By Jim Abrams, Associated Press – Saturday February 19
WASHINGTON – The House early Saturday turned back an effort to suspend a Depression-era law, the Davis Bacon Act, that requires federal contractors to pay locally prevailing wage rates. The vote came amid heightened clashes between the two parties over labor rights.
Lawmakers voted 233-189 against barring spending on Davis-Bacon wage requirements on federal work projects for the remainder of this budget year. The measure was offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, as an amendment to a massive spending bill to keep the government running through Sept. 30,
Republicans have long targeted the 1931 law, saying it drives up the costs of public works projects and favors unionized companies over smaller firms that can’t pay higher wages.
Davis-Bacon enjoys strong support from Democrats and the King amendment, had it passed, would have met strong resistance in the Democratic-controlled Senate and opposition from President Barack Obama.
The vote came as Wisconsin’s new Republican Gov. Scott Walker has set off a firestorm of protests by seeking to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public workers and several other GOP-led states are looking to cut state worker benefits as part of budget-cutting efforts. Obama said in a radio interview that Walker’s legislation was an “assault on unions.”
The House this week also rejected a GOP proposal to eliminate funds for the National Labor Relations Board. The Republican spending bill would still cut $50 million, or 18 percent, from the agency that referees disputes between workers and employers.
King cited an analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimating that Davis-Bacon would add more than $10.9 billion to the deficit this year. He said locally prevailing wage rates tend to reflect the higher pay scale of union workers in the area and average some 22 percent above standard wage rates in locales.
Rep. Robert Andrews of New Jersey, a senior Democrat on the Education and the Workforce Committee, said there “was no basis in fact, it is more of an urban legend,” that adhering to prevailing wages drives up labor costs. He said that if accurately measured a prevailing wage doesn’t add to costs and promotes a stable local labor force.
Two years ago, when Democrats controlled the House, the chamber voted 284-140 to defeat a proposal to exempt wastewater infrastructure projects from Davis-Bacon rules.
Read the entire article and join the discussion here.
Many states require you to give employees time off to attend school functions, take family members to the doctor, and even to volunteer to be organ, bone marrow, and blood donors. Find out what these laws cover.
You are probably familiar with your obligations under federal law to grant employees time off for family, medical, or pregnancy-related leaves or military service. (These leaves are covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.)
(Download free Short-Term Absences model policy including HR best practices and legal background.)
But are you aware that many states have passed “small necessities” laws that also require you to grant employees time off on a short-term basis for a variety of reasons, including time off to meet with their children’s teachers or to see their kids perform in sporting events and plays during normal work hours? In addition, other state laws allow employees to take time off to volunteer to donate bone marrow, organs, and blood. Below is a summary of some of these “small necessities” state leave laws.
* State School Activities Laws *
About fifteen states have laws requiring employers to grant time off on a short-term basis for a variety of school functions, including parent-teacher conferences and recreational school activities.
For example, California allows employees to take up to 40 hours off per year to participate in the school activities of their children and prohibits employers from discriminating against them for taking the time off. Similarly, Illinois law requires a covered employer to provide up to 8 hours of unpaid leave per school year to allow an employee to attend school conferences or classroom activities involving the employee’s children. And, North Carolina employers must provide employees up to 4 hours of unpaid leave per year for involvement in their children’s school activities.
Most states that have these laws do not require that the time off be paid; however, employees typically may be allowed to use any accrued paid leave. For example, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, and Minnesota allow employees to use accrued vacation time or other appropriate paid leave to participate in school activities.
And, a few states, such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont require advance notice of the need for leave. Others, including Louisiana and Rhode Island, stipulate that employees must try to schedule school leaves so that they do not disrupt the employer’s business.
* Time Off for Family Member’s Medical Care *
A few states also allow certain employees time off to take family members to medical appointments. For example, Massachusetts requires that employers covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) must allow eligible employees 24 hours of leave during any 12-month period, in addition to FMLA leave, for children’s medical or dental appointments and to accompany an elderly relative to medical, dental, or other appointments for professional care. In Vermont, employees are entitled to take off up to 4 hours in a 30-day period, not to exceed 24 hours in any 12-month period, for the medical, dental, or other professional care appointments of children, dependents, spouses, or parents. And, in Maryland, state employees may use paid sick leave for their own or an immediate family member’s medical appointment.
* Bone Marrow, Organ, and Blood Donation *
Several states also mandate or encourage employers to allow employees to take time off to donate bone marrow, organs, and blood. For example, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and South Carolina require employers to grant employees time off to act as bone marrow donors.
Other states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, and Maine, require employers to provide time off to allow employees to donate organs. And, at least one state, Illinois, has a law that entitles covered employees to take one hour of paid leave every 56 days to donate blood, if approved by the employer.
(Download free Short-Term Absences model policy including HR best practices and legal background.)
* Consider Granting Leave Even if Not Covered *
Since these school, medical care, and donor leave laws vary state-to-state, you should check state law for regulations concerning coverage. Of course, even if your state does not mandate time off for these activities, you should consider allowing employees to use their vacation or other accrued paid leave. These types of leave can be very important to employees trying to balance workplace and family obligations, and any accommodation you can make shows you value your employees’ outside commitments.
