Those cable TV ads that VoteVets Action Fund is running in two contested Downstate legislative districts are part of a larger multistate push to protect local prevailing wage laws, the group said.
Cable TV records showed the group buying $185,000 in ads, part of pushing a study showing veterans who return home to construction-related work benefit “substantially” from prevailing wage policies.
Prevailing wage laws require governments to pay prevailing union wages on public works construction projects. Republican Gov. Rauner wants to give local governments the option to forgo prevailing wage requirements as part of his pro-business, union-weakening agenda.
The study, whose authors include Frank Manzo, policy director of the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, and Robert Bruno of the University of Illinois, concludes that there are “significant costs to repealing state prevailing wage laws for veterans.”
VoteVets is running $127,470 in ads in the central Illinois House district where Republican state [Sen.] Sue Rezin of Morris is being challenged by Ottawa Democrat Christine Benson. It also has bought $57,660 in ads in the Kankakee state Senate district where Democratic [Rep.] Kate Cloonen is being challenged by Republican Lindsay Parkhurst.
* Press release…
A first-of-its-kind, peer reviewed study released today finds that prevailing wage greatly improves economic outcomes for veterans and that growing attacks on prevailing wage at the state level will disproportionally hurt the hundreds of thousands post-9/11 veterans who are returning to the workforce.
Exploring of the economic impact of state prevailing wage laws on veterans in the construction industry, the study was commissioned by VoteVets, the largest progressive group of veterans in America, and conducted by Frank Manzo IV of the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, University of Illinois-Urbana Professor Robert Bruno, and Colorado State University-Pueblo Economist, Dr. Kevin Duncan.
“The data clearly shows that veterans work in the skilled construction trades at significantly higher rates than non-veterans,” said Manzo. “The difference is even more pronounced in states with average or strong prevailing wage policies–so any changes in these laws will have an outsized impact on those who have served in the military.”
A pretty decent ad. This might be a bit nit picky but the Tribune folks think Ottawa and Morris, both located near I-80, are in a central Illinois House district?
“Ad also gets the point across that besides decent wages, we need more large projects in the State.”
Raising the costs of projects allows more large projects to get done? The more expensive things got, the less that can be budgeted. Your point doesn’t synergize with a pro-prevailing wage ad at all.
A good ad, not negative at all which is a good thing in today’s climate. However, who sets the prevailing wage? How do we know if it is set too high or too low? These veterans would still be employed without prevailing wage and one could argue even more vets would be employed without prevailing wage since the state could then take on more construction projects.
I’m a fan of Senator Rezin but will have to vote against her. She’s enabling the Rauner/Radogno theme to shake out human services and destroy the smaller providers. That won’t change the composition of the Senate, but will hopefully help send a message.
=Raising the costs of projects allows more large projects to get done? The more expensive things got, the less that can be budgeted. Your point doesn’t synergize with a pro-prevailing wage ad at all.=
Mistakes made by unskilled or inexperienced minimum wage workers may cause costs. (injuries, mistakes, corporate welfare, etc.)
So the net costs may not be all that different.
=one could argue even more vets would be employed without prevailing wage since the state could then take on more construction projects.=
I keep seeing this rationale but given that the “spend less” and “shrink the cost of government” crowd keeps invoking this, how will we do more projects if the cost of projects goes down (note, I don’t accept that eliminating prevailing wage or creating right to work zones will reduce the cost of projects)? Saying we could do more projects if each project cost less means we would still spend at least as much as we do now.
The smaller government types want to spend less, period. They don’t want “more projects.”
“Mistakes made by unskilled or inexperienced minimum wage workers may cause costs. (injuries, mistakes, corporate welfare, etc.) So the net costs may not be all that different.”
Yep, the standard argument is that anyone non-union just isn’t competent–was waiting for that one. Unions often have a great training programs. That said, it’s usually not hard to figure out which firms have a great reputation and which don’t. That’s true at the small-scale level, and at the large scale level.
So, while I buy the argument to some degree, it’s impact is overblown. This is especially in rural areas where prevailing wage has an even greater impact, and where the formulas are even more nonsensical versus the local market labor market and economy.
