Pursuing the
Prevailing Wage
An Editorial Treatise for Campus Building Trades
By Jeremy Porter
(June 2002)
When I started this project, I knew it might be tough
to remain objective. The reason: I was once a member of this
over named behemoth, which is the Seattle/King County Building &
Construction Trades Council. Although, I must admit, I never
held this knowledge until my university education forced it upon
me. My career began as an apprentice in the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which is an officially
associated member of the Seattle/King County Building &
Construction Trades Council. Honestly, I dealt very little with
the latter, and more with the former. On the UW campus,
however, the skilled trades are represented directly by the
Building Trades Council.
In truth, I was at a point in my life where I had grown tired
of soliciting better long distance service or donations to
not-for-profit organizations over the phone from unwilling
customers who were inevitably “in the middle of dinner”, and did
not want to talk to me. Life as a Telephone Sales
Representative, surprisingly, is not all it may be cracked
up to be. I had held many other equally untasty jobs before
that. I was looking for a change, and I needed it fast.
For years, the Seattle/King County Building &
Construction Trades Council (furthermore referred to as just
“the Council”, which, although ringing slightly Orwellian, is
much easier to type) had been helping to put food upon my
childhood table. Also for years, my father had been hounding me
to consider joining the IBEW, to learn the trade of electricity,
so that I too might one day put food upon my child’s
table. He had “come up” through the IBEW apprenticeship, and
was now a Journeyman Electrician in good standing (in line to
receive quite a pension, I might add). I resisted for years,
feeling that my father had worked way harder than I ever
wanted to for the kinds of rewards he seemed to be winning from
it. Nevertheless, after receiving ruthless rejection upon
rejection from faceless voices in cities I had never heard of,
and after being cursed at by haughty housewives who were livid
with my apparent gall to try and sell something to their
recently deceased husbands (how was I supposed to know he was
dead, ma’am?), I relented, and signed up for that organization
which my family simply refers to as “the Union.”
Do unions have a place in the dawning of this new
century? Are they archaic representations of an “Industrial
Age” gone past? Could the union possibly benefit me? We’re
about to find out.
My first personal experience with Local #46 was the
admission procedure, which did not resemble a job interview by
any stretch of the term. I filled out some papers, issued my
high school transcripts, took a fairly benign test, and was
assured a phone call. And, as much as the strictness of these
admissions were touted, I actually did receive a call
within two weeks, and was on my first job, tools jostling around
in a too-clean, too-stiff work belt the next day. My dad was so
proud.
Unfortunately, my experience with “the Union” never
got better than this, and since this really is not a story about
me, I will endeavor to keep this short.
Local #46’s electrical program for first year apprentices
consisted of an immense amount of repetitive, tedious labor
which, in the field, we call “pre-fab”, short for
prefabrication. Although the state only requires four years
of electrical experience for an apprentice to “turn out”, or to
become a state certified Journeyman, the Union made a deal
with the local electrical contractors to extend the
apprenticeship to five years. The Union justified this as an
opportunity to have better, well-trained Journeymen in the
field, but really they just dropped the starting wage of first
year apprentices so that contractors could have incredibly cheap
labor for a whole year to do “pre-fab.” All in all, it wasn’t a
whole lot of fun, and sometimes I even wished I was back on the
phone talking to dead men’s wives. It was about this time at
which the union decided to kick me out (discharge, as they say,
which is a much more emphatic word and brings to mind images of
warfare) for calling my Journeyman instead of my shop
when I was going to miss a day due to illness (it clearly
states in section 33 of the apprentice manual that one must call
the shop and not the Journeyman); I really wasn’t
that disappointed. The non-union sector scooped me up with open
arms, and they didn’t even have a manual.
I’ve worked for non-union electrical contractors ever
since, and have “turned out” just fine. This, as one can see,
makes objectivity with this subject somewhat strained. However,
since both my father and brother still work in “the Union”, I
have found myself in a unique position to understand and
appreciate two sides of this issue. So… out with objectivity!
I’m just going to tell you readers what I think.
*****
I was job-hunting about a year ago, when I came upon
an advertisement in the Seattle Times for a Journeyman
Electrician on the University of Washington campus. Admittedly,
the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this was, "Hey,
I bet there’s a lot of girls there…"
which is something we see very little of in this trade, and
would be quite a job perk (you can roll your eyes now at the
blatant reinforcement of the construction worker stereotype).
However, the second thing I thought was, "How do they expect
to get a journeyman electrician for $22 per hour when I can get
closer to $30 in the private sector?" It puzzled me that a
state-funded institution, which charges me close to $1500 per
quarter, would be unable to pay a Journeyman Electrician the
local prevailing wage. At the time, I didn’t understand how
much the Washington State Legislature had to do with the wages
on campus, but now I understand they had everything to do
with it.
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) is a mammoth
conglomerate of rules and regulations, articles and outlines,
about which nearly everything public revolves in this state.
