unnamed

Public Work Contractors Should Check Their Payroll, Then Check it Twice… (MD)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

JD Supra
April 10, 2019

Maryland “public work” contractors and subcontractors better be checking their payroll, and then checking it twice, because Senate Bill (“SB”) 300 just came to town! Of course, this level of payroll diligence should already be the norm, but effective October 1, 2019, the stakes for certain public work contractors and subcontractors are just a little bit higher for those that fail to pay the appropriate Maryland prevailing wage rates. As a result, the legal process for their underpaid employees could move much faster.

For those less familiar with Maryland public work contracts, pursuant to Section 17-201(j)(1), “‘public work’ means a structure or work, including a bridge, building, ditch, road, alley, waterwork, or sewage disposal plant, that: (i) is constructed for public use or benefit; or (ii) is paid for wholly or partly by public money.” Notably, however, Maryland prevailing wage laws and the new changes for public work contracts do not apply to: (i) projects performed by a public service company under order of the Public Service Commission; (ii) certain elementary or secondary school projects for which less than 25% of the money used for construction is State money; (iii) certain other public work projects for which less than 50% of the money used for construction is State money; (iv) certain contracts where the contractor is already required to pay prevailing wage rates determined by the federal government; or (v) public works contracts valued at less than $500,000.00.

On March 28, 2019, the General Assembly of Maryland enacted certain new provisions in Section 17-224 of the State Finance and Procurement Article. These provisions allow employees of contractors and subcontractors working on eligible “public works” projects in Maryland, to the extent those employees are not paid the prevailing wage rate established by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry (the “Commissioner”), to immediately sue their employers for the difference between the prevailing wage rate and the amount actually received by the employees. Additionally, to the extent the employer is a subcontractor, both the contractor and subcontractor shall be jointly and severally liable for any violation of the subcontractor’s obligations under Section 17-224.

Under the old Section 17-224, employees were first required to file a complaint with the Commissioner to secure an order of restitution. Only after the employer failed to comply with the order could the Commissioner or the employee bring a civil action in circuit court to enforce the order. Further, the allegedly underpaid employee only had recourse against his or her employer, without an express right to recovery against upstream contractors.

(Read More)

NJ Labor Department Bars Two South Jersey Contractors from Engaging in Public Work (NJ)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

April 11, 2019, 3:40 pm

TRENTON – The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s Wage and Hour Compliance Division has barred two public works contractors from doing business in the state for violations outside the state’s prevailing wage law, heralding a tough and progressive new enforcement approach against dishonest contractors.

…

“As I have often said, working on public projects is a privilege, not a right,” said Labor Commissioner Robert Asaro-Angelo. “These cases signal a new and bold effort to ensure that privilege is extended only to contractors who follow our laws, and pertinent laws in other jurisdictions.”

…

New Jersey already has one of the strongest prevailing wage laws in the country. The Public Works Contractor Registration Act requires all contractors, including named subcontractors, to register with the Labor Department before submitting price proposals or engaging in public works contracts exceeding the prevailing wage threshold of $15,444 for municipalities and $2,000 for non-municipal work.

(Read More)

unnamed

Maryland SB 300 – Prevailing Wage Rates, Public Works Contracts and Suits by Employers (MD)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

March 28, 2019

This bill authorizes an employee under a public work contract who is paid less than the appropriate prevailing wage to sue to recover the difference in wages paid without first filing a complaint with the Commissioner of Labor and Industry. A determination by the commissioner that a contractor is required to make restitution does not preclude the employee from a private cause of action. A contractor and subcontractor are jointly and severally liable for any violation of the subcontractor’s obligations associated with civil actions (brought either by the commissioner or the employee).