Pretty simple math. Less costs=more projects=more jobs in any given year=more vets being hired.
Non-union plumbers, for example (one of my jobs in the Army) easily made solid middle class incomes. And many of them are very good–despite implications otherwise. More of those jobs wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.
===Pretty simple math. Less costs=more projects=more jobs in any given year=more vets being hired.===
Simple math ain’t always simple. Show your work.
- Springfieldish - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:49 am:
“This is especially in rural areas where prevailing wage has an even greater impact, and where the formulas are even more nonsensical versus the local market labor market and economy.”
Pretty sure you’ve never run that argument by a restaurant owner in Olney or a muffler shop owner in Pinkneyville. They’ve got a couple of industries in those towns that were welcomed because they hired. But the reality is that the pay is so low, folks can’t go out to dinner or fix their cars. So the restaurants close or shorten their hours and reduce staff, the auto repair shops reduce to a single tech and lower their margins to the bare minimums. Yes, local prevailing wage has an impact on local, rural economies. In fact, it has a greater and more immediate impact because there isn’t much mercantile/economic depth in rural versus urban economies.
===Pretty simple math. Less costs=more projects=more jobs in any given year=more vets being hired.===
I’d be interested in an example as well. All I can thing of is the productivity increases in workers not resulting in more products or lower prices, just resulting in higher profits. Mind you, if it’s construction by a company that is part of and supports its community, more power to them.
I’m pretty sure I’ve talked to restaurant owners all over this state, since that’ my industry. Your point is completely mitigated by a few counter points: 1. those same restaurants are having less infrastructure projects done to build up their communities 2. more projects would create more construction jobs to balance out any pay adjustments 3. taxes reflect the cost of projects, including any prevailing wage price increases–and taxes are not a minor cost for restaurants (affects rent, utilities, customers’ spending power).
I could go on, but those three points enough completely negate your argument. The “unions=better work” argument is much stronger, especially when combined with the “government is forced to go with lowest bidder” argument. These other point don’t make economic sense.
“Simple math ain’t always simple. Show your work.”
That was me, and showing work is easy: my city’s infrastructure budget was cut to put more into pensions. What’s the first thing that would be added in if we saw prevailing wage adjusted and/or eliminated? Infrastructure projects.
As the Mayor, I can send you the whole budget, along with budget narrative. It’s not conjecture; that’s what actually happened. I could even tell you the exact infrastructure projects that would get added back into the budget.
actually there is no data to support that lower wages equals lower costs to purchasers. The economic trend shows reducing labor costs keeps prices to purchasers the same , it just pushes more money to the person at the top in terms of high ceo bonuses and pay. during the economic collapse ceo pay at the top rose over 25% while workers were laid off and wages cut. at the same time ceo pay went up, costs of good and services remained unchanged.
The US has more money economically then it did in the 50s. but worker wages are decreasing, lower wages means less soending which means a bad economy. if people cant afford to buy anything, your economy suffers no matter howmany workering poor you create. BUT Minnesota went the other way, increased min wag, raised taxes and put them money into state spending in services and wages. Minnesota economy is booming. turns out if workers have money, they spend it and the economy booms.
I wish people would read the Illinois prevailing wage law. 820 ILCS 130 is the Prevailing Wage Act.
820 ILCS 130/9 states that during the month of June, each public body SHALL investigate and ascertain the prevailing rate of wages and file a copy with the IL Department of Labor by July 15th. If the local public body fails in this responsibility, ILDOL will set the prevailing wage rate.
So if a local agency doesn’t want to pay an operating engineer $61.05 (Sangamon Co. Highway Class 1 Operator) with benefits, the local agency has the statutory obligation to ascertain some other wage that will be used on publicly financed projects.
That being said, what contractor would willingly cut his profit margin if he knew that he could pay his employees less and still get paid the same?
Unions argue that without prevailing wage, they will be undercut (via low bid rules) by non-union shops. They argue that governments will be hard-pressed to ignore bad shops due to low bidder rules. I think that’s a valid concern.
Yet you argue none of the savings ever translates to the bidders. Do you disagree with the unions, then?
