19 Comments - John Galt - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:16 am: 1) With around 40% unemployment in the working trades, it baffles me why they’re choosing to strike right now. Most people, including laborers, are simply happy to be working. Owners aren’t asking for a pay cut or extra demands. Details of the contract aside, this has to look bad to John Q. Public. While most people are happy to have work–even taking pay haircuts to keep them–these guys are striking because they want guaranteed hikes of 5% per year for the next 3 years. The merits of the requested hikes or accusations of negotiating gamesmanship aside, it just looks bad from the 10,000 ft view… 2) There should also be a law on the books: If a vendor wants to be eligible to bid for a state contract, they need to certify that there will be no strikes (i.e. no contracts up for re-negotiation) during the duration of the project. Private companies & unions have every right to negotiate with each other as long as they want. But they shouldn’t be doing it while on the state’s clock. Let them hold up somebody else’s project. It also serves a public benefit because it adds extra incentive for both sides to come to the table quickly if they want to bid on state projects. - Sueann - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:12 am: The state’s financial woes what they are, letting the road projects drag on a bit might just help the cash flow situation out. Try something new for a change; let em strike - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:18 am: JG: ==With around 40% unemployment in the working trades, it baffles me why they’re choosing to strike right now. Most people, including laborers, are simply happy to be working.== That’s exactly why the contractors are playing hardball now. They are hoping to use the bad economy to get terms that will favor management and lock those terms in for 3-5 years. ==Owners aren’t asking for a pay cut or extra demands.== Yes, they are. No COLA and a static benefit plan in the face of rising costs amounts to a cut in worker’s wages. ==these guys are striking because they want guaranteed hikes of 5% per year for the next 3 years.== Reports I’ve read state that they are not asking for any wag increase, but are asking for 5% each your toward their health care plan. (That would be much less $$ than a 5% wage increase.) The worker’s aren’t on strike on a lark. They know exactly what management is trying to do and they are going to the ground for their right to earn a decent wage. (And, before someone goes off on $50/hr as exorbitant, remember that these folks may go for months without being called in to work; they may only work half the year, sometimes less.) - Niles Township - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:23 am: I guess $ 50 - $60 an hour is just so little these days. Have these guys tried to work at Walmart? We really have two groups in this state…the people that eat from trough of the state (unions etc.) and everyone else. The everyone else is beginning to get very angry at those eating from the trough in these poor economic times. - Name Withheld - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:25 am: For myself, I try to avoid the 10,000 ft view, because you lose the important details at that height, and are only left with the general view. From what I’ve been hearing, the requested pay increases are to cover rising health care costs. Taking a sidebar for a moment, it seems like unions want the same benefits that most of corporate america wants - pay increases and some guarantees. However, people haven’t been rushing to stop CEOs from negotiating their golden parachutes, nor have they stopped buying products from companies with those kinds of CEOs. So why is it that it’s okay for an individual to negotiate a great package for himself, but it’s not okay for a union to do the same thing for its members? That’s fair market at work - a negotiated contract between two parties for a wage that one is willing to pay, and the other is willing to accept. A higher wage is supposedly for a higher skill set. Isn’t that the same argument used by U-of-I to support the salary of their new president (or whatever position was hired)? As for highway workers, I see those as high-risk jobs due to speeders and other reckless drivers on the road. You work on a road with people regularly zipping by at 65+ MPH, you probably deserve more that the average guy pouring concrete. Disclaimer: I am a member of a union, but I do try to keep an open mind for the opposing view. - Jackson - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:40 am: If it costs $10 over the next three years to keep up with healthcare inflation, then holding at 0 or 1% equates to a wage cut. While so many workers who have their wages and benefit cuts have no recourse but to take it or quit, unions provide a means to fight back. Instead of asking for these unions to have their wages cut, everyone should be more concerned about how to protect what they have themselves. - chicago 7 - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:54 am: I wonder if the Gov’s big shakeup at IDOT has any relation to the strike or the budget? Grunloh is out as chief of staff, and schneider is gone as director of administration. - dave - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:57 am: I guess $ 50 - $60 an hour is just so little these days. Ugh. People really lose credibility when they say things like this. We have already covered this. First, its $35-$45. Second, they don’t work anywhere close to 2,000 hours a year. Further, it takes real training and skill, and the work is hard as hell. Few people can and will do this work. I also think it is quite funny that people on CapFax complain about the hourly rate that these workers get. I would guess that many, if not most, of the commenters on this blog make as much or more per hour, but also get full-time hours. - Wacker Drive - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:11 pm: Don’t worry boys and girls the new Illinois Tollway’s Executive Director Kristi Lafleur will solve this problem. - John Galt - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:18 pm: == No COLA and a static benefit plan in the face of rising costs amounts to a cut in worker’s wages. == Fair point. But I think 5% per year over 3 years is higher than COLA. My bet is you ask most folks in the corporate world to take a pay & benefit freeze in exchange for continued employment right now, they would ultimately take the deal even with rising Obamacare costs. Particularly for just a 3 year contract. It isn’t like they’re locking in for 12 or 15 years. But again, this isn’t really any of our business since it’s a private negotiation between them. I’m also not