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

Remove Prevailing Wage law

October 23, 2013

The Legislature's transportation budge of $2....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(18)

Scott36

Oct-25-13 8:36 AM

Just curious lowIQ do you ever leave home unattended?-tinfoil5

Many times, but why are you scampering away from the question? But, I understand.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-24-13 4:05 PM

They have a chance to keep up if the market is allowed to work.-tinfoil2 I do not care about North Dakota. Why is it not being allowed to work here?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Oct-24-13 9:32 AM

Capricorn: Yes, they are required by law to pay that wage and there are transparency laws for the public to make sure that is happening. If they don't, there are penalties and fines for those scumbag contractors. Not enough, IMO. If they are caught breaking the law, they should be thrown in jail for stealing from those workers.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-24-13 9:14 AM

Capricorn, Unless it has changed in the last couple of years,(I sincerely doubt it though) the workers MUST be paid these wages. There are instances where contractors have been caught paying lower wages--all the while receiving "prevailing" wages. They(if caught) must "pay-up" to the workers.(also they usually check back a few years) The fact of the matter is most workers are afraid of losing their jobs for reporting it.(even though that is illegal) I would venture to guess that the contractors also get a certain percentage(not from workers wages) so as to turn a profit, as should be.-Scott P.S.-Not all contractors fall into this category, as usual, a few bad apples are what most focus on.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-24-13 8:33 AM

Scott, I'm not a legal expert on prevailing wages, but I would like to know if these contractors are required by law to actually pay the workers the prevailing wage rates that government actually pays the company. I ask because I know working as a defense contractor, just because the company charges the government a certain wage rate in a contract, that does not mean the people working the contract make that wage. This is where I have the problem. I am not trying to take money from the working man, I'm just speaking from my experience where the government pays over inflated rates that were not seen by the actual worker. And btw, the rates I quoted were for Lycoming County.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-24-13 8:22 AM

Capricorn, Agreed with your last post(at least most of it). So again, why pick on the working people. The flag man you seem to be stuck on, does not have that safe of a job, as to wages, it all depends where you live. Costs of living vary from place to place. Take here for example, I hear that many are having trouble finding affordable housing due to the "gas workers", so why should other workers not have a chance to "keep up"? This is IMO, a typical conservative/tea talking point--Blame the workers wages!!!!(BUT corporate profits MUST AT ALL COST continue to climb!!!!)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-23-13 9:53 PM

So basically you are telling me Scott that a flag man is worth 32.00 an hour of tax payer dollars. And that is only one example. As far as my personal example that I cited, I already told you that the company was getting paid double what I was making for that position. At the time I was a logistic analyst which the civil counterpart for the same duties in that same area made roughly 12 to 15 dollars an hour. I was paid 32.00 on a government contract which the company was paid 60.00. And it happens across the board. I hear so many complain about defense contractors and how they make so much off the government, and the reason it happens is because the government allows it with their policies. The same holds true throughout all levels of government.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-23-13 9:53 PM

So basically you are telling me Scott that a flag man is worth 32.00 an hour of tax payer dollars. And that is only one example. As far as my personal example that I cited, I already told you that the company was getting paid double what I was making for that position. At the time I was a logistic analyst which the civil counterpart for the same duties in that same area made roughly 12 to 15 dollars an hour. I was paid 32.00 on a government contract which the company was paid 60.00. And it happens across the board. I hear so many complain about defense contractors and how they make so much off the government, and the reason it happens is because the government allows it with their policies. The same holds true throughout all levels of government.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-23-13 8:42 PM

But there is no waste in government.-tinfoil

Aside from you trying to make somewhat satirical comment, whom makes this claim?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-23-13 8:37 PM

Capricorn,

Does it even occur to you to take into consideration the caliber of worker hired? A lot of construction workers never go through an apprenticeship, which is resulting in substandard work. Your example of what is paid contained a very interesting point however: "When I worked as a defense contractor I made 32.00 an hour. However, the government contract for my position paid the company over 60.00 an hour."-(Your comment) So I would take it that you are the "Apex" of your craft/position, Nobody should make more than you? You also stated that "the company" was paid that, how much was the actual worker paid? I stand by my position, stop picking on a person whom is doing nothing more that trying to make a living,& support a family. I personally know a retired military man whom was in charge of hiring construction workers in Europe. According to him, it is much cheaper to hire labor here than over there. Labor is IMO, akin to the backbone o

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-23-13 4:34 PM

If you are so concerned about saving taxpayer money, go for the waste in Gov. but leave the working people out of it. -Scott

Prevailing wage IS waste in government IMO. Lower cost to government for the same jobs would result in more money available to do additional jobs, thus keeping the working man working.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-23-13 4:15 PM

How about it, sounds like this "class envy" we hear so much about. -Scott

It has nothing to do with class envy. It has to do with government being a very lousy judge of what something should cost. For those who have worked in government, I'm sure they would agree. Look up prevailing wage rates for PA and I think you'll agree how inflated the hourly rates are plus the added on hourly rate for fringes. A flag man for example lists for over 32.00 an hour. When I worked as a defense contractor I made 32.00 an hour. However, the government contract for my position paid the company over 60.00 an hour. To think that prevailing wage saves tax payer's money and is good for the working man is being very naive IMO.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-23-13 3:30 PM

Yeah, great idea! Let's cut everyone's wages so that the rest of us save money!-FortySixand2

How about it, sounds like this "class envy" we hear so much about. How about trying this, either be happy with your current wage/salary, or shoot for a raise. But don't try to drag a working persons wages down. If you are so concerned about saving taxpayer money, go for the waste in Gov. but leave the working people out of it.-Scott

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-23-13 12:39 PM

Yeah, great idea! Let's cut everyone's wages so that the rest of us save money! That way, there's less money circulating throughout the economy, thus creating a downward spiral of economic activity! Wait a minute....that doesn't make sense. Of course not, conservative economic orthodoxy never does, because it always focuses on cutting some working folk's wages. (Why do I never hear conservatives calling for cutting the Koch bros wages?)

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-23-13 10:30 AM

LOL Chuck you have to admit, Bobbie's comment is funny and it's the first thing I thought of when I read your comment. LOL If you're gonna make a typo... may as well have some humor with it.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Oct-23-13 8:28 AM

So that's what the conswervatives did give to the 1%.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-23-13 8:25 AM

Liberals have no problem taking from the 99% to give to the 1% (unions).....if that 1% gives their votes to the liberals.

If they do not give their votes to the liberals, we hear rants against the 1%.

Liberal hypocrisy on display!

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

andy33

Oct-23-13 3:04 AM

Sounds like a plan

13 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 18 of 18 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