“…I admit this "knowledge" comes from statements of legal counsel and in kind statements by NSPS…”
If these are the “experts” you listen too, this should tell you something about both you and them.
“…supporting that the surveying profession does not belong mingled with day labor…"
Unfortunately, grade checking, stake out, control surveys, machine control, etc. are not the regulated sole purview of the PLS.
"...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?...”
It would seem that the new prevailing wage law enactment has voided the capital terms of your contract.
"..By the tone in some of the replies, I thought I had entered onto a liberal political blog..."
Just don't confuse me for a poor businessman that screws my employees. There are plenty of Union surveyors on this board that work in excess of 2000 hours per year. Making a good wage, good benefits and continual training.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
One other thing I just found out at the PLSO conference was that in Oregon the prime contractor is financially responsible if the subs do not pay PW. Since the primes were on the hook they got legislation passed that requires all subs to carry a $30k bond for PW. The cost of the bond will be what keeps many away from the PW projects.
Richard,
I was not referring to union surveyors. I was speaking of laborers and their co-workers that only work 1000-1200 or so hours per year on the construction site due to weather conditions, etc.
I have no personal objections to anyone joining a union, by their own choice.
It is my personal wish for governmental agencies to have as little impact as possible on the employment practices of this profession; and when they should make a policy change to do so in the light of day.
It appears I have offended you, and your fellow union surveyors. That is not my intention; and I harbor no ill will towards you or them.
All my comments are my personal opinion, and I see we both feel very strongly about the subject. Personal attacks do little to promote the conversation.
Best of luck to you and your endeavors.
> It is my personal wish for governmental agencies to have as little impact as possible on the employment practices of this profession; and when they should make a policy change to do so in the light of day.
>
This is my wish as well, but the horse has left the barn. Idealism about keeping the government out of our business seems to hurt construction surveyors in a pretty unique way.
When it comes to public works:
During the design phase, architects, engineers and land surveyors all get to benefit from Qualifications Based Selection thanks to the Brooks Act and its kin. So those who are most qualified or who best work the system get to negotiate fair compensation. Firms and employees benefit.
During the construction phase, almost every individual on site is benefitting from the Davis-Bacon Act, and making prevailing wage (whether union or not). Except, in most states, the construction surveyor.
So during the whole design and construction process on billions of dollars worth of work per year, the construction surveyor is uniquely left flapping in the wind. Everyone else in the process realizes higher wages from this evil government interference. I hate this as much as the next libertarian, but it's true.
There is no sound reason for the construction surveyor to be the last stalwart of principle, pure as the driven snow, unsullied by government intervention... and screwed.
Practical outcomes require pragmatic steps. The idealism is screwing field surveyors.
Prevailing wage laws constitute an imperfect solution to a complex problem. Mr. Abbitt appears to be an honorable employer who keeps his employees busy throughout the year, thus allowing them to make a respectable annual income. In my area there's a lot of variability in this regard among both union and non-union shops, and PW laws provide a certain level of support for employees that they may not have otherwise. In my opinion, PW laws are better than the alternative.
As for myself, I'm an employer, not an employee. I run a very small operation, with only a single part-time employee and the occasional subcontractor. Roughly 60% of my work is PW (though it varies considerably year-to-year), and I personally do all the compliance paperwork. It's a nuisance, but not a big drain on my time. My employee makes pretty decent money on average, even if the disparity between PW and non-PW is extreme. He's happy, I'm happy.
(And I still think this entire thread is political.)
Massachusetts:
Field Engineers
Field engineer classifications apply to building work, “heavy” work and highway or road work as well as to “vertical” construction. PW-2011-05-08.15.11
Field engineer classifications perform many services common to typical building construction project, including establishing benchmarks for foundations, right of way clearances, grades and elevations.
Field engineers engaged in pre-construction surveys, as well as engineers hired to perform quality control work (i.e. work to generate measurements and data to be used by management consultant for quality control purposes and to ensure that work was being performed in compliance with construction contract) not subject to the prevailing wage law.
Field engineers’ pre-construction activities not subject to the prevailing wage law.
Construction layout activities, such as establishing grid lines, checking and measuring concrete forms to ensure that they are plumb, and determining proper elevation of roofing-type structures for concrete slabs, are subject to the prevailing wage law.
Workers who use a transit, level, and total station to perform surveying duties during construction are classified as Field Engineers.
“…It is my personal wish for governmental agencies to have as little impact as possible on the employment practices of this profession; and when they should make a policy change to do so in the light of day…”
Jim
I ask people that bemoan government regulations if they play(ed) sports. If you had referees the first half of the game, then the referees left at half time, do you think the play would get cleaner?
If you want to win the game, it is best if you know the rules.
Whether the government regulates your business through a licensing board or a Department of Labor, the rules are there because some employer mistreated a client, employee or another entity.
