California law requires that locally funded construction projects over $1,000 pay the prevailing wage. That is, public money doesn't go to drive down wages for construction workers throughout the region. The Associated Builders and Contractors, AKA the ALEC of the construction industry, doesn't like this so much. So it's been turning its attention to charter cities, which can make their own laws, trying to get cities to adopt charters and to eliminate the prevailing wage. This push employs some ridiculous myths , like the claim that cities can save 20 percent on their construction costs by eliminating the prevailing wage—the teeny tiny problem with that claim being that labor costs make up only 22 percent of construction costs in California.

As with most of the ABC's efforts, it's important to understand that these are low-road contractors. Many contractors, not just unions, value the prevailing wage and other ways of setting high standards in the construction industry. For instance, Mark Breslin, CEO of United Contractors, wrote an op-ed in the Modesto Bee this week supporting SB 7, a bill that would give charter cities the choice of paying prevailing wage and getting state funds or not paying prevailing wage and losing state funds for construction projects:



Prevailing wage laws were first passed in California decades ago in order to ensure a fair platform for compensation, competition, quality, and development of skilled workforces. Though most Charter Cities and all General Law Cities in California pay prevailing wages on local construction projects, some Charter Cities have exempted prevailing wages in a shortsighted effort to save money, but the true costs outweigh any perceived benefit. Further, out-of-state lobby groups have recently mounted an effort—city by city—to encourage local leaders and politicians to place charters on the ballot in order to eliminate prevailing wage. They promise savings of as much as 30 percent on projects. The lobbyists making these arguments either don't know what they are talking about, or they are being deliberately misleading. [...] Cities that eliminate these good jobs and replace them with low paying jobs with no benefits may incur other costs that might not be obvious at first. Research shows that lower wage standards on local projects are likely to shift costs to the public by shifting the burden of healthcare from the employer to the taxpayer.

Defenders of the prevailing wage have been doing a good job fighting off city by city attacks, but ABC is relentless, bringing up and helping to fund the same charters in city after city. That's why it's so important for the state of California to say no, state money will not be used in the race to the bottom.

Continue reading for more of the week's labor and education news.