Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > April > 22 > Entry
Shook: Prevailing wage might increase bidders
Dayton schools’ new construction manager has rejected an argument against paying union wages on school projects and responded that higher wages might increase the number of bidders in a letter to contractors.
And school board President Yvonne Isaacs said that argument could persuade the board to take a second look at the idea of requiring union wages on its projects.
The letter was written by Vincent Corrado, the chief executive officer of Shook Construction, one of two companies now leading Dayton’s 10-year, $627 million school construction program. His letter was in response to a March 24 letter from Kathleen Somers, President of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., of the Ohio Valley, a non-union contractors group.
In November, that group launched a radio campaign on six stations to focus public attention on the board, which it said was considering requiring that contractors pay “prevailing wage” pay rates offered by unions. The group wanted the board to leave in place current bidding criteri allowing contractors to set their own wages. At the time, Isaacs said the district had no plans to change course.
Sommers and Corrado met in March and afterward Somers’ letter argued that the district risked a big hike in construction costs if it required union wages and that such a move would discourage bidders who could potentially save the district money.
In his answer, Corrado argued that wages are only a small part of construction costs for a project and that requiring better wages could make the district’s projects more attractive to union-affiliated local companies, who might still make a low bid.
Corrado said he was not advocating for the board to make a change. “It’s not our decision,” he said. “We’re trying to give them as much information as possible.”
Isaacs said the board has not had any formal discussions about prevailing wage, but that it was open to considering it.
“We are very diligent about staying on budget,” she said. “But we are interested in finding ways to utilize more local workforce, including minorities and disadvantaged businesses and people. If there is a way we can increase that, we’re all about doing it.”
Isaacs said the board would consider proposals from unions that don’t raise construction costs but increase local participation.
“The board is concerned about the fact that outside companies are taking these dollars and leaving the city,” she said.
There is no timeline for discussing a change in policy, she said. Somers could not be reached for comment.
Permalink | Comments (22) | Post your comment | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, School Construction
Services »
Comments
By B
June 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
Sure call in Joes Construction from Indiana. You have no clue about their quality and all their unskilled labor. Now look in Shooks eyes you are a very reputable high quality company. You are risking your name with the subs you bring in to do the work. Not sure why Shook Construction doesn�t just do the projects themselves? They do have the skilled Labor to compete the project. WORK TO LIVE DONT LIVE TO WORK WORK UNIONBy steve
April 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this
I am curious if Experience has ever worked on a prevailing wage job? I am sure he enjoyed making union wages on such projects. If not for the unions and these wage rates the non union worker would be paid even less for what they do today. The unions have helped building trade laborers. I know not what jobs Experience has been on but personally I have fixed many of non union major screw ups on some jobs. That is were the union worker is more skilled for he must complete a program that is certified by the state. What does the A*s’n Builders and Contractors have for instruction? A ten hour OSHA card. We work hard as Ironworkers, carpenters, tin knockers, pipe fitters, electricians and laborers that live here and have our kids go to school here…the money I make here stays here…I want the best building money can buy as well. The point was made sometimes it isn’t the lowest bid that should be awarded. I agree I take offense to you saying non-union people work harder than me. This stigma has plauged the unions since the early seventies when the certain members of unions took advantage of the system. I challenge experience to come to work with me one day and we’ll see if he’s worthy.By Mary
April 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Could someone clue me in as to what the “prevailing union rates” are in the construction business in this area?By Harvey
April 25, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
These assumptions about non union workers are completely unfair. 85% of all construction workers are NON union for a reason. If Scott Elliot is not in a reporter’s union, does that mean we can all assume he is 1)an illegal alien, 2)untrained, 3)uneducated, and 4)grossly underpaid?By Victor
April 25, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Whether or not the work is done by union workers does not provide any guarantee to quality or ethical standards. Not long ago, a bobcat driven by a union worker crashed right through my office window because the guy was screwing around. They are all people. Everywhere else in our country, people get paid what they are worth, and the market dictates that…except for unions, that is. Union wages go up every year, regardless of the state of the economy. That is why it is irresponsible to force union wages on public projects. The union bosses are the ones making all the money.By experienced
April 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
I have worked in the constuction field for eight year now. I have never seen an increase in the quality or craftmanship of a union worker over a non-union worker. I have seen less productivity in the union worker than that of a non-union worker. I know there are exceptions on both sides of that fence but as a whole there is a difference. As a non-union construction worker in Dayton have never worked with or around an illegal worker. The issue at hand is cost not legal workers. Paying union wages only increases cost to contractors and tax payers. The cost increase will come out of somewhere and it will be materials, bidding is very competitive right now. Contractors will be forced to eat that extra cost and materials will be the only avenue to make up that difference. Our kids deserve the best schools we can offer them! I live and work in Dayton and want to keep it that way.By right!!