————————————————————
Distributed by Sunburst Software Solutions, Inc. with permission from:
HR Matters E-Tips, copyright Personnel Policy Service, Inc., Louisville, KY, all rights reserved, the HR Policy and Employment Law Compliance Experts for over 30 years, 1-800-437-3735. Personnel Policy Service markets group legal service benefits and publishes HR information products, including the free weekly electronic newsletter, HR Matters E-Tips (www.ppspublishers.com/hrmetips.htm). This article is not intended as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek appropriate legal or other professional advice.
I found this article online, written by Roberto Rossi – I have no idea who he is, but the article is interesting and factual.
Prevailing wage laws have been the focus of public policy debate at the federal and state levels for decades. They are intended to protect workers and communities by ensuring that contractors compete on the ability to perform work competently and efficiently while maintaining community compensation standards.
Prevailing wage laws require that construction workers on public projects be paid the wages and benefits that are found to be “prevailing” for similar work in or near the locality in which the construction project is to be performed. The federal Davis-Bacon Act is enforced by the federal Department of Labor. It requires that private contractors pay construction workers the prevailing wage/benefit package on all contracts of more than $2,000 for construction, alteration, or repair of federal public buildings or public works. The federal law surveys contractors but contractors are not required to respond to the survey.
Oregon enacted its prevailing wage law in 1959 and then-governor Mark Hatfield signed it into law. It requires that prevailing wages be paid on projects that exceed $25,000 ($50,000 as of 1/1/006). Under state law, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries enforces the state law and sets prevailing wage rates twice a year based upon a survey contractors in Oregon are required to complete.
The state law has been challenged several times, but in the last attempt, in 1994, 62 percent of Oregon voters favored retaining the law including a majority in each of Oregon’s 32 counties. The state Legislature has made changes to Oregon’s law several times. In 1989, the Legislature clarified the law’s definition of public works revising the threshold test by adding the phrase “contracted for by”. The first prong of the test now is whether the construction work is .“carried on or contracted for by any public agency to serve the public interest.” In addition, the 1995 Oregon Legislature reaffirmed the goals of the prevailing wage law and instituted the state survey in lieu of relying upon the federal survey. In the just completed 2005 session, legislators passed SB 477, which among other changes, raised the threshold for projects qualifying under the law from $25,000 to $50,000.
Many still argue that the economic hardships of the depression era ushered in the federal Davis-Bacon Act, but others argue it was the desire of states and local government to protect itself against fly-by-night, low-wage construction firms winning bids on public contracts and adversely impacting local construction workers. In the early 1930s, federal and state governments were preparing to construct even more large public projects and they sought to protect themselves from falling contractors who performed “shoddy” work with “exploited,” “low-skilled” and an “imported” workforce.
Interestingly enough, those were not the words of labor advocates, but of the bill’s primary sponsors, Congressman Robert Bacon (R-NY) and Senator James Davis (R-PA), who viewed their bill not so much as a means to protect workers, but more as a way of providing some market stability in what was, and still is, an inherently unstable construction industry.
Bacon, a former banker, explained the need for the law when he detailed for his legislative colleagues how an out-of-state construction firm paying extremely low wages transported thousands of unskilled workers hundreds of miles to toil on a public project in New York:
“They were herded onto this job, they were housed in shacks, they were paid a very low wage, and … it seems to me that the federal government should not engage in construction work in any state and undermine the labor conditions and the labor wages paid in that state.”
Davis, the former Secretary of Labor under Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, went on to argue that “the least the Federal Government can do is comply with the local standards of wages and labor prevailing in the locality where the building construction is to take place.”
Some critics of prevailing wage laws have tried to place a “racist” label upon the original passage of the Davis-Bacon Act in 1931. While some may have had some intent to keep poor black construction workers from moving north to work, others saw it for what it still represents today – a way to assure that public money is not spent by hiring employers who pay low wages and disrupt the wage scale in other communities.
However, some critics still charge that the prevailing wage rate law continues to discriminate against minority and female contractors. In response to a May 22, 1992 Wall Street Journal making such accusations, Rep. Edolphus Towns rose on U.S. House floor on June 24, 1992 in rebuttal:
“The truth is, minority and female workers have entered the construction industry in increasing numbers over the past fifteen years. Because they are often the newest members of the industry, they are particularly vulnerable to wage-cutting practices the Davis-Bacon Act is designed to prohibit. Norman Hill, president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, has characterized women and minority workers as `particularly vulnerable to exploitation such as the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is designed to prohibit.’”
Before passage of the Davis-Bacon Act in 1931, nine states and several cities had already passed a prevailing wage law. Within four years of Davis-Bacon’s passage, sixteen more states added a state-level prevailing wage law (little Davis-Bacon acts). At one time or another, forty-two states and the District of Columbia have had a prevailing wage law. Thirty-two states currently have state prevailing wage laws on their books.