My trade union has been in the helmets to hardhats for over ten years. Five year apprentice program pass your journeyman test, welcome to the brotherhood of highly skilled labor
- A guy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:13 am:
Clean and concise. A strong pass.
- Dome Gnome - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:20 am:
Smart tie-in.
- Beaner - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:22 am:
+1 but the phone number to call was displayed for too short a time.
- Belle - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:25 am:
Ad also gets the point across that besides decent wages, we need more large projects in the State.
Very interesting ad. Plus, so simple.
- Tough Guy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:34 am:
A pretty decent ad. This might be a bit nit picky but the Tribune folks think Ottawa and Morris, both located near I-80, are in a central Illinois House district?
- Liandro - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:39 am:
“Ad also gets the point across that besides decent wages, we need more large projects in the State.”
Raising the costs of projects allows more large projects to get done? The more expensive things got, the less that can be budgeted. Your point doesn’t synergize with a pro-prevailing wage ad at all.
- Maximus - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:42 am:
A good ad, not negative at all which is a good thing in today’s climate. However, who sets the prevailing wage? How do we know if it is set too high or too low? These veterans would still be employed without prevailing wage and one could argue even more vets would be employed without prevailing wage since the state could then take on more construction projects.
- Earnest - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:47 am:
I’m a fan of Senator Rezin but will have to vote against her. She’s enabling the Rauner/Radogno theme to shake out human services and destroy the smaller providers. That won’t change the composition of the Senate, but will hopefully help send a message.
- Qui Tam - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:06 am:
=Raising the costs of projects allows more large projects to get done? The more expensive things got, the less that can be budgeted. Your point doesn’t synergize with a pro-prevailing wage ad at all.=
Mistakes made by unskilled or inexperienced minimum wage workers may cause costs. (injuries, mistakes, corporate welfare, etc.)
So the net costs may not be all that different.
- Concerned - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:12 am:
=one could argue even more vets would be employed without prevailing wage since the state could then take on more construction projects.=
I keep seeing this rationale but given that the “spend less” and “shrink the cost of government” crowd keeps invoking this, how will we do more projects if the cost of projects goes down (note, I don’t accept that eliminating prevailing wage or creating right to work zones will reduce the cost of projects)? Saying we could do more projects if each project cost less means we would still spend at least as much as we do now.
The smaller government types want to spend less, period. They don’t want “more projects.”
- Hit or Miss - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:13 am:
I like the ad. It is all positive in tone.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:18 am:
===one could argue even more vets would be employed without prevailing wage===
Meh. Show your work.
- Man with a plan - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:28 am:
=one could even argue even more vets would be employed without prevailing wage=
And if everybody got paid $2/hour, just imagine all the jobs! So many jobs! Wouldn’t that be great?
Good ad, it’s nice these days to see a political ad that isn’t slamming someone.
- liandro - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:39 am:
“Mistakes made by unskilled or inexperienced minimum wage workers may cause costs. (injuries, mistakes, corporate welfare, etc.) So the net costs may not be all that different.”
Yep, the standard argument is that anyone non-union just isn’t competent–was waiting for that one. Unions often have a great training programs. That said, it’s usually not hard to figure out which firms have a great reputation and which don’t. That’s true at the small-scale level, and at the large scale level.
So, while I buy the argument to some degree, it’s impact is overblown. This is especially in rural areas where prevailing wage has an even greater impact, and where the formulas are even more nonsensical versus the local market labor market and economy.
- Dimon - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:41 am:
Looks like all operating engineers with Local 150 stickers.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:42 am:
@Rich:
Pretty simple math. Less costs=more projects=more jobs in any given year=more vets being hired.
Non-union plumbers, for example (one of my jobs in the Army) easily made solid middle class incomes. And many of them are very good–despite implications otherwise. More of those jobs wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:44 am:
===Pretty simple math. Less costs=more projects=more jobs in any given year=more vets being hired.===
Simple math ain’t always simple. Show your work.
- Springfieldish - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:49 am:
“This is especially in rural areas where prevailing wage has an even greater impact, and where the formulas are even more nonsensical versus the local market labor market and economy.”