April 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
Why exactly does the project have to be �prevailing wages� if there is not going to be any higher bid? I thought unions were going to be finding other places to cut cost? If this is truely the case then do it!! This is not rational for increasing to number of bidders! If anything it would increase the out of state contractors cause they have more of a reason to come here and go home with the $$$.By joe mamma
April 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
The Board of Ed is not responsible for protecting the rights and compensation of workers. There are laws on the books that already do that. If contractors are believed to be using illegal workers then inform the authorities, if they do poor work then inform the better business bureau or don’t do business with them. Of course when we have work done our houses or cars we do a cost benefit analysis and sometimes pay more. The big difference is that when we make that decision we are spending our own money. The pols are spending others peoples money. They have a duty to spend it wisely. Not to come up with lame ideas like telling a contractor how much he has to pay a person. Talk about government over reach.By joe mamma
April 25, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Having union contractors doing the work doesn’t mean that those doing the work are here legally or that they will build with more quality. It just means they are being paid a union wage….which is generally higher.By Mary
April 25, 2008 7:37 AM | Link to this
Projects such as this should not award contracts just based on “lowest bid”. You would not have work done at your home or on your car just based on “lowest bid”. There should be other criteria such as workmanship, or costs will go up anyway, at least over the long term. Are there ever school projects that do not have cost overrruns? In public contracts such as this, executive pay and profit margins should also be taken into account. We seem to be overprotecting greed in our form of capitalism, even with public contracts. Protecting the rights and compensation of the workers is also in the public interest. Yes, sometimes they can be greedy, too, but it seems the greed is worse at the top of the food chain these days.By steve
April 25, 2008 5:37 AM | Link to this
This isn’t as much about wages as it is about quality and craftsmanship. The Non union company comes in and low bids the union contractor by 1.00 and they get the contract. Then many of them use illeagals to build. Their skill sets are sub-par because they have no formal training in safety or quality. Then when they run over budget or screw the job up we the tax payers will pay again. This is about RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTORS doing quality work. Many schools in this state were done with non-union companies and they screwed it up but by then it was too late and the districts that hired them ate it. Will give you specifics this afternoon. Somebody has to work around here…By joe mamma
April 23, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
Example) Company A (non-union) can provide the service for a total of 10 Million. 2 Million in labor and 8 Million in material. Company B (local union company) can provide the service for a total of 11 Million. 3Million in labor and 8 Million in material. Prevailing wage says that the selected company must pay the prevailing union rate. So Company A’s service cost automatically ends up equaling Company B. Great…competition has increased but the cost just went up and cost the taxpayers an extra 1 Million.By Scott Elliott
April 23, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
Joe, Yvonne Isaacs actually said in the story that the board was open to creative ideas that would increase the number of local bidders, but only if it did not increase project costs. Shook is arguing that can be accomplished with prevailing wage if bid packages adjust on other costs to compensate. Whether that actually will work is in dispute.By joe mamma
April 23, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
So I was right. The customer (board of ed) does want to pay more for the same level of service. Good to see that all the education issues have been solved and that the board can now move on to do what we elected them to do…social engineering and vote buying. What a joke.By Scott Elliott
April 23, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Let me do my best to explain Shook’s argument. The board is greatly frustrated that it gets fewer bidders than it would like on its projects and most of the bidders are out-of-town companies. Local companies are not bidding for a variety of reasons. The worker wages is only part of the issue. But union-affiliated local companies are bidding less often than the board would like. Shook’s CEO says that overall workers’ wages are a small part of a project cost. He is arguing that more local companies might bid if everyone bidding had to follow prevailing wage, reducing a disadvantage for them. But the project costs might not change much, depending on how those shops might be able to lower the costs for materials, etc. Non-union contractors argue that there should be no wage requirements and that the lowest bidder should win, period. That is how the district has operated to this point. Board members say that has worked well to get good bid prices but not to get local involvement. They want more local companies involved, but want to do so without hiking the project costs. Whether prevailing wage actually would increase local participation, much less do it while keep the project costs roughly the same, is a hotly debated issue.By joe mamma
April 23, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
So let me get this straight…the customer (DPS) is contemplating asking the supplier (Shook) to charge them more for the same level of service? Isn’t that backwards?By Skeptic
April 22, 2008 11:51 PM | Link to this
I have mixed feelings about this kind of issue. However, I wonder about the example the Board is showing its students in the construction trades programs. Aren’t we building a new trade school by the Job Center? If a DPS trades student hears the Board say it’s okay when construction workers get paid less in order to save money, what is he or she going to think about that career choice?By greener
April 22, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this
lets see now you might want to pay prevailing wages, tobring in more bidders to bring in less skilled workers to build your schls.with the best products possible. now we are working together lets do the same to bring in more educators & administrators.By Mary
April 22, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this
Gee, Laura, I think I felt one, too. See, it is possible to agree on something.By Dave
April 22, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this
I was under the impression that many contractors didn’t like to bid on Dayton Public Schools jobs because they felt it wasn’t worth the hassle involved in working with DPS. At least, that’s what I heard through the contractors’ grapevine.By Laura
April 22, 2008 7:33 PM | Link to this
I think I feel another earthquake coming because I actually agree with Mary on this! I’m not sure “prevailing wages” is necessarily required, but the workers should be earning a reasonable wage.By Mary
April 22, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
It might also be interesting to look into and monitor the legal status of the workers at the various companies. I could see the company owners and executives raking in the dough from public funds while the construction workers, some of whom might be illegal immigrants, are paid diddley squat.