a guy who says that xyz CEO or abc labor union “makes too much money.” If it’s between private parties, then whatever they agree upon is their business (public sector unions are a different story since as taxpayers we are the “employers”). But that’s all assuming the markets aren’t rigged. What hurts this dynamic is the requirement that to get a state contract, you MUST use unionized workers. Yes, we want to make sure the work is quality. But that’s what state engineers and/or safety specificaitons are for. There could also easily be some licensing process where non-unionized tradesmen could get their ticket punched as being competent. If a labor union can convince a company to hire their guys because it’s an extra-double guarantee of work quality or reliability, then fine. But as current law stands, it’s basically a monopoly on labor, particularly if alternative labor unions refuse to contract w/ a contractor in solidarity with the original labor union that was striking. If corporations were to do the same thing, they’d be slapped with anti-trust violations. I understand why we have these laws of course: labor unions are a powerful interest in the state and support the politicians who put this law into place. The same dynamic happens when large corporations have politicans slap onerous regulations on industry that ultimately benefits large established corporations and creates significant barriers-to-entry for smaller would-be competitors. Both are efforts to rig the system so competition remains lower and wages (or profits in the case of corporations) remain artificially high. And the end consumer (or taxpayer) ultimately gets stuck with the bill. It’s the primary reason why companies and their jobs are fleeing the state at a record pace. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:30 pm: The benefit of the prevailing wage laws to the state and its people are that it helps to ensure local people get the work. More than once I have seen a construction company bring in low wage workers from out of state to build a warehouse or a big box retailer or a fast-food joint. Often in a TIF that was set up with the promise of local construction work. As I wrote above, the 5% requested is, to my understanding, not a wage increase, but an increase in the employer contribution toward the health plan. That’s a much smaller incease in terms of $$$. Niles, thanks for not paying attention and just reading part of my post. An laborer may earn $35-45/hr and an operator $45-55/hr but since they only work about half the year, that comes out to a much smaller annual income than might first appear. A laborer’s annual income can be about what they might earn at Wal-Mart. - phocion - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:40 pm: Pot, Please, let us the details on how you have “seen a construction company bring in low wage workers from out of state to build a warehouse or a big box retailer or a fast-food joint. Often in a TIF that was set up with the promise of local construction work.” You know, where, when, what construction firm, what TIF? - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:10 pm: I wish to retain my anonymity, or I would. Suffice to say that I am on a local labor council and this is a relatively common practice. To avoid this, labor organizations encourage prevailing wage and apprenticeship clauses when TIFs are created. Local politicians are often caught off guard when this happens and will add appropriate language to subsequent agreements. You might contact your local labor council or building trades council for specific examples in your area. - dupage dan - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 4:11 pm: Pot, While I understand why you would retain your anonymity here I assume you are passing on your evidence to the appropriate authorities. If you have the proof of what you claim laws have been violated. Charges would be filed. Trials would be held. Newspapers would have published accounts of the trials for their readers. I am sure there are some who post here who would remember those trials and can update us as to the status of these cases. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 8:53 pm: I’m not talking about laws being violated. Private companies can hire whomever they want to build their buildings. TIFs do not always have prevailing wage or other requirements. When they do not, the importation of cheap, out-of-state labor can and does occur, and it is perfectly legal. The result of such actions is that many TIFs now require that companies building within the TIF (and benefiting from public funds) pay prevailing wage. This encourages the contractors to hire local workers (union or otherwise). - Liandro - Saturday, Jul 3, 10 @ 2:32 am: I kinda like SueAnn’s take: The state’s broke, the strike is clearing up traffic, and apparently we don’t need the work done that bad. Let ‘em strike. They might get what they want, and commuters get what they want. Heck, why are we doing these projects anyway? How critical are most of projects that get pushed through? Maybe would should have just saved some of the money in the first place. - justrynaliv - Saturday, Jul 3, 10 @ 6:39 am: Nobody’s mentioning the other issues with the negotiation. Yeah, okay $35/hr. Laborers remain being of the least paid of the trades. They want the Laborers to accept overtime only after 40hrs (which is unheard of in any of the trades) and straight time on Saturday! So they can work some laborers 2 16 hour days during bad weather seasons and still pay straight time on Saturday! The Laborers have to stay strong and get what the workers need to survive today. Not to mention be a rock for the other trades that follow with their negotiations! Don’t forget or maybe you didn’t know that the Carpenters are working without a contract too! They are sitting back wating to see what happens. Stay strong Guys! - Wal-Mart Discussions - Saturday, Jul 3, 10 @ 9:57 am: FWIW: The effect I see from prevailing wage laws is that public bodies postpone or cancel desired projects because paying “prevailing wage” so inflates the costs above what it would ordinarily cost at the real prevailing wage local construction workers make in rural areas that it becomes unfeasible or too large a burden upon local taxpayers. I see it as damaging to the economy and to the construction field. - leigh - Monday, Jul 5, 10 @ 9:27 am: They want a 5% wage increase every year for the next three years. They claim they will use it for benefits. Let me throw this out there, how many of you still have all of your benefits fully funded by your employer. Oh and for the record, the people that employ these unions can’t afford the same benefits for their own families. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.