Prevailing wage

{{Short description|Legal concept}} {{Use American English|date = March 2019}} {{Use mdy dates|date = March 2019}} In United States government contracting, a '''prevailing wage''' is defined as the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime, paid to the majority of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area. This is usually the union wage.{{ r | LAT_PW | p=1 | q=The prevailing wage is the predominant wage for construction work in a region. For example, the most common wage earned by plumbers in the Bay Area is the prevailing wage for plumbers there. The same method applies to carpenters, roofers and all 25 other construction worker jobs across the state. Because labor contracts with developers pay every construction trade the same rate, the most common construction worker wage is most often the union wage. }}

Prevailing wages are established by regulatory agencies for each trade and occupation employed in the performance of public work,<ref>For example, in Washington State the [http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/PrevWage/ Department of Labor & Industries] establishes the prevailing wage.</ref> as well as by State Departments of Labor or their equivalents.

Prevailing wage may also include other payments such as apprenticeship and industry promotion.

In the United States, the Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 and related amendments pertain to federally funded projects. There are also 32 states that have state prevailing wage laws, also known as "little Davis–Bacon Acts". The rules and regulations vary from state to state.

As of 2016, the prevailing wage requirement, codified in the Davis–Bacon Act, increases the cost of federal construction projects by an average of $1.4 billion per year.{{ r | CBO_D-B_repeal | p=1 | q=If this policy change was implemented, the federal government would spend less on construction, saving $13 billion in discretionary outlays from 2018 through 2026, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The option would also result in reductions in mandatory spending of less than $1 billion from 2018 to 2026. Savings would accrue to federal agencies that engage in construction projects. In 2016, about half of all federal or federally financed construction was funded through the Department of Transportation, although a significant portion of federal construction projects were funded through the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among others. }}

==History== "Prevailing wages" were first established shortly after the Civil War in 1866 when the National Labor Union called on Congress to mandate an eight-hour workday.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/august-20/|title=Today in History - August 20|website=Library of Congress|access-date=2019-03-27}}</ref> In 1869, President Grant issued a proclamation establishing the 8-hour day for government workers.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/may-19-1869-proclamation-establishing-eight-hour-workday |title = May 19, 1869: Proclamation Establishing Eight Hour Workday|date = October 20, 2016}}</ref> Although the Congress had not yet established its authority to regulate private economic matters because of prevailing legal doctrines, it could regulate its own contracts and the targeted public works as a means to indirectly influence other labor markets.

In 1891, Kansas was the first state to pass a "prevailing wage" for its own public works projects, and over the next thirty years was followed by seven other states (New York 1894, Oklahoma 1909, Idaho 1911, Arizona 1912, New Jersey 1913, Massachusetts 1914, and Nebraska 1923) in establishing minimum labor standards for public works construction. In the midst of the Great Depression, beginning in 1931 and prior to the end of World War II, twenty additional states passed their own prevailing wage laws. In 1931 Congress passed the Davis–Bacon Act after 14 earlier attempts, the Federal Prevailing Wage law that remains in force, bar a few suspensions, to this day.

==Implementation==

===United States=== Federal rates are calculated based on regulations established by the US Department of Labor. According to Code of Federal Regulations, "The prevailing wage shall be the wage paid to the majority (more than 50 percent) of the laborers or mechanics in the classification on similar projects in the area during the period in question. If the same wage is not paid to a majority of those employed in the classification, the prevailing wage shall be the average of the wages paid, weighted by the total employed in the classification."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=99c9a20e960f56be66f17ae91b52c888&rgn=div5&view=text&node=29:1.1.1.1.2&idno=29|title=Title 29 §1 Code of Federal Regulations}}</ref> State level rates are calculated using various methods including an average of all wage rates paid, the mode, or based on collectively bargained rates.

The H-1B visa program requires employers to "pay the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid by the employer to workers with similar skills and qualifications, whichever is higher".<ref>{{cite web|title=Foreign Labor Certification|url=http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/wages.cfm|publisher=United States Department of Labor|accessdate=2012-02-26}}</ref>

In the Davis–Bacon Act all federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects. The Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act (H.R. 2747; 113th Congress), if passed, would make the United States Department of Labor responsible for enforcing this act (instead of the Government Accountability Act) and ensuring that federal contractors did receive the prevailing wage.<ref name=2747sum>{{cite web|title=H.R. 2747 - Summary|url=http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/2747|publisher=United States Congress|accessdate=12 September 2013}}</ref>

In the Walsh–Healey Public Contracts Act (1936) the federal government set the minimum wage equal to the prevailing wage in an area.