(Read More)

(See PDF of Bill)

Say yes to more prevailing wage: Requiring higher pay for laborers in all public works is good for New York’s middle class (NY)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

By KEVIN DUNCAN
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
MAR 20, 2019

Over a century ago, New York State established its first prevailing wage law. It was based on the common-sense principle that workers who build something for the public good be paid a fair wage for their work. It’s a deal that’s paid off for New York and for countless families who’ve been lifted into the middle class through hard work and sweat equity.

Prevailing wage laws require construction workers who do major jobs for state or local government to be paid at rates that are set through negotiations between businesses and laborers.

The problem today is that more and more big projects are being funded as public-private partnerships, blurring the line of what’s considered “public work.” Construction projects are being built throughout the state, subsidized with public funds, that are able to evade requirements to pay a decent wage to their workers.

Take the Trump Ferry Point Golf Course in the Bronx. New York City taxpayers spent over $120 million to build a golf course on the site. Trump was then selected to operate the course, and as part of that deal, built a $10 million clubhouse.

Because this part of the project was not clearly defined as “public work,” the billionaire developer was able to do so without wage requirements, keeping the extra profit for himself.

That’s why we need legislation to clearly define public work – and a bill currently under consideration in the state Legislature does just that. Supportive language was just included in one-house budget resolutions, and the governor has signaled his support as well.

A clear definition of public work will create a bright line test so there’s no more ambiguity. Under the proposed law, a project will be considered public work if: the construction is paid for in whole or in part with public funds, or the construction is performed in contemplation of a public entity leasing a portion of the space in the resulting development.

This would relieve the state of the great administrative burden of trying to determine whether or not various projects are public work. Furthermore, it would grant the Department of Labor additional enforcement abilities to better ensure that public funds are used appropriately.

(Read More)

2019 Budget Fails to Close the “Public Works” Loophole (NY)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

Opponents of commonsense reform mislead with false cost figures

For Immediate Release
April 1, 2019

Last night, state leaders reached a budget agreement for fiscal year 2019 which unfortunately fails to include the proper definition of public works. Properly defining public works is a commonsense reform to apply anti-corruption protections and family-supporting prevailing wages to all construction projects which receive public assistance.

To protect taxpayers from wasteful spending and corruption, New York requires competitive and transparent public bidding by contractors on all public works construction projects. Unfortunately, a loophole in state law allows millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent without the anti-corruption and transparency demanded of traditional public work projects. Increasingly, economic development projects across the state fall through this loophole, allowing public money to bypass these safeguards as it goes to private interests. Closing the loophole by properly defining public work to include all projects supported with public money will provide much needed accountability and transparency in government spending.

The measure’s opponents successfully muddied the water by spreading misinformation to suggest it would result in “huge” increases in construction project costs. The truth is that defining public works would reward workers and taxpayers, not the wealthy and irresponsible contractors exploiting our flawed system. As per economists Frank Manzo, Alex Lantsberg, and Kevin Duncan, “the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed research conducted over the last 15 years forms the consensus view that construction costs are not affected by prevailing wages.” Sixteen other states across the country apply a more comprehensive definition of public work, which apply middle-class prevailing wages. Unsurprisingly, the doomsday scenario of huge cost increases and less development, which opponents claim would befall New York, has not materialized in these other states.

While today’s state budget was a missed opportunity, the New York Foundation for Fair Contracting looks forward to when all taxpayer-funded construction goes to the lowest responsible bidders, not the most politically well-connected contractors. The NYFFC is a non-profit established to level the playing field in public works construction for the benefit of taxpayers, responsible contractors, and workers.

(Read More)

Union workers and day laborers join forces in push for prevailing wage (NY)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

By DENIS SLATTERY
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
MAR 27, 2019

Albany – An unlikely coalition of activists, union workers and day laborers joined forces Wednesday to call on New York lawmakers to grant raises to construction workers on publicly subsidized projects.

Hundreds of construction workers, decked out in orange and yellow, filled the state Capitol Building, shouting “End corporate welfare, pass public works!”

