Read our DAILY
reports and links
to labor-related
news.

SEPTEMBER 2001
Preserving Our Wage Standards Protects Our Communities
by Rick S. Bender, President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO

One of the strangest things I’ve heard in the last few months, has been the argument that construction workers in rural areas should earn a lower prevailing wage when working on state highway projects.  It boggles my mind that state representatives from rural areas would support reducing the income of hard-working construction workers in their communities.

Isn’t it odd that these same rural-area representatives are not clamoring for their own legislative income to be less than their urban colleagues?  After all, the cost of setting up a legislative office is a lot cheaper in our rural areas than it is in downtown Seattle.  Nevertheless, many rural representatives have been saying that the state should cut the prevailing wage standards, even though those standards are calculated by surveying local employers.  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  For areas struggling economically, one would think local leaders would support a policy of providing good family-wage jobs. 

The idea behind establishing prevailing wage laws began in Kansas in 1891 as a way to stop the sub-standard practices of fly-by-night out-of-state contractors.  Federal law on prevailing wages was sponsored and passed by two Republicans, Congressman Robert Bacon and Senator James J. Davis in the 1930s.  Our state’s Washington Public Works Act was enacted in 1945.  The act simply requires public works contractors to pay trades people no less than the wages that prevail on similar projects within the same area.  The state conducts a survey of area wages to set the prevailing wage.  The prevailing wage is not necessarily the union wage.  In fact, in some areas the prevailing wage is BELOW the local union rate. 

Study after study has found that public works built by workers earning prevailing wages are not only solid, quality construction projects, they are actually cheaper.

The most comprehensive study of federal highway projects that covered all fifty states over a 14-year period found that the government saved an average of $123,057 per mile of highway when it paid higher, prevailing wages.  The study found the key is productivity.  In low wage states it took almost twice as many man-hours to build a mile of highway.  High quality craftsmanship ensures projects are built efficiently, within budget and right the first time.  

When Kansas, the birthplace of prevailing wage standards, repealed its law in 1987, supporters of the repeal claimed taxpayers would save anywhere from 6 to 20 percent.  But the actual experience found just the opposite result.  In 1998, a University of Utah professor meticulously documented the resulting costs of Kansas’ construction costs compared to 14 surrounding Great Plains states.  Professor Peter Philips found the repeal of prevailing wages in Kansas resulted in no significant differences in labor costs, but serious differences in wages and benefits:

— Worker incomes dropped 11 percent
— Serious worker injuries increased 21.5%
— Apprenticeship training fell 38%
— Minority and women apprenticeship fell 54%
— Health insurance and pension benefits dropped 17% 

Government contracts usually go to the lowest bidder.  It’s always tempting to “low-ball” a bid, with the result of shoddy work by contractors who cut corners, and pay substandard wages.  When the lowest bid is calculated on the backs of construction workers wages, everybody loses. 

Construction workers rarely work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year.  They don’t get vacations and sick leave, and they work in all kinds of weather.  Often they have to travel long distances from their homes to their always-temporary jobs.  Most construction work requires specialized skills and years of training, and it is also among the most hazardous work, with dangerous conditions and high on-the-job injury rates.  And most journey-level workers contribute a fair amount out of their paychecks to the joint apprenticeship trust that provides training for apprentices in their craft. 

The huge benefit of the dozens Joint Apprenticeship and Training programs must be considered.  Currently, these programs provide hundreds of young apprentices the best training in the world for the high skilled construction jobs.  These programs are paid for jointly by workers and contractors.  One of the worst consequences of prevailing wage repeal efforts is the dramatic decline in apprenticeship training efforts.  That is a true tragedy for a workforce in need of high skills and high wages.

I find it sad to see policymakers wring their hands over the “other Washington” where few family-wage job opportunities exist.  Many of our state’s rural communities have been economically devastated by plant closures and severe cutbacks in forestry, fishing and agriculture.   Public works projects, especially transportation projects, can help our rural communities survive some tough economic times.   When prevailing wage laws don’t protect local workers and local wage standards, we all lose. 

Rick Bender is President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, the largest labor organization in the state.

Return to index of President's Columns

Copyright © 2001  Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO