ShareThis Page
Colin McNickle: Eliminate Pa.’s prevailing wage law |
Featured Commentary

Colin McNickle: Eliminate Pa.’s prevailing wage law

| Saturday, July 7, 2018 5:14 p.m

Pennsylvania’s union-kowtowing prevailing wage law is an albatross around the neck of not only Keystone State taxpayers but also good governance, free-market competition and economic growth, say scholars at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

The original intent of the prevailing wage law may have been to protect local laborers from cheap migrant labor, but these days the law simply shields union workers from having to compete with other qualified workers in their own communities, note Frank Gamrat, senior research associate, and Jake Haulk, president.

And the resulting “lack of full-throttled competition for government contracts results in higher costs for taxpayers who ultimately pay for this excessive generosity to unions — and to companies that are union shops and get all the work,” they say.

State-level prevailing wage laws require that local wages and benefits — typically the union rate — be paid on government-financed construction projects. The federal counterpart is the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.

Pennsylvania’s prevailing wage law dates to 1961. It was enacted to, purportedly, protect commonwealth workers from out-of-state competition. It applies to all government-financed projects of $25,000 or more.

The state Department of Labor and Industry sets the rate county by county. Never mind that the law does not explicitly prevent using market wages to determine that rate; wages established in collective bargaining agreements are used.

And that artificially raises costs.

“The lack of full market competition and the inevitable higher costs created by (the) prevailing wage may have been a contributing factor in Pennsylvania’s poorly rated infrastructure,” Gamrat and Haulk say. “If projects are unnecessarily expensive, government(s) at both the local and state level will be unable to carry out as many projects as they would in the absence of the extra expense created by prevailing wages.”

Consider two examples: In 2017, the average statewide painters wage was $20.30 an hour. It was $18.84 for construction laborers. But in April 2016, on projects at East Stroudsburg University, painters were paid premiums of 64 percent more and 25 percent more, respectively, because of Pennsylvania’s prevailing wage law.

Then there are state highway projects. Per the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s 2017 annual report, $2.57 billion was spent on 703 bridge and road projects. “Even if the labor compensation savings from doing away with (the) prevailing wage were 10 percent … PennDOT would have an extra $257 million to spend on more projects,” Gamrat and Haulk calculate.

And that’s a low figure; most research pegs such savings at between 10 and 25 percent.

“In a state that seems to struggle every year to fund its budget and where school districts are having to raise taxes steadily to meet obligations, including for unnecessarily expensive building projects, hundreds of millions in savings would certainly be welcome,” they say.

“The state’s workforce is declining while nationally the labor force is climbing, and the number of the state’s residents working has also been sliding of late” because of this “deeply entrenched anti-free market ideology that stifles growth.”

Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.