The workers want so-called prevailing wage rules, requiring all publicly funded construction projects pay at least the average wage paid on all projects completed in that area, to be expanded to all projects that use even a portion of public funds.

Gov. Cuomo and both chambers of the state Legislature have backed the measure, but whether it will be included in the final budget, due by April 1, remains unclear.

“The Legislature has a simple decision to make: do blue-collar workers deserve an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, or do developers deserve to grow their bottom-lines using our tax dollars?” Michael Hellstrom, the assistant business manager of the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York said. “This is about ensuring our tax dollars are no longer used to line the pockets of out-of-state contractors who exploit workers and drive wages down. The clock is ticking and construction workers need to know what the Legislature’s decision will be.”

Manuel Castro, the executive director of New Immigrant Community Empowerment, said the measure would provide protections to both union and non-union workers.

“I think it’s important to show unity on these issues because for a long time we’ve known that contractors, by using a variety of different schemes, like subcontractors or brokers, they look for cheap labor and don’t pay workers a living wage.

Sixteen states have already passed similar legislation.

(Read More)

Evers takes aim at right-to-work law, seeks prevailing-wage protections (WI)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

By Michael Carroll
3-7-2019

Gov. Tony Evers has called for the repeal of Wisconsin’s right-to-work law and the restoration of prevailing-wage guarantees in public-works projects, despite critics’ concerns that those proposals could become a drag on the state’s economy.

The governor’s February budget blueprint supports the elimination of the state’s right-to-work statute, which restricts private employers from entering into agreements that compel union membership as a condition of employment or mandating the payment of dues to a labor union.

Evers also supports the restoration of the prevailing wage on state and local public-works projects to ensure that workers are not underpaid in comparison to employees performing similar tasks in the region.

…

Restoring the prevailing wage would be helpful to both the construction industry and the employees who work in it, according to Emspak. Allowing companies with public-works contracts to pay their workers less than their counterparts in a region means those firms are undercutting the competition by cutting labor costs, which in turn drives down wages and working conditions, he said.

Having the prevailing wage in place means the construction companies would be in a better position to focus on providing high-quality, skilled work at a competitive cost, according to Emspak.

Labor union officials generally support Evers’ proposals. Stephanie Bloomingdale, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, said Evers’ budget blueprint strikes the right note for workers and the state’s economy.

“The repeal of right to work is a step towards a healthier middle class with strong union rights,” Bloomingdale said in a prepared statement. “Restoring prevailing wage and the right to a project labor agreement will grow our economy with family-supporting jobs while ensuring tour construction projects are completed safely on time and on budget.”

(Read More)

Construction industry, unions duel over state prevailing wage bill (NH)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

NH Senate measure targets all state public works projects

BY BOB SANDERS – Published: February 13, 2019

A measure under consideration in the NH Senate would require contractors on state public works projects to pay the prevailing wage to workers, but it’s not the wages – it’s the benefits and paperwork that concerned several New Hampshire contractors speaking at a hearing Tuesday before the NH Senate Commerce Committee.

Several trade union representatives at the hearing countered that Senate Bill 271 is really not aimed at local contractors, but those outside New Hampshire, drawn here because it is the only New England state without prevailing wage requirements. (Some 24 states don’t have such laws, although the closest one to New Hampshire without one is in Virginia)

“At the end of the day, tax dollars of Granite Staters should go to local workers and local companies,” said Sen. Dan Feltes, D-Concord, the bill’s prime sponsor.

Feltes cited a 2016 study about the benefits of a prevailing wage: At least $300 million in economic activity resulting in some 1,700 jobs and tax revenues of 7.3 percent.

…

But union representatives said that the lack of a prevailing wage makes New Hampshire a magnet for out-of-state contractors that do pay both lower wages and benefits, often using undocumented immigrant labor, “and it undercuts our local contractors,” said Denis R. Beaudoin, business manager of IBEW Local 490, the electricians’ union. The construction industry has only replaced 2,000 of the 9,000 jobs it lost during the recession, he said, adding: “How can we justify the work going out of state?”
And while contractors testified that they offer health benefits, they don’t match other union benefits, like an apprentice program, said David Pelletier, business manager of UA Local 131, the plumbers and pipefitters union.

