“This will have a devastating effect on Minnesota workers,” Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council President Harry Melander told members of the Senate’s Business, Industry and Jobs Committee on April 27. “It will not provide any additional jobs. Instead, it will give Minnesota workers a pay cut.”
Melander was reacting to legislation – eventually passed through the jobs committee – that would eliminate the eight-hour workday on state highway and heavy construction projects, and would change the process by which the state calculates the prevailing wage used on publicly funded construction jobs, skewing workers’ wages lower.
Both initiatives have passed through several House and Senate committees via mostly party-line votes.
![\"prevailing](\"https://www.workdayminnesota.org/upload/editor/Image/2011/May/0516prevailing_wage.jpg\") |
| Building Trades members who couldn\'t make it into the packed hearing room watched outside on closed circuit television. Photo by Michael Moore |
Minnesota’s prevailing wage law requires employees working on state-funded projects be paid wage rates comparable to wages paid for similar work in the area where the project is located.
Republicans claim their proposed changes are necessary to keep public construction costs down and save taxpayers money. In the committee hearing, they cited a Minnesota Taxpayers Association study showing the state could realize budget savings of 7 to 10 percent as a result of the changes.
That study, however, relies on a 50 percent cut in construction workers’ wages. What quality of worker can state contractors expect to attract with wages that low?
“Qualitative issues were outside the scope of our investigation,” answered Aaron Twait, the Taxpayers Association’s research director.
Union leaders, meanwhile, presented lawmakers with evidence, both statistical and anecdotal, that undermining prevailing wage laws would threaten worksite safety, job quality and worker training programs – and cost the state more money in the long run.
“Not all workers are the same,” Lisa Jordan, an economist who studies prevailing wage laws nationwide, told the Senate committee. “There’s a difference between a journeyman carpenter and my brother, who tried to do framing work. You don’t want my brother working for the state.”
Union contractors testified that strong prevailing wage laws allow them to compete for government work on the grounds of skill, quality and efficiency, rather than how low they can sink workers’ wages.
Sen. David Tomassoni, a DFLer from Chisholm, got the message.
“My father always told me if you pay a little bit more for quality, you’ll pay a whole lot less in the long run,” he said.
Michael Moore edits The Union Advocate, the official publication of the St. Paul Regional Labor Federation.
Share
“This will have a devastating effect on Minnesota workers,” Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council President Harry Melander told members of the Senate’s Business, Industry and Jobs Committee on April 27. “It will not provide any additional jobs. Instead, it will give Minnesota workers a pay cut.”
Melander was reacting to legislation – eventually passed through the jobs committee – that would eliminate the eight-hour workday on state highway and heavy construction projects, and would change the process by which the state calculates the prevailing wage used on publicly funded construction jobs, skewing workers’ wages lower.
Both initiatives have passed through several House and Senate committees via mostly party-line votes.
|
| Building Trades members who couldn\’t make it into the packed hearing room watched outside on closed circuit television.
Photo by Michael Moore |
Minnesota’s prevailing wage law requires employees working on state-funded projects be paid wage rates comparable to wages paid for similar work in the area where the project is located.
Republicans claim their proposed changes are necessary to keep public construction costs down and save taxpayers money. In the committee hearing, they cited a Minnesota Taxpayers Association study showing the state could realize budget savings of 7 to 10 percent as a result of the changes.
That study, however, relies on a 50 percent cut in construction workers’ wages. What quality of worker can state contractors expect to attract with wages that low?
“Qualitative issues were outside the scope of our investigation,” answered Aaron Twait, the Taxpayers Association’s research director.
Union leaders, meanwhile, presented lawmakers with evidence, both statistical and anecdotal, that undermining prevailing wage laws would threaten worksite safety, job quality and worker training programs – and cost the state more money in the long run.
“Not all workers are the same,” Lisa Jordan, an economist who studies prevailing wage laws nationwide, told the Senate committee. “There’s a difference between a journeyman carpenter and my brother, who tried to do framing work. You don’t want my brother working for the state.”
Union contractors testified that strong prevailing wage laws allow them to compete for government work on the grounds of skill, quality and efficiency, rather than how low they can sink workers’ wages.
Sen. David Tomassoni, a DFLer from Chisholm, got the message.
“My father always told me if you pay a little bit more for quality, you’ll pay a whole lot less in the long run,” he said.
Michael Moore edits The Union Advocate, the official publication of the St. Paul Regional Labor Federation.