Land Surveyors Now Subject To Davis-Bacon Act

> The Labor Department has issued a new order, reversing more than 50 years of policy, which states that members of land surveying crews on federal construction projects are now laborers and mechanics subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.

The point Mr. Sumner made that the entire Land Surveying community was not informed of the request to the Labor Department by the I.U.O.E. Or that the Labor Department did not solicit opinions, was not what I would call due process. Even though this only effects Federal projects, of which few are let to the general surveying community, how long before it is imposed on the State and local levels.

This will bear watching.

Maybe I'm in the minority here but I think being included is a good thing. I've been on countless Federally funded jobs as a Party Chief and was making less than everyone including the most basic laborer. As the one who tells everyone where to put everything this never seemed too fair to me. Even as a business owner now I think it's great working and having my crew guys work on Prevailing Wage jobs (Washington included surveyors already) I pay them well already but depending on the county a little bump for the low guys on the totem pole makes them really happy.

No minority T-Ray

It's probably a non-issue, unless you warm your truck seats with minimum-wage boneheads.

I've worked on several Federal projects that the DBA affected. Other than filling out a bit of paperwork occasionally for the GC it didn't make a bit of difference.

Here's some of our current local hourly WD (wage determination) in Central Oklahoma:

01420 - Survey Worker 17.05
30030 - Cartographic Technician 25.22
30040 - Civil Engineering Technician 24.03
30061 - Drafter/CAD Operator I 17.25
30062 - Drafter/CAD Operator II 20.36
30063 - Drafter/CAD Operator III 22.71
30064 - Drafter/CAD Operator IV 26.48
30081 - Engineering Technician I 19.05
30082 - Engineering Technician II 21.83
30083 - Engineering Technician III 23.92
30084 - Engineering Technician IV 29.64
30085 - Engineering Technician V 36.26
30086 - Engineering Technician VI 43.86

So the mentality is something like this?

Crews working on this federally funded project are getting paid X% more than they would on a privately funded project. So federally funded projects are costing more than the fair market value. Therefor the tax payer is paying more $ for the same work.

As a tax payer, I object.

My agency has used the Davis Bacon Wage Rates for years. I have always found that the guys that got that $2.00 or so raise to work on my projects were willing to go the extra mile to do a good job for us. The few that have slacked over the years, we just asked their boss not to send them out on our projects. I can only remember that happening once in about 29 years.

Well, that's interesting. At least here in AK, ANY Fed or State job, you are paid Bacon. Never been different. I was making Bacon 25 years ago and have on any job that qualifies, the only exception is you don't have to pay "family" members Bacon. Heck, $58/hour + OT as a party chief is pretty cool! And BTW, Davis-Bacon is to make up for the lack of insurance and other benefits.

-JD-

I object too

I pay taxes and I object to folks who act as if they are the only one's paying taxes.

Good luck in my part of rural America hiring someone for DB Wages. Other than the big brother aspect, which I am not trying to minimize nor promote 'cause that might get my fat fanny in trouble here (politics), this is a non-issue.

Steve

> Good luck in my part of rural America hiring someone for DB Wages...this is a non-issue.

Because there are no federal projects there that require surveying?

So Mr. Sumner represents NSPS and didn’t see this coming? Why use him if he doesn’t have a pulse on our profession?

I’m also interested that he thinks we’re to ignorant to fill out payment forms.

I'm afraid the ole fella needs put to pasture.

Davis-Bacon needs to be done away with. Countless man hours in the private sector alone would be saved.

Seems to me the union would not have brought this up if survey crews were being compensated at a level presumed by the statute and as inferred by NSPS. The distinctions between laborer and mechanic v. otherwise were put in place to protect higher salary and other compesation already provided to those otherwise employed.

I think it's sad that the NSPS is not looking out for survey technicians but only the company owners; or so it appears. I don't think their position does either.

Survey crews should be classified as apprentices. In addition, boundary work should be classified as construction and fall under the prevailing wage acts. Boundaries are constructed by way of line markings and monuments, and enable enhanced use of the property and increased value as much as building a sidewalk or some other such improvement.

If you want a strong profession you have to support all those working within it. Some companies do this on their own but all too many need a little help.

As far as taxes go; devaluing workers at the expense of international growth, speculation, and research and development will only take you so far. There's plenty of resources out there to pay people who are willing to work a decent wage, and still leave room for decent profits for the truly small business. Just depends on setting the proper priorities.

> I think it's sad that the NSPS is not looking out for survey technicians ...

:good: :good:

[sarcasm]everyone knows that technicians arent real surveyors[/sarcasm]

I believe classifying surveyors as laborers diminishes the profession. Currently, surveyors are looked at as professionals and are required to be chosen based upon qualifications under federal guidelines. If we are classified as laborers, this will eventually require surveying services to be based upon low bid instead of qualifications based selection. How will this help the profession?

So, the instrument man that has been working for 20 years will now make the same amount per hour as the guy that just got promoted to instrument man because some one from "big brother" says that is what an instrument man should make?

[sarcasm]That seems fair to me.[/sarcasm]

While I agree that this may not affect some parts of the country, it will most certainly affect others. When you have two crews, the crew that doesn't get the rate work is miffed. If this extends to boundaries, in my area, the price of a boundary survey will almost have to double to cover the wages. This means there will either be less boundary surveys or all the "little guys" will be forced out of business. How about the bringing along a third crew member (high school kid, potential future surveyor) to train on the job, in the field, without sacrificing production (how most of us learned)? That is gone too. Why not let the employers decide what their employees are worth to them. If the employer doesn't pay enough, the employee is fully within his rights to find another employer.

> If this extends to boundaries, in my area, the price of a boundary survey will almost have to double to cover the wages.

Only if you pay your guys half the local prevailing wage 😛

In SWPA, prevailing rate for a Class 1 Laborer is $24.13 plus $16.62 benefits for a total of $40.75 per hour. This is the lowest labor class. The highest is about $2.50 per hour higher. I am a PE and PLS and I cannot find a job for $40.75 per hour ($30 is about the average) and I should pay my rodman $40.75? That is almost $82 per hour for a 2 man crew (which is very close to normal billing rate). How can you do a simple boundary survey ($800) at $80 per hour cost (so billing rate would need to be near $200 per hour). What I call simple boundary survey is usually less than 8 hours in the field for recon and corners. So, yes I do pay my guys less than half of that rate because I cannot afford to pay them any more since the money is just not there.

I remember that back in the middle 1970s, Tobin Research, Inc. of San Antonio, TX turned down a mapping contract with the New Orleans District Corps of Engineers because it required them to pay "prevailing wages" to those employees working on the project. They refused the work because it would have caused too much disruption of their company's pay schedule and morale.

[sarcasm]anything that involves bacon can't be all bad[/sarcasm]