Pretty sure you’ve never run that argument by a restaurant owner in Olney or a muffler shop owner in Pinkneyville. They’ve got a couple of industries in those towns that were welcomed because they hired. But the reality is that the pay is so low, folks can’t go out to dinner or fix their cars. So the restaurants close or shorten their hours and reduce staff, the auto repair shops reduce to a single tech and lower their margins to the bare minimums. Yes, local prevailing wage has an impact on local, rural economies. In fact, it has a greater and more immediate impact because there isn’t much mercantile/economic depth in rural versus urban economies.
- Earnest - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:58 am:
===Pretty simple math. Less costs=more projects=more jobs in any given year=more vets being hired.===
I’d be interested in an example as well. All I can thing of is the productivity increases in workers not resulting in more products or lower prices, just resulting in higher profits. Mind you, if it’s construction by a company that is part of and supports its community, more power to them.
- Liandro - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:58 am:
@Springfieldish:
I’m pretty sure I’ve talked to restaurant owners all over this state, since that’ my industry. Your point is completely mitigated by a few counter points: 1. those same restaurants are having less infrastructure projects done to build up their communities 2. more projects would create more construction jobs to balance out any pay adjustments 3. taxes reflect the cost of projects, including any prevailing wage price increases–and taxes are not a minor cost for restaurants (affects rent, utilities, customers’ spending power).
I could go on, but those three points enough completely negate your argument. The “unions=better work” argument is much stronger, especially when combined with the “government is forced to go with lowest bidder” argument. These other point don’t make economic sense.
- Liandro - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:01 am:
“Simple math ain’t always simple. Show your work.”
That was me, and showing work is easy: my city’s infrastructure budget was cut to put more into pensions. What’s the first thing that would be added in if we saw prevailing wage adjusted and/or eliminated? Infrastructure projects.
As the Mayor, I can send you the whole budget, along with budget narrative. It’s not conjecture; that’s what actually happened. I could even tell you the exact infrastructure projects that would get added back into the budget.
- Ghost - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:36 pm:
actually there is no data to support that lower wages equals lower costs to purchasers. The economic trend shows reducing labor costs keeps prices to purchasers the same , it just pushes more money to the person at the top in terms of high ceo bonuses and pay. during the economic collapse ceo pay at the top rose over 25% while workers were laid off and wages cut. at the same time ceo pay went up, costs of good and services remained unchanged.
The US has more money economically then it did in the 50s. but worker wages are decreasing, lower wages means less soending which means a bad economy. if people cant afford to buy anything, your economy suffers no matter howmany workering poor you create. BUT Minnesota went the other way, increased min wag, raised taxes and put them money into state spending in services and wages. Minnesota economy is booming. turns out if workers have money, they spend it and the economy booms.
- Huh? - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 1:51 pm:
I wish people would read the Illinois prevailing wage law. 820 ILCS 130 is the Prevailing Wage Act.
820 ILCS 130/9 states that during the month of June, each public body SHALL investigate and ascertain the prevailing rate of wages and file a copy with the IL Department of Labor by July 15th. If the local public body fails in this responsibility, ILDOL will set the prevailing wage rate.
So if a local agency doesn’t want to pay an operating engineer $61.05 (Sangamon Co. Highway Class 1 Operator) with benefits, the local agency has the statutory obligation to ascertain some other wage that will be used on publicly financed projects.
That being said, what contractor would willingly cut his profit margin if he knew that he could pay his employees less and still get paid the same?
- Liandro - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 3:52 pm:
@Ghost:
Unions argue that without prevailing wage, they will be undercut (via low bid rules) by non-union shops. They argue that governments will be hard-pressed to ignore bad shops due to low bidder rules. I think that’s a valid concern.
Yet you argue none of the savings ever translates to the bidders. Do you disagree with the unions, then?
- Huh? - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 4:20 pm:
With prevailing wages, the playing field is leveled. Everyone knows the labor costs up front. Non union shops must pay the same wage as a union shop.
BTW - If a publicly funded project has federal money involved, the Federal Davis-Bacon act applies and the prevailing wages must still be paid.
- Rabid - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 7:21 pm:
My trade union has been in the helmets to hardhats for over ten years. Five year apprentice program pass your journeyman test, welcome to the brotherhood of highly skilled labor