State Rep. Mary Williams keeps in her Capitol office a tangible reminder of a law she says is holding down Wisconsin's construction industry.
Opening the top-right drawer of her desk Wednesday afternoon, the Republican from Medford pulled out a thick stack of paper and let it drop like a brick, smacking the surface with a thud.
"This is a document a contractor had to work with to do a job because of prevailing wage," Williams said. "It's just huge. There's all this paperwork in the front to fill out. It's a mess."
A year ago this month, Wisconsin's prevailing wage law changed, requiring contractors prove they are paying competitive wages to employees working on state and local government projects valued at $25,000 or more. The previous threshold for proof was $234,000, and the law required less paperwork.
Williams last year introduced a bill that would have repealed those changes. It failed to gain support in the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
But Williams now is preparing to introduce new legislation that could seek changes beyond those in her previous bill. She could, for instance, propose a complete repeal of the prevailing wage law or at least seek a higher threshold than the original $234,000.
"So, it's between (last year's bill) and the full repeal," Williams said. "We'll probably come out somewhere in between."
Construction groups perhaps have been the most outspoken critics of the prevailing wage law, but Williams said her desire to change it stems from municipalities in her district.
That includes her hometown of Medford, which struggles with the costs of basic projects now included in the $25,000 threshold.
"Small road projects change when you are paying considerably more," said John Fales, public works director for Medford. He said the prevailing wage changes forced Medford to shrink some projects, though he could not provide specific examples.
Fales noted the bad economy is mostly to blame for the lack of money municipalities have to pay for construction projects. The prevailing wage law has just made those projects even more expensive, he said.
Robb Kahl, executive director of the Construction Business Group, a joint labor-management organization, disagreed, saying the prevailing wage law actually makes projects cheaper for Wisconsin municipalities.
Kahl pointed to data released by the Federal Highway Administration, which shows Wisconsin, while paying roadworkers an average of $23.60 an hour, spends less money per mile of construction than such states as Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Alabama, all of which pay workers in the $10- to $11-an-hour range.
Higher wages, Kahl said, attract workers who care more about their jobs and build better roads. Watering down prevailing wage guidelines might add more jobs, but they would be the construction equivalent of fast-food jobs.
"If the intent is to increase the cost of construction, then a repeal of Wisconsin's prevailing wage law will also accomplish that," Kahl said.
Williams' legislation, Kahl said, would "create a lot of $10-an- hour jobs with no benefits to replace a lot of family supporting jobs, and eliminate construction workers as a skilled profession."
But Lee Turonie, a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Towns Association, said he is hearing just the opposite from his members. The association wants lawmakers to repeal the 2010 changes to the prevailing wage law. The $25,000 threshold has blocked new road projects in rural areas, Turonie said, though he did not provide specific examples.
"For a town, $234,000 is more than a lot of towns spend on roads in a year," he said. "The road projects were very much protected from this (under the old threshold).
"So, this was a big sea change for towns, particularly rural areas, where we did not get federal stimulus money for road projects."
Williams is gaining support from other Republican lawmakers, particularly those in rural areas. Rep. Michelle Litjens, R- Oshkosh, said prevailing wage was a hot issue during her fall campaign.
"I think we have to roll back the changes, at least to start," Litjens said. "When (towns are) laying a new layer of asphalt on a road and it's costing $50,000, it's not an efficient use of tax dollars."
Towns in her district, she said, "are putting off projects, and counties are using their own employees and not subbing it out to third parties because it costs so much more."
Litjens rejected Kahl's argument that repealing changes to the law would undermine construction work as a profession.
"I don't think this is anything against any group of workers," she said. "This is putting people to work."
Williams said she doesn't have a timeline for introducing her new bill. But she's keeping her gift from a frustrated contractor close to her as she considers how to draft the legislation.
"I have a funny idea," she said, "it's going to have to come sooner than later."
Author: James Briggs
No comments:
Post a Comment