====State‑level efforts==== In Ohio, the Affiliated Construction Trades of Ohio (ACT Ohio) has actively opposed legislative efforts to weaken the state's prevailing wage law. In 2017, the organization's executive director testified against bills that would allow local governments to opt out of paying prevailing wages, arguing that such changes would reduce worker incomes, harm apprenticeship programs, and push many construction workers below the poverty line.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kovac |first=Marc |title=Ohio House eyes prevailing wage law for public works projects |work=National Alliance for Fair Contracting |date=May 9, 2017 |url=https://faircontracting.org/ohio-house-eyes-prevailing-wage-law-public-works-projects/}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Siegel |first=Jim |title=GOP, unions to butt heads over Ohio prevailing wage |work=The Columbus Dispatch |date=February 28, 2017 |url=https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/state/2017/02/28/gop-unions-to-butt-heads/22051568007/}}</ref>

==Economics== ===Federal level=== According to the non-partisan federal Congressional Budget Office, as of 2016 the Davis–Bacon Act increases the cost of federal construction projects by an average of $1.4 billion per year ($13 billion over 9 years).{{ r | CBO_D-B_repeal | p=1 | q=If this policy change was implemented, the federal government would spend less on construction, saving $13 billion in discretionary outlays from 2018 through 2026, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The option would also result in reductions in mandatory spending of less than $1 billion from 2018 to 2026. Savings would accrue to federal agencies that engage in construction projects. In 2016, about half of all federal or federally financed construction was funded through the Department of Transportation, although a significant portion of federal construction projects were funded through the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among others. }}

===California=== In California, prevailing wage increases the cost of construction, with workers paid prevailing wage making approximately 50% more in hourly rates, and getting approximately double the benefits of non-prevailing wage workers.{{ r | LAT_PW | p=1 | q=Construction workers who make prevailing wage earn a lot more than those who don't - Here's a breakdown of how much some construction workers earn per hour if they get the prevailing wage in Los Angeles compared with the median pay for those same jobs: [See graph for numbers.] Those numbers don't fully capture how much more construction workers who earn prevailing wage make compared to those that don't. Take retirement, health insurance and other fringe benefits, for instance. Unionized construction workers — whose pay often is the standard for prevailing wage — receive roughly double the benefits of nonunion workers, according to unpublished national estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. }} The contribution of prevailing wage requirements to ''overall'' construction costs has been estimated to be as large as a 40% increase in costs.{{ r | LAT_PW | p=1 | q=No one knows how much prevailing wage increases the costs of homebuilding — but unions and developers are interested in the answer - It's hard to determine how much more paying prevailing wages adds to the cost of building homes. Consider the difficulty in finding two housing projects with different wage scales, but built at the exact same time and in the same place, at the same size and with the same materials. That's the challenge facing any researcher attempting to gauge the impact of prevailing wage. Here are some estimates on how prevailing wage affects California residential construction costs: Author Percent Cost Increase UC Berkeley 9% to 37% The California Institute for County Government 11% National Center for Sustainable Transportation 15% San Diego Housing Commission 9% Beacon Economics 46% Smart Cities Prevail 0%* *No cost impact, especially when taking into account increased worker productivity and savings from decreased public subsidies }}

