable wage with welfare and social services. Too many are looking at the tree today but do not see the whole forest.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 22 of 22 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web