Reading it is like reading Swahili philosophy. As an
electrician, I am constantly referring to a section of this code
to research such things as: At what angles do I need to
support the guy wires from the service mast of a single-family
dwelling if the mast is supported in two places below the roof
line and the service drop conductors are at least 18 feet above
a residential driveway?...etc. People get paid tax money to
memorize such things, and to let other people know when they are
not following them precisely. Most of us don’t know these rules
even exist.
The WAC article #251 is an entire subsection of
regulations regarding higher education labor law. The article
states in 251-08-005 that “the director shall prepare… and
periodically revise…compensation plans for all classes.” The
term “classes” here refers to different classifications of
employees in higher education. “Compensation” is the ambiguous
term which could be more easily summed up as “salary.” So, if I
might endeavor to break this down for our readers, it is
essentially the state legislature which sets the wages of public
employees in higher education, including the fine members of the
Building Trades Council. The article goes on to explain that
the salaries set by the “director” will be assigned “reflecting
prevailing rates in other public employment and in
private employment in this state or in the locality in which the
institution is located.”
Clearly, the disparity between my definition of
“prevailing rates” and the state’s definition is cavernous.
Using the example of my profession, University of Washington
electricians can hope to make approximately 70% (or less) of the
local prevailing wage. These numbers seem to jive with what
I’ve been told by Tom Whisenant, the plumber-turned-business
representative who busily expresses the needs of the Council
members to the state. He places the average wage for UW Council
members, which are included in many trades such as carpenters,
plumbers, painters, and machinists, at around 60% of the average
private sector employee in the same field. On top of that,
these tradesmen are obligated to join the Council within about
60 days of their employment by the University, after which they
will be responsible for paying an average of 1.1% of their gross
income to Council dues. It’s no wonder there is some dissention
in the ranks of this “brotherhood.”
In the past ten years, Tom has helped to defend the
Council from six decertification votes. These votes would have
essentially thrown the Council off campus, leaving the trades to
fend for themselves with the state and the University
administration. Another vote is closing in swiftly. One might
believe that the administration or some other outside source was
instigating these votes, but it is in fact the members
who are bringing them about. With 30% of the members on campus
calling for them, these votes necessarily must occur, and occur
they have, but to little avail
historically.
With another vote on the way and some groundbreaking legislation
currently being passed in Olympia regarding the role of the
Council on campus, Tom is understandably breathless. He seems
to get it from both sides. On one hand, the Council members
feel they are paying dues to an organization which seems to help
them very little, and on the other hand, the state has
historically ensured the confirmation of these beliefs, allowing
Tom to merely “suggest” beneficial treatment of his assembly.
Apparently, the state only heeds about 60% of Tom’s
“suggestions.”
I believe everyone could essentially agree that wages, or the
lack thereof, are the kingpin issue here. Sure, the workers are
provided with decent benefits, as are all state workers;
however, I am also provided with stellar benefits from my
current private sector employer, and I am earning close
to 30% more than what I would have been earning had I taken the
University job. Also, I don’t have to shell out a percentage of
my pay into an organization, which claims to be trying to help
me, yet has its hands tied by governmental bureaucracy nearly to
the extreme of ineffectuality.
Of course, the Council is no stranger to bureaucracy. They live
it. Tom has been living it for so long, he probably can’t even
remember how to thread pipe. He jokes after explaining that his
proletariat will once again be voting to decertify in May, “It
makes no difference to me… I can just as easily go back to
turning the wrenches.” His mustachioed, salt-and-pepper face
droops slightly as he digresses, “Although I rather prefer
this…” he says, grabbing at the buttons of his sport jacket,
“…to the coveralls.” One can see, from the brief sparkle of
sadness in his eye, that Tom
Whisenant really does care. He cares for reasons less
shallow than that of clean dress. The man wants nothing more…in
fact, does nothing more than to lobby undauntingly for
his cause. He does so much of this; I could hardly get a word
with him. So, for a Council member to say that his or her union
is doing nothing for them, I suggest
they try to find Tom in an idle moment.
All of Tom’s, and many other people’s, hard work is about to pay
off. After being subjected to fourteen years of hard lobbying,
the Washington State legislature is finally passing the Civil
Employment Reform Act, which will alter the face of public
employment in ways that will make present civil employment
practices seem archaic and totalitarian in retrospect. Indeed,
some employees likely feel this way currently.
Probably the most groundbreaking change this Act will queue is
the right for the Council to engage in collective bargaining for
workers’ wages. As mentioned before, the state had previously
set the wages of employees on campus. The Council would be able
to haggle for better benefits, better working conditions, and
possibly better training. In fact, collective bargaining allows
the Council to do all of those things, which it has been paid to
do for so many years, but has been unable to do. It would be
counter to reason for the members of the UW Council to vote in
favor of decertification at this paramount juncture. It would
be like throwing in the towel after knocking your opponent to
the mat.