Since the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from dictating contract terms for the states in construction, the Davis-Bacon Act does not cover construction work funded entirely by state and local governments. State prevailing wage laws set a minimum pay for construction workers on state and local projects, and the terms of the respective prevailing wage statutes among the states differ substantially. The prevailing wage laws of some states are non-binding, while other states set wages for virtually all contracts at the collectively bargained wage rate. In addition, different states treat jointly financed projects (e.g. state/federal, local/federal, private/public) differently. Some states defer to the federal statute while other states set the prevailing wage at the higher of the state or federal prevailing wage. Certain states also specifically include or exclude specific types of projects (e.g. road construction) and/or workers, and/or projects above or below a given threshold.
Kansas passed the first prevailing wage law in 1891. New York was the second state to pass a prevailing wage law in 1894. Similar laws in other states were passed in the first part of the twentieth century. These laws provided the legal basis for the creation of the federal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law at the federal level. By 1969, 41 states had prevailing wage statutes.
During the 1970s, many states began to suffer fiscal crisis. On the belief that they might save tax dollars, many state and local governments began to consider repeal of prevailing wage laws. Florida, which had enacted a prevailing wage law in 1933, was the first to repeal its law, in 1979. Eight states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Utah) repealed their prevailing wage statutes in the 1980s. The prevailing wage statute in Oklahoma was invalidated by a court decision in 1995. At the present time, 32 states and the District of Columbia still have prevailing wage statutes, 10 states have repealed their prevailing wage statutes, and 8 states have never enacted a prevailing wage statute.
—————————————————————————————————–
Author’s Note:
As of the date of this article:
- 24 States follow the prevailing wage reporting requirements established by the U. S. Department of Labor and are required to file the Federal WH-347 Certified Payroll Report & WH-348 Statement of Compliance.
- 14 States have their own prevailing wage laws and certified payroll reporting requirements and forms, which must be used when the construction project is fully funded with state dollars.
- 12 States have multiple state agencies, each with their own prevailing wage reporting requirements and forms.
- More states are adding electronic filing requirements, either of their own design or through the use of compliance systems by TRS Consultants, Elation Systems, or LCPtracker.
ASA (American Subcontractors Association) of Arizona Shows Leadership in Securing Prompt Pay of Retainage & Final Payment.
(from Contractor Power Newsletter)
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A new law (S.B. 1375) signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on May 11, 2010, adds requirements for timely payment of retainage and final payments to the state’s prompt payment statute for construction. The law, supported by the American Subcontractors Association of Arizona and its allies representing a broad range of the state’s construction industry, establishes a payment cycle according to which non-residential project owners, prime contractors, and subcontractors normally will have to pay retainage and final payments for properly completed construction services and materials, or else pay a penalty of 1.5-percent interest per month.
The governor of Arizona has signed into law the most significant construction legislation improving subcontractor rights within the last 10 years, said ASA of Arizona President Jeff Banker, Banker Insulation Inc., Chandler, Ariz. ASA of Arizona was proud to have a leading role in helping shape the new law and the future of construction in Arizona.
The law, which applies to projects for which contracts, plans or specifications are distributed on or after Jan. 1, 2011, will require prime contractors to submit timely applications for payment according to the project’s billing cycle (normally 30 days). Unless stated otherwise in the construction plans, project owners will have to approve within 14 days, and pay within 7 days after that, proper invoices for retainage that subcontractors submit at substantial completion of their work. The law will also establish a 21-day cycle for project owners to pay prime contractors proper invoices for final payment. It will limit owners withholding of such payments to 150 percent of the reasonable costs to complete any work that is under dispute.
Prime contractors and subcontractors will have seven days from receipt of retainage and final payment to pay their subcontractors and material suppliers, except when reasons for withholding are detailed in a written notice. The law will entitle subcontractors to written notifications of retainage releases by owners once subcontractors request such notifications. It will specifically protect subcontractors from wrongful withholding for defective work or materials that are not their fault. Where subcontractors are not at fault, the law says, The Contractor shall nevertheless pay any subcontractor or material supplier … within 221 days after payment would otherwise have been made by the owner.
ASA of Arizona and its allies worked hard throughout this long legislative process to prevent damage to existing prompt payment rights and to enact these beneficial payment reforms, said ASA of Arizona Advocacy Chairman Richard Usher, Hill and Usher Insurance & Surety, Phoenix, Ariz. The volume of Arizona construction is down dramatically in all market segments, which makes protecting payment rights and getting paid promptly as important as ever to subcontractor prosperity and survival.
Founded in 1966, ASA amplifies the voice of, and leads, trade contractors to improve the business environment for the construction industry and to serve as a steward for the community. ASA’s vision is to be the united voice dedicated to improving the business environment in the construction industry. The ideals and beliefs of ASA are ethical and equitable business practices, quality construction, a safe and healthy work environment, and integrity and membership diversity.
ASA Contact: David Mendes
(703) 684-3450, Ext. 1335
dmendes@asa-hq.com
Tracking retainage is a common function of percentage-of-completion contract billing using AIA Forms G-702 & G-703. To learn more about AIA Billing and how to complete forms G-702/G-703, click here.
