> No other State, to my knowledge, includes any surveyor classification under a Prevailing Wage Requirement
Had you actually done any research in an effort to expand your knowledge instead of suggesting that the idea is simply unthinkable, you'd quickly have learned that California and Washington are two such states. There are others, but I'll leave it to others to enumerate them.
> For those who may not not understand the implications and negative impact of the Department of Labor making a ruling at the request of a labor union to not only add surveyor to the many definitions of a laborer, but to create a new labor category of "survey worker", let me offer a few items to consider:
>
> under the original decree of the DOL any work performed for construction staking on any public works project required the employer to adhere to rates of pay as stated in monthly publications for each county
>
> the decree meant all hours worked on each project by each employee for every day's work in a particular county had to be documented and certified payroll submitted for proof of compliance
>
> while one one hand the hourly rate for the second man on the crew was approx $26 and for the "foreman" a rate of $27.30; on the other hand imagine the nightmare of tracking the reversing of roles on the jobsite and the crew stopping on numerous projects sites per day in different counties....which is not unusual....and on the third hand imagine the problems created by the crew chief knowing they are only be paid $1.30 more per hour than their understudy....and on the fourth hand imagine the discourse created when a firm has a "prevailing wage" crew for public works projects and a regular rate crew for private work
>
> the hourly rate of the scond man, or survey helper / rodman, as per the DOL decree is about $8 per hour more than standard wages in many counties
>
> the basis of the complaint which was upheld by the Cook County Court was that suveying in all forms is a professional service and has been recognized as such for more than 70 years by the US Department of Labor
>
> The NSPS and ACEC is fully supportive of the complaint filed by IPLSA, several other design professions and a few state-wide contractor associations
>
> do you want your state telling your firm what you must pay any employee for professional services?...and how you must calculate what constitutes as wages and benefits? having a DOL make changing and conflicting rulings on definitions and interpretations of definitions is not healthy for any private business and makes it impossible to make business decisions based on moving targets
>
> we have a minimum wage in effect in every state, and the current average "survey worker / laborer" already makes 2.5 times the minimum wage requirement
>
> the Prevailing Wage Act was originally brought into law to protect contractors from paying sub-standard wages to employees on state-funded projects, and if the average survey technician is making 2.5 times the minimum wage rate I believe the worker is being compensated in a fair and equitable manner and does not require a state agency to promote a union message
>
> Simply put, the current system isn't broke.... so don't try to fix it.
>
> No other State, to my knowledge, includes any surveyor classification under a Prevailing Wage Requirement and the US Department of Labor holds surveying as a profession and exempt from the Davis-Bacon Act
>
> Leave the professional status of the profession alone.
>
> My personal opinions and yours truly,
>
> Jim Abbitt
> 2014 IPLSA President
Hmmmm... Help me out here Mr. Abbitt. So, correct me if I'm wrong but what you are saying is that you're paying your rod man about $20.60/hr for federally funded jobs? Looking up the minimum wage for Illinois, it is $8.25, X 2.5, right? Well, looking up prevailing wages for a laborer in your area, they are making anywhere from $22-to over 27/hr. Carpenters make over $28. Painters make over $27. Even a truck driver makes anywhere from $31-33/hr. And it goes on. You can look for yourself. But you personally feel that's good enough compensation in your area for your help. How do you think your help feels when they show up on a Federally funded job site knowing that they're the lowest paid guys there? Knowing that the so called profession of your area knows what they think they are worth and what they should get compensated, and that's less than a laborer who might have a GED, and everybody else on the job site? And the professionals need 4 years (or 4+2???) of education where the trades don't, but the professionals still get less compensation. How are you able to keep good help? How are you able to promote/recruit new help and promote the Land Surveyor Profession with that message?
I have a hard time understanding why anyone or any organization would want to demote their own profession. It doesn't make any sense to me.
what Texas is not the promise land ?
> Really Texas is not the promise land? Okay I am worng then.
Dane, I was referring to wages, not Texas...
Beer Legs
I previously posted the rates for Cook County Prevailing Wage for April 2014
The Survey worker rate for Cook County is $37.00/hr with another $9.93/hr for pension. It seems Jim Abbitt understanding of "fair wages" is an example of why unions were created.
The Rock Island County Prevailing Wage, where Jim lives, for April 2014 is $27.13/hr with another $7.41/hr for pension.
I wonder if Jim pays his help salary? vs hourly?
One more item to add to my list of reasons
One more item to add to my list of reasons to detest unions.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
Because they are making sure that employers pay their employees what they are legally required to pay them? If the employer didn't want the job, and didn't want to take on the "prevailing wage" requirement, he could have declined the opportunity to put in a proposal, right? ... I don't feel sorry for employers who get caught cheating their employees and trying to keep their unpaid wages for their own profit.
> In WA state jobs, prevailing wage applies to construction work. Boundary, topo, design surveys, as builts, these can all be addressed under the professional services part of the law.
Not so if it is a design build project. Once the contract is let, all work is considered to be PW. We found this out when bidding on deformation monitoring for the tunnel in Seattle.