Not all is peachy with this Act, however. There is, from the
standpoint of labor, one major downfall: the right to strike is
still not permitted. The reason this is a major downfall should
be self-evident. Without the right to strike legally, any
action taken by the Council which resembles a strike would not
only put them at odds with the administration, but also it would
pit them against the state-controlled police force. Also, by
striking illegally, it is very hard for the lawyers to sway
judges into the Council’s court in case anything unsavory should
happen. By not allowing the Council to strike, the state in
effect pulls the rug of repercussion from under the workers’
feet. The right to collectively bargain is well and good, but
what happens if the state won’t bargain?
More lobbying?
These are the kinds of things that frustrate skilled workers.
The fact is, the idea of prevailing
wage is something that is less ambiguous than one might think.
If one was to ask any skilled worker on any jobsite in the
Seattle area what the prevailing wage for his or her profession
is, the vast majority of those polled would answer with a number
that would be within two or three percent of each other.
Thirty percent is an outrage!
The people performing the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing
duties in this city are highly skilled workers. It took
as long or longer for them to obtain their respective licenses
than it will take many students to earn a bachelor’s degree.
Most of them spend years in a schooling program while working
full time, and in culmination are expected to pass a grueling,
state-operated test which runs many hours. Contrary to certain
stereotypical images, these professionals are generally bright
enough to read, understand, and memorize codebooks the size of
bibles, which are so full of cryptic jargon, they must
have been written by lawyers. Does the state expect qualified,
intelligent, skilled workers to not notice the huge wage gap?
These people, using trigonometric functions, notice when the
degree of bend in a pipe is over the allowable limit. They know
the intricacies of ampacity, pressure, and environmental
airflow, and they sure as hell know what their labor is worth in
monetary “compensation.”
*****
So, how does the University continue to employ anyone at all?
It is a good question, and one that I will attempt to answer
based upon my personal experience in the field.
When I was a member of Local #46, the pay gradient was
negotiated by the Union. There were certain wages, depending on
your level of experience, that were indisputable. Every man was
paid the same as the man next to him, as long as they were both
in the same level, no matter the disparity in the quality
of the worker. Most were good workers, though, because we were
generally being compensated well for our labor. In the
non-union sector, however, there are vast differences in the
rate which one employer will pay one employee versus another.
And, there are significant differences in the rate at which one
employer is willing to pay over another. I can honestly
say, I’ve worked with them all, and there is one saying in this
industry which rings true, no matter which trade you’re in: “You
pay peanuts… you get monkeys.”
I’m not trying to infer that the tradesmen on campus are
“monkeys.” I’m almost positive there are some very qualified
workers, which help keep the school running. Some of them
likely work at the University because the quality of the job and
its various perks (see above) outweigh, for that individual, the
pay disparity. However, I can say that the likelihood of a
skilled worker staying at a job where he or she was being
paid at 70% scale for any great amount of time is low.
The further the gap, the higher the
likelihood that less and less skilled workers find their way
onto our campus. This is an issue which affects every
one of us. The quality of work and compensation for it are not
only political issues. They are also public safety issues,
since these workers are affecting the very workings of the
facility. In effect, the state is supporting a policy, which
could potentially contribute to an unsafe environment at the
University. If the Council can remedy this, I’m all for it.
It might seem contrary to an outsider for a non-union employee
to support the actions of a unionized workforce. In truth, this
is much more common than one might think. Most of my non-union
counterparts understand the complexity of labor in the Seattle
area. Many outsiders, and even union members themselves,
believe that non-union tradesmen hold some sort of deep
resentment for the union. Actually, non-union skilled workers
understand and appreciate the value of a strong union workforce
in the area. Without this, all of our wages would likely be
lower, some of our benefits would likely be cut, and working
conditions across the board would generally be poorer. In
essence, a strong union membership forces all employers
to conform to union standards, else risk the unpalatable
prospect of attaining low-quality workers. Even non-union
contractors pay well above the amount the state is apparently
willing to pay its tradesmen.
So, in response to my earlier impasse, yes, the union
does have a place in these modern times. It does
have a place at the University. The fact that unions exist
at all essentially maintains the standard of high quality
workmanship within our entire state. Obviously, I’m not
advocating unions completely; otherwise, I would be a
union member myself. There are also many difficulties inherent
in unionization, such as the abolition of merit-based
advancement, the muddiness of large bureaucracy, and the
disabling of a contractor’s ability to reprimand poor
workmanship. These issues could all be discussed separately at
great length. Nevertheless, one has to weigh the good and the
bad in every situation, and decide for one’s self whether or not
unionization is right for her or him. There is no riper
situation for unionization presently than in the public sector,
where wages have been steadily falling behind the status quo for
decades. Hopefully the members of the UW Council, as they have
so many times before, realize this when the decertification vote
comes up in May, and vote it down. Hopefully, the years of Tom
Whisenant’s and others’ struggles will finally pay off for
everyone concerned, culminating in higher wages and a safer
environment on the University of Washington campus.
©2002 Jeremy Porter