“Unions do provide more benefits than open shops,” acknowledged Abbott. One business did back the prevailing wage bill: American Income Life, a Londonderry insurance firm.

Kris Thieme, an agent from the company, countered contractors’ claim that a prevailing wage would drive up construction costs. He said soft costs, like engineering and architecture, were a bigger factor than labor. Besides, he said, if workers don’t have good benefits or wages, they would be more likely to receive state subsidies for healthcare, which would be passed on to taxpayers.

SB 271 would only apply to state projects, not municipal or school construction jobs, but the NH Municipal Association was concerned that the language wasn’t clear enough on that matter, since many local projects involved state funding.


(Read More)

Calif. Prevailing Wage Law Applied to Recycling Plant Employees (CA)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

By Joanne Deschenaux
January 4, 2019

California’s prevailing wage law requires that all workers employed on “public works”-generally, construction projects-be paid at least as much as is generally paid for the performance of similar work in the same geographic area. A California appellate court has ruled that this law was not limited to construction projects and applied to workers who sorted recyclable materials at two publicly owned and operated recycling facilities.

The plaintiffs, who worked as sorters, sued a staffing company that provided employees to the two facilities under contracts with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, alleging, among other claims, that the defendant had failed to pay them the prevailing wage.

The trial court granted the staffing company’s motion to dismiss the prevailing wage claims, ruling that the work done by the plaintiffs did not come within the prevailing wage law’s definition of “public works” because it was not construction work. The plaintiffs appealed.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. One provision of the prevailing wage law defines public works as “construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds.” But this is not the only definition in the statute, the court said.

Another provision further defines public works as work done for “irrigation, utility, reclamation, and improvement districts, and other districts of this type.” The recyclable sorting work here was done for a county sanitation district, and so the work at issue fell within this second statutory definition and the plaintiffs were entitled to receive the prevailing wage, the court said.

(Read More)

(PDF Copy of Decision)

Funding stream sought for workforce training (OR)

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

By: Josh Kulla
January 22, 2019 1:50 pm

There’s no end in sight to the shortage of skilled tradespeople in the construction industry. That, in short, is motivating supporters of Senate Bill 82 in the Oregon Legislature’s 2019 session. It would direct the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries to establish a new program that would provide supportive services for pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs throughout the state. The program would be funded by a pass-through fee attached to certain public works projects subject to prevailing wage rates.

Kelly Kupcak, executive director of Oregon Tradeswomen Inc., worked with representatives of other pre-apprentice groups to help craft the bill. While with the Chicago Women in Trades, Kupcak in 2006 helped push for the passage of similar legislation supporting pre-apprenticeships for women and other disadvantaged groups by linking funding for training in a larger infrastructure bill.

“In Illinois they were able to get enough support from the state Legislature and governor’s office to institute a set-aside from capital improvement projects for pre-apprenticeships,” Kupcak said. “There is this ongoing demand for skilled labor, and report after report that says we can’t meet that demand.”

In some ways, SB 82 is quite similar to the Illinois model. But SB 82 also offers a wide range of support for people receiving training. This includes assistance with the cost of transportation, lodging, child care, job supplies and equipment, and even housing stabilization services.

“We had suggested this is an opportunity to have an assurance of a pool of dollars that would ebb and flow based on demand,” Kupcak said. “If the state has a lot of capital projects on the books, there is an obvious need and a funding stream to get them in. In a lot of ways the model is simple, but it makes sense.”

Money from the pass-through fee would go into a new State Apprenticeship and Training Supportive Services Fund. From there, money would be disbursed to qualifying pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs.

(Read More)