I would love to see Oregon add a classification for surveyors. We currently fall under Laborer II on any federal or local government funded construction project, including design build. Not having a classification puts employers, which I am, in a bad spot in at least two situation. Since we have no classification, we must go through an arcane process to determine if the employee is to be paid PW. In Oregon they must perform labor for at least 20% of the work week to make the threshold. What constitutes labor is bigger question. The second real problem is about the rates themselves. At least in Oregon the rates are determined by annual wage surveys of the companies that employ each classification. If more than 50% of the classification is employed by union shops then the union scale is utilized for the PW. Since I do not technically employ Laborers, I, along with all of the other survey and engineering firms are not included in the wage determination.
I look at PW as a way to equalize the field, the hourly cost of labor is taken out of the equation. It all boils down to productivity. Gone are the bottom feeders.
Oh yeah, and unless NSPS is successful in reversing the Department of Labor's latest stand on surveyors, you are now required to pay PW for any federally backed construction proects. You really should do you homework.
I'll stop now before I get political.
John Putnam, PLS
OR, CA, WA, ID
"...prevailing wage applies to construction work. Boundary, topo, design surveys, as builts..."
I would think Prevailing Wage is for lay-out, staking, monitoring, machine control, as-builts etc.. Not "...Boundary, topo, design surveys.."
Who is covered by the Prevailing Wage Act?
The Prevailing Wage Act requires contractors and subcontractors to pay laborers, workers and mechanics employed on PUBLIC WORKS construction projects no less than the general prevailing rate of wages (consisting of hourly cash wages plus fringe benefits) for work of a similar character in the county where the work is performed.
I would thought the same thing but I have letters from Washington's BOL that says different and a representative from Oregon's BOL said the same thing at the PLSO conference this year.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
It works both ways. If the employee does not like the wages and benefits offered to be employed by a certain employer, move on until a better deal can be found. If the employer does not want to pay enough to keep qualified employees, then he will also end up on the short end of the stick.
My problem is with someone else demanding that my employees earn a specific amount. That is something for me to work out with my employees. It is not someone else's business. Especially for a one-time job.
This practice tends to ensure work for high-dollar-area-based crews where those rates are somewhat typical. Those who work in low-dollar areas as a general rule would not view this as a reasonable situation. What it amounts to is the business owner has to gamble far more dollars to do the job while insulting his crew. Yes, it's an insult to be told you are worthy of being paid X dollars as a general rule, but you are worth X times Y dollars if the business owner lands a specific job. It makes the owner appear to be a greedy crook when that is not the case.
In the case cited above, the client was not going to employ that firm if they charged him PW rates for the crew. Apparently, it was debatable as to whether or not that was the case. After the fact, a determination is being made that PW rates were appropriate. Therefore, no matter who the client would have ended up using, he would not have paid the PW rates. So, now, the guy who tried to keep his crew employed comes out looking like a crook. If every survey firm contacted had said they would not take the job unless PW rates applied, the client would then have had to decide to either pay those rates or not do the project. Projects that don't happen don't make money for anyone.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
> In the case cited above, the client was not going to employ that firm if they charged him PW rates for the crew. Apparently, it was debatable as to whether or not that was the case. After the fact, a determination is being made that PW rates were appropriate. Therefore, no matter who the client would have ended up using, he would not have paid the PW rates. So, now, the guy who tried to keep his crew employed comes out looking like a crook. If every survey firm contacted had said they would not take the job unless PW rates applied, the client would then have had to decide to either pay those rates or not do the project. Projects that don't happen don't make money for anyone.>
I think you are missing the way prevailing wage jobs are determined. I, as the business owner, do not determine if the job is prevailing wage. Rather it is decided by the people paying the bill. If I work on a construction project for Walmart or the Koch brothers, whom are spending their own money, the job will not require prevailing wages (unless the owners choose to). On the other hand, if I'm working on a bridge construction project funded in part by the government then I will will have to pay the wages. The fact that I will be required to pay said wages must be stated in the request for proposal. Every firm that proposes on the project must at a minimum pay the PW. The government is not telling anyone they have to pay prevailing wages on any jobs unless they are financing the projects. And in the free market, they have the that right.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
What I was referring to is this quote from Jim Frame above:
"A colleague is currently being sued over construction staking they've been doing on a project over the last 8 years. He initially told his private-sector client that he thought it should be PW, but he client said no, it's not, so they haven't been paying PW. One of the unions has challenged the interpretation -- in my opinion there was never any question that it was PW -- and my colleague is staring at the possibility of having to pay $500k in back wages, not to mention penalties.
Oops."
How can this possibly be reasonable business practice? Note this was a private-sector client. Said client made it clear it would not be a PW situation. Now, someone else is trying to say it was and, therefore, the survey firm is facing huge back wages (which they never received from the client) plus penalties.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
> In the case cited above, the client was not going to employ that firm if they charged him PW rates for the crew. Apparently, it was debatable as to whether or not that was the case.
