Department of Labor and Prevailing Wages for Land Surveyors

Posted by: @transitman

As I understand it the requirement for prevailing wages triggers certified payroll.

In California it means you *may* have to submit a certified payroll.?ÿ It depends on the procedures of the agency overseeing the project.?ÿ I've done a lot of PW jobs, but have only had to submit certified payroll documents a handful of times.

Posted by: @transitman

everything ultimately goes back to DOL and Davis Bacon.

CA has a Little Davis Bacon law, and DIR is the agency in charge.?ÿ Don't mess with them, it never turns out well.

I'm exempt.

Keep in mind last year's decision.?ÿ The practical effect in my region is that field surveyors on federal projects do not need to be paid prevailing wage.?ÿ Field surveyors on state/municipal projects must still be paid prevailing wage because of state statute (Little Davis Bacon Act).

https://www.agc.org/news/2021/01/21/dol-overturns-davis-bacon-coverage-rule-surveyors

https://www.nsps.us.com/page/DavisBacon

Posted by: @mightymoe

I'm exempt.

It depends on what you mean by "exempt."?ÿ In CA an owner-operator (in my case, a self-employed professional) isn't required by law to pay himself prevailing wages on a PW project, but is still required to comply with apprenticeship requirements and make contributions to the training fund.?ÿ This means that -- in theory (more on that later) -- when I'm preparing to start a PW job I have to request an apprentice from the union.?ÿ The union never sends one (they never even acknowledge the request) because the PW jobs I take on are too small (lasting at most a couple of weeks) to make dispatching an apprentice worthwhile, but I have to document the request and provide that documentation to the contracting agency.

I say "in theory" because most of the agencies I work with don't ask for the information.?ÿ The only one that ever did had instituted a labor compliance program that used LCPTracker, which includes certified payroll management.?ÿ It was a real pain to use, especially because it didn't know how to accommodate an owner-operator.?ÿ I had to certify that I was paying myself prevailing wages and benefits, even though I'm a sole proprietor and therefore don't draw a wage or salary.?ÿ It would take me a couple of hours every week to gather all the required data and then falsify the wage and benefit payments that I don't make to myself.?ÿ Thankfully, that agency has since dropped the labor compliance program entirely, and I'm hopeful that they won't revive it.

Minnesota has a mini Davis Bacon law, in Chapter 177 of the statutes. About a dozen years ago there was a problem when the state agency involved, DOLI (Department of Labor and Industry) began arbitrarily and randomly classifying field techs as construction laborers and requiring them to receive PW. Often this was done after the fact and without warning, and survey firms had payments held up on their State contracts. This was resolved, after a fashion, by setting up a new job classification for field techs. Licensed individuals are exempt.

Chances are that many other states have similar laws. They won't automatically change just because the Feds create an exemption.

..

?ÿ

?ÿ

While I do not actively seek out construction layout work, I do a bit of it on request in both Oregon & Washington.?ÿ Washington does have a classification for surveyors while Oregon does not.?ÿ In Oregon a tech fall under as laborers' rate and PCs fall under power equipment operators' rate.?ÿ I wish Oregon would adopt a classification for us just so that we, as business owners, were able to partake in the annual wage rate survey that is used to determine the rates.?ÿ It would also make it a little easier to look up rates.

Both states have a fairly simple formula to determine when the rates begin, after the construction contract is let.?ÿ Just because you are an owner operator, or licensed does not make you exempt.?ÿ Though in Oregon if you work less than 20% of a week on the PW job you do not need to pay PW.?ÿ In Washington the certified payroll is filed on line which is kind of nice.?ÿ Also, neither state requires me to us apprentices.?ÿ Neither require the crews be union although some project have a labor agreement with the union which requires anyone I use to at least pay a little tribute to them.

On the whole topic of PW, I cannot figure out for the life of me why we, as a group, are so against it.?ÿ It kind of levels the playing field.?ÿ The low-ballers can lowball, your employees are making a decent wage that may actually keep them in the profession and your potential profits are greater if you use the same % on the PW versus minimum wage.

Land surveyors should not be subject to prevailing wage jobs for public works projects.?ÿ It is so contradictory to the notion of this being a profession.

@ric-moore Maybe, but we cut off our nose to spite our face.?ÿ The result of excluding surveyors from prevailing wage is that surveyors often end up being the lowest-paid people on site.?ÿ I think better to compromise and allow field surveyors to be included in prevailing wage categories.?ÿ This has been common in Alaska for 45 years and has strengthened the profession (in my opinion) by providing something of a wage floor.

If local owner/operator PLS tries to pay his new chainman starvation wages on residential work, that chainman may just disappear to gradehop on a public construction job.?ÿ This competition with the prevailing wage jobs has helped keep surveyor wages reasonable in Alaska.

@frozennorth?ÿ

I agree with you. The concept is that if you are management, then you may not be PW. But not every PLS is management.?ÿ

@frozennorth - I see your points and its well taken.?ÿ However from my experiences its not only about the hourly rate on a project.?ÿ Its about the surveyors being true professional consultants to clients.?ÿ Of course, I also recognize that less than half the states include construction staking (or much of any other related task) within the definition of land surveying.

Okay, I have put my nomax on and am ready for a good flaming.?ÿ Surveying is a profession but when the rubber hits the ground we often utilize non-licensed employees, under our direct professional supervision, to perform tasks in the field that approach labor.?ÿ It is those tasks that deserve a prevailing wage.?ÿ While I do receive PW when staking, it does not apply when I am providing my professional expertise or analysis on the project.

I can not tell you how many licensed crew chiefs I know that jumped ship to become a grade check on the jobs we were laying out because of the pay difference.?ÿ This was all prior to PW for surveyors.?ÿ We were always the lowest paid people on a job site.

I work in Oregon and California. In both of those states you have to pay prevailing wages to a surveyor and the chainman. For federal only funded projects it's more confusing to me. When you look through the wage determination definitions it seems like a party chief would be a Power Equipment Operator 4 as a grade checker, and the chainman would be a laborer 1 as a hubsetter? Is a party chief even covered? I was trying to verify that when i discovered this topic. I really wish they just had their own category.... I was looking at rates today for a Forest Service road project and was surprised to see those are pretty much the same as Oregon. 

In Oregon when i first started the chainman got the prevailing wage as a laborer, but the party chief didn't. About 2015 or so they added the party chief. 

California at least has the survey crew positions and rates identified. Where i work i have to request an apprentice from the Bay Area, which you never hear back, pay into the training fund, and submit no work payroll reports for the entire project even if you only work for three days. 

For better or worse we are stuck with the prevailing wage show. The whole point behind it i assume is to protect unions from competition with non-union labor on public works projects? 

I really wish Oregon had classifications for surveyors.  In Oregon, the PC is paid based on Power Operator Group 2 while the tech is classified as Laborer Group 1.  From a union standpoint, they technically come out of different halls.

The original point of PW was to ensure local labor markets were not undermined by importing cheaper labor.  I have no problem with PW.

Posted by: @john-putnam

↑

I really wish Oregon had classifications for surveyors. 

Yea verily. I haven't done a lot of PW work, but some. At times we had the situation where the rodman was getting paid more than the PLS, even when the PLS was on-site. Absurd. I've also found that the time I spent in the office preparing for staking wasn't PW work, the time on site was. So I took to doing my prep calcs in the job trailer on site. Those are the games people play. 

The Department of Labor establishes PW rates for physicians and all manner of support personnel. We are simply too small in numbers and voice to make it happen. That's irrelevant.  Nothing stops us from paying our people well. I haven't lost a job on price in a long time. Of course I don't pursue cheap work either.