A 2020 UC Berkeley study of government subsidized affordable housing projects in California found that prevailing wage requirements increased the cost of construction by 13%, or $50,000 per unit.<ref name=TC_UCB_LIHTC >{{ cite web | url=https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/LIHTC_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf | title=The Costs of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California's 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program | last=Reid | first=Carolina | work=University of California, Berkeley | date=2020-03-01 | access-date= | pages= | quote=Prevailing wage raises total development costs by approximately $53,000 per unit, or by 13 percent. While the model can't control for quality of workmanship, change orders, or time to completion—things a more trained labor force could help with and bring down costs in the short- and long-term—prevailing wages are associated with higher total development costs. }}</ref><ref name=LAT_2020-04-09 >{{ cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2020-04-09/california-low-income-housing-expensive-apartment-coronavirus | title=Affordable housing can cost $1 million in California. Coronavirus could make it worse | last1=Dillon | first1=Liam | last2=Poston | first2=Ben | last3=Barajas | first3=Julia | newspaper=Los Angeles Times | date=2020-04-09 | access-date= | pages= | quote=Many state and local funding programs require low-income housing developers to pay union-level wages to construction workers. In Los Angeles, for example, these rules require developers to pay plumbers $51 an hour compared with their $24-an-hour median wage in the region. The UC Berkeley report found that projects paying union-level wages can cost $50,000 more per apartment. A Times analysis found a similar trend. }}</ref>

==Support== Supporters of prevailing wage requirements argue that it keeps the earnings of construction workers high and maintains the quality of construction work.<ref name=CBO>{{cite web |url=https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52225 |title=Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2017 to 2026; Repeal the Davis–Bacon Act |publisher=Congressional Budget Office |date=December 8, 2016}}</ref> Supporters also argue that "if one of the objectives of federal projects is to increase earnings for the local population", then the requirement "prevents out-of-town firms from coming into a locality, using lower-paid workers from other areas of the country to compete with local contractors for federal work, and then leaving the area upon completion of the work"<ref name=CBO /> and prevents race to the bottom effects.<ref name=Wall>Malkie Wall, David Madland, and Karla Walter, [https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2020/12/22/494144/prevailing-wages-frequently-asked-questions/ Prevailing Wages: Frequently Asked Questions], Center for American Progress (December 22, 2020).</ref> Supporters point to research indicating that "prevailing wage laws boost worker productivity, reduce injury rates, and increase apprenticeship training, which helps to address the shortage of skilled labor in construction" and additionally argue that prevailing wage requirements narrows racial pay gaps.<ref name=Wall />

The major supporters of the prevailing wage requirements include labor unions, such as the AFL–CIO.<ref>Tom Precious, [https://buffalonews.com/news/local/how-unions-lost-and-business-interests-won-the-prevailing-wage-battle/article_22ef2db3-7ab6-58eb-928e-9be2bec64f3b.html How unions lost, and business interests won, the prevailing wage battle], ''Buffalo News'' (July 7, 2019).</ref>

==Opposition== Opponents of prevailing wage laws suggest that such laws hurt free market competition and cause costs to escalate on public projects, as many calculations to determine the prevailing wage tend to identify union wages and benefits as the benchmark in a given community.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20091125114544/http://www.dol.gov/whd/programs/dbra/faqs/calculat.htm www.dol.gov]</ref> They suggest that this does not lead to any tangible benefit to justify the increased cost, either increasing the amount of taxes or decreasing the number of public projects that may be undertaken.

Opponents also state that since the 1930s, other policies (a federal minimum wage) have been put in place to guarantee construction workers a minimum wage.{{r|CBO|p=115}} They also point out that the higher wages paid under this policy distort construction projects by incentivizing them to use more capital and less labor, thereby reducing the employment of construction workers.{{r|CBO|p=115}} The federal paperwork requirement is also seen to discriminate against small firms.{{r|CBO|p=115}}

==References== <references>

<ref name=CBO_D-B_repeal >{{ cite web | url=https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52225 | title=Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2017 to 2026; Repeal the Davis–Bacon Act | publisher=Congressional Budget Office | date=December 8, 2016 | accessdate=2019-04-22 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170106192719/https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52225 | archive-date=2017-01-06 | url-status=live }}</ref>

<ref name=LAT_PW >{{cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-construction-workers-housing-20170512-htmlstory.html | title=Here's how construction worker pay is dominating California's housing debate | last=Dillon | first=Liam | newspaper=Los Angeles Times | date=May 12, 2017 | accessdate=2019-05-09 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601120455/https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-construction-workers-housing-20170512-htmlstory.html | archive-date=2017-06-01 | url-status=live }}</ref>

</references>

==External links== * [http://icert.doleta.gov/ US Department of Labor: Search for Prevailing Wages]

Category:Wages and salaries