 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Associated Builders and Contractors v. Director7/19/2005
y opinion in this matter. I write separately to emphasize, briefly, several points that I consider to be of some importance.
I. Overview
At issue here is the constitutionality of the Prevailing Wage Act, sometimes referred to as the "Little Davis-Bacon Act" because the Legislature patterned it after the federal Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.
The central provision of the Prevailing Wage Act is Section 2, which provides that:
Every contract executed between a contracting agent and a successful bidder as contractor and entered into pursuant to advertisement and invitation to bid for a state project which requires or involves the employment of construction mechanics, other than those subject to the jurisdiction of the state civil service commission, and which is sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the state shall contain an express term that the rates of wages and fringe benefits to be paid to each class of mechanics by the bidder and all of his subcontractors, shall not be paid less than the wage and fringe benefit rates prevailing in the locality in which the work is to be performed.
Section 4 of the Prevailing Wage Act implements Section 2 by providing a method for establishing the "prevailing wages and fringe benefits" based upon collective bargaining agreements in the locality:
The commissioner shall establish prevailing wages and fringe benefits at the same rate that prevails on projects of a similar character in the locality under collective agreements or understandings between bona fide organizations of construction mechanics and their employers.
As the Attorney General points out, plaintiff Associated Builders and Contractors, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter (the Saginaw ABC) does not here contend that the Legislature lacks the authority to enact a prevailing wage act, nor does the Saginaw ABC contend that the Legislature lacks the authority to establish a method for the periodic adjustment of those rates without direct legislative action. Although the Saginaw ABC advances a number of contentions in this matter, there are two with which I am particularly concerned. The first is that, in practice, there is a "two-tier" rate system that allows unions and unionized contractors to establish one set of high rates applicable to public works projects but does not constrain them from negotiating another set of lower rates for use in privately-funded projects. The second is that the rates negotiated for use on Prevailing Wage Act projects-a phrase that the Saginaw ABC appears to use interchangeably with public works projects, presumably meaning those projects that are covered by the Prevailing Wage Act-are "artificially high." I will deal with these two contentions in order below.
II. The "Two-Tier" System
The Saginaw ABC contends that the Prevailing Wage Act is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. In support of this contention, the Saginaw ABC asserts that the CIS is "a mere paper shuffler in the process of determining prevailing wages" and that "the regulation of wages and benefits on state-funded construction projects in Michigan is passed to unions and unionized contractors." The Saginaw ABC goes on to assert that, "working together in collusion," such unions and unionized contractors can set inflated wage and fringe benefit rates in collective bargaining agreements and, at the same time, "make side agreements to adhere to lower rate scales which enable unionized contractors to compete in the everyday, 'dog-eatdog' private marketplace."
The Saginaw ABC identifies two types of such "side agreements": market recovery programs and job targeting programs. As I understa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|