I've just received this via email and felt it should be posted here.
-----
A Message to all Oregon Surveyors from PLSO Chair John Thatcher:
It came to PLSO's attention late last week that a proposed revision request to Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) has been submitted by the International Union of Operating Engineers/Local 701 . It requests that the Party Chief (construction surveyor) classification be moved to a Group 2 for all public works.
In short, the proposal requests to “…add the Party Chief subclassification to Power Equipment Operator Group 2 as a covered prevailing wage classification under ORS 279C.” The proposal is available on the BOLI-PWR web site - click here to read the entirety.
PLSO Executive Secretary Aimee McAuliffe, PLSO Lobbyist Darrell Fuller and I have been researching the topic, including getting feedback from Surveyors dealing with similar issues in other states and from Curt Sumner of NSPS [read a recent letter from NSPS regarding a similar issue]. PLSO has also been working with other like minded groups and formulating a plan of action. After considering the feedback and conference call Tuesday with Kim Robinson of IPSLA, we have concluded that this request is not in the best interest for our profession. It was explained that the fallout in Illinois has included many onerous additional requirements such as project labor agreements, responsibility for union benefit plans, requirements to carry permanent liability insurance (which don't go away even if the company is sold), DOL union training program requirements and more. In summary - surveyors lose control of their own profession. While Illinois is not Oregon, we are choosing to learn from their experience.
PLSO exists to look after the interests of Oregon Surveyors, and our plan is to submit a letter of opposition.
But time is short. The deadline for comments is April 15. A request for an extension was made and subsequently denied. Mr. Fuller advises that, while it is important for PLSO to respond to this proposal, it is also important for individual surveyors to weigh in. This is where you come in. If you are in agreement with PLSO, please stand behind your professional community and let BOLI know your opinion. PLSO is working with other groups to form a list of appropriate talking points. You may choose to wait for this list or move ahead with your own opinion on the matter.
Requests made by email must be sent to the following address: [email protected]. (It is preferred that requests and responses be submitted by email.)
Requests sent by regular mail must be sent to: PWR Coordinator Bureau of Labor and Industries 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 1045 Portland, OR 97232
Reference The request to revise the BOLI Power Equipment Operator definition by adding the Party Chief subclassification to Group 2.
We appreciate the time you have taken to read about and consider this issue.
Regards,
John Thatcher
PLSO Board Chairman
Like what we do here? Donate
Need a new or refreshed website? Five Point Web Solutions
Looking for a web host? Website Hosting & Management
Huh? 80 pounds of modern equipment? I think I'd remember doing that.
I'm from Illinois and was a witness to the circus we had over the last couple of years. I think, but am not sure, the problem went away. We will see. Originally the Illinois Department of Labor made the prevailing wage a requirement. They skipped some hearing requirements so a judge threw it out. They then tried to push it threw again, but there was a change in the governors office so that problem hopefully went away.
A couple of things to keep in mind. The unions have a lot of power. They have a lot of lobby efforts and it may just depend on what direction the political winds are blowing in your state capital. In Illinois they were trying to get construction staking and material testing a prevailing wage and union requirement on public works jobs. We had decided we just weren't going to do that work if it was required. With our current governor it is a complete change and he is trying to make Illinois a right to work state.
I wish I knew more about the process and what took place in Illinois to help you guys more.
This should be quite a tender subject in Oregon.
There's a lot at stake on both sides of this issue.
For the union, and private surveying firms both.
better squash this or these party chiefs could end up making more than minimum wage. We have to make sure the dummy pushing a wheel barrow full of trash is making at least twice what the party chief gets
By the way I am not in a union nor do I want to be...but if you get that wage on those job sites and everyone who bids the jobs has to pay that wage what's the problem? This only applies to public projects and to construction layout, right?
Dan, don't quote me on these number, I'm going by memory, but it seems like the numbers I saw thrown around was $50 to $70 an hour depending on the position. It seems like they had "party chief, instrument man, and rod man". What happens if the I-man gets caught driving stakes? What if you want to run a one man crew with GPS? What if you have the person that is union and you want to use him on non union work? I know, a lot of questions but from what I understand, it creates some complications.
Nothing against the unions. We have a lot of union contractors around here, most of them have great workers. Ask your self, would you really want to deal with all the trouble of dealing with the headaches of union work unless that's all you did?
There certainly are arguments on both sides, but it does not help cultivate new PLSs when the party chief makes half of what the guy handing tools to the ditch digger makes.
I had to look at the proposal by the union to BOLI to get my head wrapped around this a bit better.
The "Factual Background" in their proposal is interesting reading!
I like the part where the "construction surveyor" works from the design topography "before design")... all the way to staking out right of way.
The "Proposal" is pretty interesting to read!
I think it works great in Washington. The bigger companies don't particularly care for it because if a person working on the project owns 30% or more of the company than the requirement goes away. So a 2-3 man company (partnership) can pay themselves $40/hr on a prevailing wage job instead of the prevailing wage of $54.33. Now the little guy has a better chance of getting the job. I for one get seriously annoyed when everyone on the job is making more than me (the one who lays out everything for everyone else to build) Doesn't seem right! We are the professionals and a guy digging ditches is making 1.5 times what we are.
Just my 2 cents!
I am thankful we don't have union surveyors here. The only union surveyors around here work for the utility company.
Seems to me if Surveying was a truly a profession then there would be no need for prevailing rates because the surveyors would already be making much more than the general site labor and tradesmen when doing construction layout. But as it stands now I think it is vary embarrassing that the flag person or laborer in the trench is making more per hour than the Party Chief and Chain person in the field. An our profession is struggling to get new young replacements, and you wonder why! I was trained in surveying by the Operating Engineers Joint Apprentiship committee program. Which was made up of employers and Union. It provided the basic training needed for a chain person to be productive and then the same for a Party Chief. I also attended many additional classes preparing for my liscence but all the union surveyors I worked with had basic training and were prepared for field surveying for the most part. Opposed to non-union shops, where if you could find a neighhood kid to hold the rod for the day you could have a crew. Although I am not a fan of Unions I am a fan of training and I sure don't see that happening much for field personale outside of the unions. Bottom line if we want to be considered professional we need to get more money into the profession and provide organized training for new employees.
My 2 cents, Jp