Dear Editor:
I usually refrain from weighing in on the same issue more than
once on this page, but given Mr. Allen’s challenge to refute his
claim that paying union scale, and providing a safe and secure
working environment results in lost productivity, lost profit, and
a lower standard of living, I am breaking that tradition.
Dear Editor:
I usually refrain from weighing in on the same issue more than once on this page, but given Mr. Allen’s challenge to refute his claim that paying union scale, and providing a safe and secure working environment results in lost productivity, lost profit, and a lower standard of living, I am breaking that tradition.
Mr. Allen has also asked that I discuss the Davis-Bacon act, so I will again begin with a brief history lesson.
The Davis-Bacon Act was not “one of the benefits that unions have bestowed upon society.” Senator James Davis and Congressman Robert Bacon (both republicans), were fed up with contracts for federal building projects in their respective districts being awarded to out-of-state contractors. These contractors had no regard for established local standards for construction, jobsite safety, or worker training. They would import low-paid, unskilled workers, and house them in shacks on the jobsite, making it virtually impossible for local businessmen using a local workforce to compete for these projects.
The resultant legislation eliminated this undermining of local conditions by requiring work on federal projects to adhere to prevailing local wage and worker training standards. Many states, including California, have followed suit by enacting similar legislation for state funded projects.
Due to recent efforts to repeal these laws, studies have been conducted to determine the effect prevailing wage laws have on the cost of public construction. Studies were conducted in several areas of the country comparing school construction costs in states adhering to prevailing wage laws, with surrounding states with no prevailing wage requirement. It was found that paying the higher wage, and adhering to established working conditions added anywhere from $.66 to $2.33 per square foot to the direct costs of construction. A difference deemed insignificant by Peter Phillips, Ph.D., Economist at the University of Utah who concluded “All in all, we discovered that most claims from those who oppose prevailing wages just don’t add up.”
A study on highway construction costs by the Federal Highway Commission produced a more dramatic result. This study included highway construction in all fifty states over the 14-year period from 1980 through 1993. This study showed that in states adhering to prevailing wage laws, man-hours required to construct a mile of highway were 40 percent lower than non-prevailing wage states.
This resulted in a lower per mile construction cost on the union projects of 11 percent, even though hourly wage rates were as much as 80 percent higher. This study showed that using higher-paid, highly skilled union workers actually saved money. Again the conclusion: “There is no basis in the claim that lower wage rates result in lower construction costs.”
There are also documented studies showing that repealing these laws can have disastrous effects on local economies by leaving workers with less money to spend in local businesses, thereby lowering profits and sales tax revenues, but at the same time putting increased burden on public health and welfare programs.
Certainly these studies demonstrate that higher-paid, better-trained union workers are more productive, resulting in cost savings to tax-payers and employers, and a better standard of living for workers and their surrounding communities.
I don’t expect Mr. Allen to take my word on this, all of these statistics and more are contained in the August 2003 edition of Cocksahaw’s, a leading independent provider of construction labor analysis. Or perhaps instead of verifying my facts, the limited time Mr. Allen devotes to research would be better spent finding fact to back up his own ranting. I realize that this is the “opinion” page, but as a regular reader, I for one prefer opinion based on factual information rather than repeated rhetoric.
Steve Andrade, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, Sept. 30
