Skip to main content

Timely prevailing wage survey means more union job opportunities

Date Posted: February 12 2006

by David Plawecki, Deputy Director
Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth

(This is the third and final story in a series about the fair enforcement of Michigan's Prevailing Wage Act of 1965).

Since taking office in 2003, one of Gov. Jennifer Granholm's objectives has been to improve the health, safety and welfare of Michigan workers.

To this end, the Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth has sought to strengthen enforcement of the state's Prevailing Wage Act and to protect our skilled construction trades workers and responsible contractors.

Under the previous administration, Michigan's Prevailing Wage law seemed to discourage complaints and encourage potential abuses. Today, the Prevailing Wage law is being reinvigorated, and Michigan's Wage & Hour Division is working with contractors and workers to ensure fair and equitable enforcement of the act.

How much a construction worker is required, as a minimum, to be paid in wages and fringe benefits on a state-backed construction project is determined by the prevailing wage rate schedule developed by the state of Michigan's Wage & Hour Division.

The data that goes into developing the rate schedule comes from collective bargaining agreements and additional understandings that supplement the contract language. These agreements and understandings are collected from construction union locals throughout the state.

Under the previous administration, the collection of wage data was often a slow, drawn-out process that took a long time to update.

In the past, the division used an annual statewide survey of union locals to collect the wage data it needed to calculate prevailing wage rates. The process involved mailing the survey and waiting a couple of months for all the returns.

The rates are published for each of Michigan's 83 counties and list the wage rates for trades classifications in each county. Unfortunately, there were always missing surveys or incomplete information, requiring a second or third survey mailing. Once the wage data was finally collected, it took weeks for staff to compile the vast amount of information into the 83-county format and prepare the different uses for release of the new prevailing wage rate schedules.

As a result, a wage increase change that just missed the previous prevailing wage survey might not appear for a year and half or more. This placed union contractors, paying the higher wage, at a distinct disadvantage in bidding for, and landing construction projects. Nonunion contractors could bid less using the existing prevailing wage rates, which were often older and lower than the current union rates. And this simply was not fair.

We recognized the inequity and quickly moved to correct it.