Regards, Richard Davidson
PS I am not a union surveyor
Does PW mean union member?
If PW is a requirement, whatever the classification of labor, whatever the rate, does this mean a person automatically is represented by a union?
I'm going on some possible misinformation here which is why I'm asking. The way it's been told to me, and many of my colleagues here in Illinois, is that if I work on a job requiring PW, I will effectively become a member of Operating Engineers 150. I will pay union dues out of my compensation, but I won't be a voting member, report to the hall, etc, etc.
Is this true?
No matter how you slice it, this IS a political discussion. This is Illinois afterwards....
Does PW mean union member?
As far as I know, you don't have to pay union dues to get pw. I asked a non union survey buddy of mine who worked in Neveda on some pw jobs. Here is what he said:
"Nevada has prevailing wages for surveyors. I did go to multiple sites per day, some pw, some standard. I don't have to imagine. We all go to multiple sites, the only difference is your wage classification. Same as when you're solo part of the day and when you get an I-man.
I don't understand the issue from the society's view or the owners. Billing rates reflect wages paid at a pretty standard multiplier... multiplying a larger number means larger profits. These are costs past directly to project owner. Levels playing field for all bidding companies. How is this a bad thing in any way at all? For anyone? If you're paying a guy $40 an hour, you can be real picky about quality of work."
FWIW, I am not union either.
Does PW mean union member?
> If PW is a requirement, whatever the classification of labor, whatever the rate, does this mean a person automatically is represented by a union?
>
> I'm going on some possible misinformation here which is why I'm asking. The way it's been told to me, and many of my colleagues here in Illinois, is that if I work on a job requiring PW, I will effectively become a member of Operating Engineers 150. I will pay union dues out of my compensation, but I won't be a voting member, report to the hall, etc, etc.
>
> Is this true?
>
> No matter how you slice it, this IS a political discussion. This is Illinois afterwards....
Prevailing wage and Union scale are two different things. Depending on the area, the rate may be the same based on the local wage survey. That being said, some jobs do have a labor agreement which stipulates that in addition to the prevailing wages, the workers must be unionized.
Does PW mean union member?
> I don't understand the issue from the society's view or the owners. Billing rates reflect wages paid at a pretty standard multiplier... multiplying a larger number means larger profits. These are costs past directly to project owner. Levels playing field for all bidding companies. How is this a bad thing in any way at all? For anyone? If you're paying a guy $40 an hour, you can be real picky about quality of work."
>
:good::good: :good:
Does PW mean union member?
“…does this mean a person automatically is represented by a union?...”
No. You have to sign up with the union to be a member.
"...I'm going on some possible misinformation here which is why I'm asking..."
Yes. You have been given “misinformation”.
Does PW mean union member?
I appreciate the responses. The discussion that was presented at the IPLSA conference on this topic seemed to me to convey that Operators 150 was behind the push for prevailing wage. I'm under the impression that 150 is defining what a rodman and surveyor are.
If there is no labor agreement for a project, what business is it of the unions who gets paid what?
Does PW mean union member?
> If there is no labor agreement for a project, what business is it of the unions who gets paid what?
One goal of unions is that all members of a certain occupation are paid a certain minimum wage. A supplemental goal is that all practitioners are then part of the union. But even when practitioners decline to join the union, it is still in the union's best interest that they are well paid. If all non-union Operators are paid half what union Operators are, it is difficult for the union shops to compete. So the primary goal of a good wage for ALL Operators (even non-union) is considered beneficial to the union and all Operators.
BTW, I am non-union. But I never begrudged my employees the $50/hr (wage plus fringe in cash) or so paid to them on prevailing wage jobs. Made them happy; made me happy.
One more item to add to my list of reasons
:good:
Dane
Texas is the promised land. That is all. 🙂
Dane
Wages are always bigger in Texas!
😉
Does PW mean union member?
> One goal of unions is that all members of a certain occupation are paid a certain minimum wage. A supplemental goal is that all practitioners are then part of the union. But even when practitioners decline to join the union, it is still in the union's best interest that they are well paid. If all non-union Operators are paid half what union Operators are, it is difficult for the union shops to compete. So the primary goal of a good wage for ALL Operators (even non-union) is considered beneficial to the union and all Operators.
I understand this point of view. This is the same problem surveyors complain about all day long...how can I compete with lowballers? The non-lowballers tout themselves as being more profession and better at what they do, i.e. you get what you pay for.
That is not necessarily true.
In my personal experience with the IBEW, being a journeyman electrician does not automatically mean you are better than a non-union electrician. (I am not nor never was a union electrician)
This entire topic cannot be understood and solved by looking at this topic alone. The economy is a broken system fueled by greed, dishonesty, and crooked politicians. It is a vicious cycle, people need to make more money because things cost so much because people need to make more money to buy a bigger tv and house which cost so much because people need to make more money to pay for the things that cost so much.........