First, the client never told my colleague that they wouldn't hire him if he charged PW. Second, it wasn't really debatable; I knew it was PW, and my colleague was sure enough to point it out to his client. And as John indicated, if there's any doubt all you have to do is ask the Department of Industrial Relations to issue a ruling, and they'll settle the question.
My colleague was negligent in failing to get a ruling, and now he may have to bear the consequences. His client tells him that they'll cover him in the event of an adverse court decision, but I imagine that promise will expire right about the time the client files for bankruptcy.
I live in a state with heavy union influence and state prevailing wage for surveyors on construction projects. My experience: A rising tide lifts all ships. What are you afraid of? A mandated wage levels the playing field for the construction surveying firms, and keeps wages at a nice level for the field staff. Is the Davis-Bacon Act ethical? Maybe not. But it raises wages for surveyors, period.
Money talks. If anything, I think prevailing wage has raised the professional status of surveyors in this state. Why? Because now design/boundary/ALTA firms now have to pay higher wages to compete for talent. With higher income, I see surveyors making more professional decisions, firing bad clients, etc., instead of bending their principles to keep from starving.
So the Davis-Bacon Act and its very distant cousin the Brooks Act tend to raise wages overall, distort the market and raise the cost of design and construction. Ethical? Maybe not. Good for surveyors? Definitely.
So support prevailing wage and make a good living.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
It sounds to me like the surveyor was careless. If he thought it should be a PW from the beginning, why'd he let the client tell him no? It's bad business practice to let your clients call the shots on how you run your business. And now, I'm betting the client does not remember this conversation.... Lol.
Besides, the other firms in the running who didn't get the contract, and the employees who are being underpaid, will likely raise the issue with the right people. You have to expect that as a business person.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
"...Said client made it clear it would not be a PW situation...."
I hope that the client put it in writing.
In general, this is to reply to Mr. Frame, Beer Legs and Mr. Davidson.
This does seem to be a hot button of a topic. Good. There is a tremendous amount of information about this issue, but much too lengthy to post here. But I wanted to reply to a couple of remarks on my initial post.....
For reference, I did say to "my knowledge” that no other state has entered into prevailing wage territory. I admit this "knowledge" comes from statements of legal counsel and in kind statements by NSPS supporting that the surveying profession does not belong mingled with day labor.
When we leave the office each day, I assume we are like most of the country; we may be performing many duties during that day....some courthouse research, some boundary, some topography and yes maybe some construction staking.
Did you know, in my State of Illinois, it is against current regulations to charge the State a higher fee than we do for our other customers...the Prevailing Wage Act violates this very regulation. Did you know that in the months since October 1, 2013 that certain State agencies are trying to demand engineering and surveying firms adhere to the changes in the Act, even though their particular contracts were executed prior to any notice of a change?....and there is no offer from the agencies to make any adjustment in the contract for higher wages.
Did you also know that the IL Department of Labor made no public notice of the proposed changes last year??...except for a statement on their own website.....a nice parallel to the thought and promise of a government entity being transparent.
As far as how survey technicians are paid in NW IL, I can testify to my own staff members as being full-time hourly employees at will, at 40 hours per week, 52 weeks every year; together with paid holidays and sick days and a year-end bonus. They are not sent home or told to stay home when its raining, or 20 below zero, as the laborers on the construction site are routinely told to do....at least in my local experience of 40 years in this business. If the survey technicians wanted to be a laborer on a construction site, and make a higher hourly wage for the days they do work, they have had that option since day one.
The survey technicians serving as what the supporters of prevailing wage call "rodman" are certainly more than that....and if they have the educational background and desire to pursue a career in surveying, then there are opportunities for advancement. Please tell me what advancement opportunities lay on the horizon for the gentlemen laying pipe in the trench or striking off concrete for the next mile of highway? I have known perhaps hundreds of men and women who work d*mn hard for 30 to 40 years with little to no advancement in wages except for those increases bargained for annually for cost of living.
I can understand a higher wage is needed to make a living for some, h*ll, these laborers, carpenters, and operators are only working 1000 - 1200 hours a year in my area.....something called winter comes to mind, and having construction not start until mid-April to late May and ending by Thanksgiving.....leaves few months to get those hours in....so a higher hourly rate makes sense. BUt we must also remember they draw umemployment benefits while in winter lay-off.
If the industry's rodmen don't have the desire to move up the ladder in this profession, they are free to stay or free to find greener pastures.
By the tone in some of the replies, I thought I had entered onto a liberal political blog. But that is likely my fault because I know how hard it is to understand a tone of conversation using text only.
Best of luck to all of us in our struggle to make a living and promote ourselves as the professionals we say we are.
Yeah, Alaska has a classification for surveyors as well. I have personally encountered all of the issues that Mr. Abbitt brings up both as an employee and as an owner. Guess what? They're not a big deal. With the invention of computers, the assignment of hours to the appropriate job with the appropriate wage is trivial. Yes, the crews prefer the prevailing rate (no kidding), but they realize that they're not going to get it when they do residential stuff. If they decide to chase prevailing wage only, they have to move to a construction only firm and travel a lot. They know it's a tradeoff.
But all in all? It's great for surveyors, both as an owner, and an employee.
