Prevailing Wage Debate Rages On
Feb 29th, 2008 by Dave
From today’s News Journal editorial page:
To state that a prevailing wage law would provide “a level playing field” where the best (read that as union) contractors get the work is inaccurate. In all the Delaware school construction projects with which I have been involved (Concord High School, Dover High School, Middletown High School, Lake Forest Elementary School, Archmere Academy, Delaware Military Academy, Ursuline Academy) the vast majority of the work was done by non-union contractors who happened to be the best for those projects.
The lesson that prevailing wage can teach is that even though you are skilled and hard-working, it still comes down to who you know — not what you know — in Delaware.
Fight the good fight, folks.
Dave, I read the article this morning. I guess I don’t understand. I thought prevailing wage meant the folks working on these projects get paid the high prevailing wage set by the state. So when this writer states the majority working on the project are non-union, does that mean they are not being paid PW? Not sure what the point is here.
No, Don. They’re all being paid the same wage, regardless of ability. The argument for it, I guess, is that the PW is needed because the union rate is so high relative to the non-union rate. But even that argument fails to materialize when union electricians, for example, get millions of dollars of work from Buccini/Pollin on the riverfront regardless of the costs.
The fact is that it’s simply not needed. We tried to give superintendents like George Stone and their school boards the ability to opt-out and choose their workers solely on merit if their situation prescribed it, but the amendment failed, 17-23.
Who wrote this article? There’s no byline on the online edition.
There wasn’t in the last pro-PW piece either. It’s odd.
Dave, thanks for clarifying. I’m still confused. If part of the anti PW argument is that PW is a favor to the Unions, why are these jobs populated by so many non-union workers?
If Union workers get their pay rate no matter what job they work on, does this mean the main beneficiary of PW is non-union workers? From what we talked about before on this, I was convinced this was all about making sure only union workers are on these public jobs. If you want to explain more go ahead please.
If it’s true that PW gives lower paid non-union workers a shot at the big time union wages, I would tend to favor it.
Prevailing wage is intended to be a pro-union hedge against non-union competition, as it is intended to negate the one advantage that non-union firms possess; the ability to to do the work for less, because they don’t have to pay their labor as much.
The truth is that all wage controls do much more harm than they do good; even concerning those they are allegedly intended to benefit.
The first thing minimum wage laws do is take employment opportunities away from lesser-skilled workers. You can’t make a worker worth a given amount to an employer simply by making it illegal for the employer to hire him at less than that amount.
The second thing they do is give bigger firms like Wal-Mart an advantage over smaller and family-owned business. Notice that Wal-Mart is always leading the charge for jacking up the minimum wage. They know that while they can easily afford it (small beans for them), a higher minimum wage will force their smaller competitors to raise their prices to compensate, and has the potential for putting them out of business altogether.
These “prevailing wage” laws are just as tyrannical, and just as geared towards benefitting special interests (in this case unions) as are the standard minimum wage laws. The state has no business interfering in the employer/employee relationship in such a way to begin with.