Palo Alto considers 'prevailing wage' experiment | January 1, 2010 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - January 1, 2010

Palo Alto considers 'prevailing wage' experiment

Proposed study would weigh impacts of union wages on local capital projects

by Gennady Sheyner

Palo Alto may soon become a laboratory for studying the impacts of union-level wages on local capital projects.

This story contains 601 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be e-mailed at


Like this comment
Posted by Fred Hirsch
a resident of another community
on Jan 9, 2010 at 11:12 pm

I'm informed by fifty years in construction. Good outcomes occur when contractors respect workers, pay prevailing wages and pay for apprentice and lifetime training, empowering workers with competent, comprehensive craft capability. Cutting corners, low-balling labor costs, and exploiting untrained workers produces shoddy construction, with taxpayers bearing the social costs of construction.

I'm no Palo Alto resident, but I've handled the tools here in hi-tech labs, restaurants, downtown buildings, student housing and the V.A. Hospital. Thousands of construction workers have invested pieces of our lives in your structures. We deserve a voice in the prevailing wage controversy.

Our union apprentice programs equal any in the country. A five-year apprenticeship in my local union equips one to produce safe, efficient, skilled pipe-trades work anywhere on the planet. We work with confident efficiency that can lower the overall cost of construction.

When Palo Alto ducks paying prevailing wages, it disrespectfully denigrates workers. It produces a climate of contractor competition in a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom on workers’ backs. Competition should be based on management skills and a trained, safe, efficient workforce.

The irony of Palo Alto’s low-ball policy is that prevailing wage payment on government-funded projects became law when Palo Alto’s proud resident, President Herbert Hoover, signed the 1931 Davis -Bacon Act. That pen stroke was significant in his effort to backfill the economic ditch we call the "Great Depression." We're back into a similar economic ditch. Palo Alto ought not dig it deeper by shortchanging workers and inviting shoddy construction.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2010 at 3:56 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I have long held that the Journeyman ticket was equal in intellectual rigor to an MS and should be recognized as such by State credentialing authorities. It is a pity that non union candidates are denied access to many of the courses needed to become a Journeyman. It is also a pity that unions often play the petty jurisdiction game, where say a painter is not allowed to remove device plates prior to painting a wall, and of course compulsory union membership forces you to support the democrats whatever your personal preference might be.

Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 10, 2010 at 4:42 pm

"Prevailing wages" is a great concept, but, it is difficult to apply to public employees. For many years, it has been customary for public employees to get better benefits and job security in return for lower income. In recent years, some unions, particularly firemen, have been very effective at gaining "comparable wages", while retaining better benefits (I love firemen as much as the next guy -- I wish everyone luck in landing a fireman's slot).

The point is, public employees typically have a very different mix of wages, benefits, and incentives than private employees. So, to "compare", you really have to consider what would, for example, induce someone to switch jobs. At the same time, we all have to consider what is currently affordable -- the cost of health benefits is vastly larger than in the past. I personally know public employees who are only working because they need the health benefits, not the money. If the cost of healthcare has not affected you yet -- it will. So, the value of this benefit is a key ingredient in determining what is comparable.

Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Jan 10, 2010 at 8:09 pm

Elimination of illegal workers in construction would accomplish the "prevailing wage" goal, and at the same time remove the burden to society and tax payers of individuals who use social services, but pay no taxes for there support.

Palo Alto could get a "two-fer" if it required all contractors to provide proof of legal ability to work for all of their employees.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 11, 2010 at 3:20 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Outie, you hit the dichotomy of today's unions. Their symbiotic bargain with the democrats, and the need of the democrats for the unchallenged non-citizen voter make any action against illegals unlikely.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.