CHARLESTON, W.Va. – At least 100 West Virginia contracting companies have written to state senators opposing the repeal of the state's prevailing wage law, according to state lawmakers.

Many of the letters say the law keeps local contractors on a level playing field with out-of-state firms.

John Strickland, president of the Maynard C. Smith Construction Co. of Kanawha City, says the prevailing wage has given West Virginia contractors space to develop a skilled and productive workforce.

He says without it there's nothing to stop outside companies from bringing in out-of-state, minimum-wage workers – and undercutting 300 to 400 local businesses.

"Local contractors and a road contractor from out of state will compete, and we won't be on a level playing field,” he points out. “So the local contractor will loose that project."

Supporters of repeal say it could reduce building costs on public projects – although several studies have found it would actually lower quality and raise costs in the long run.

The Senate is likely to vote on the measure this week.

Some of the letters argue that the state would lose more in lower income tax revenue and higher public assistance costs than it could hope to gain in reduced construction costs.

One separate study projected as much as $80 million a year in lost taxes.

Another found the wage enough to keep many from relying on programs such as food stamps.

Dan Tennant, sales manager for Kalkreuth Roofing, the nation's sixth-largest roofing company, says he applauds state lawmakers for trying to save taxpayer money.

But he says an Ohio County journeymen roofer only makes $28 an hour under the prevailing wage – more like $18 an hour once you count down time.

"No one's getting rich in the trades,” he maintains. “If they're careful with their money, they can make a nice living. But the important thing to know is none of them are on public assistance."

A report by the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy found if you include quality and productivity, prevailing-wage work here costs less than non-prevailing wage work in neighboring states.

And Tennant says that's actually why Ohio is moving to put a prevailing wage more in place, just as West Virginia is considering its repeal.

"One of the things driving Ohio's decision to allow Prevailing Wage was the poor quality of the schools that were being built," he states.





get more stories like this via email

Workers at a hospital on the Oregon coast are citing a victory in contract negotiations with their employer.

More than 100 members of SEIU Local 49 at Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital in Lincoln City will receive raises averaging 10% over the first year of their new contract. Brittany King, a CT special imaging technologist at the hospital, said many workers have been struggling to afford living in the community, and this raise makes the hospital's wages competitive with the local job market.

"There are a lot of members," she said, "that told me specifically that, 'I think this is a wage that I can live with, that means I don't have to leave Samaritan.'"

King said workers have dealt with a number of tragedies in recent years, including the pandemic and 2020 wildfires. Their new contract also expands education funding.

Rachel Eggleton, a certified nursing assistant at the hospital, said workers rallied over Memorial Day weekend when contract negotiations stalled and the community members showed their support.

"Once they saw us out in the rain rallying," she said, "they realized, 'OK, maybe there's something wrong. Maybe we need to help out our health-care workers, because they've been there through thick and thin for the entire pandemic, regardless of whatever's happening.' We still provided the care that they needed."

Eggleton said this support has been key.

"Getting everybody involved and getting the community involved," she said, "it will always bring us better things."

A new Minnesota law, which goes into effect Sunday, removes requirements restricting Social Security recipients from receiving full jobless benefits as well.

Bill sponsors noted Minnesota was the last state to have the offset requirement. It reduced by 50% unemployment aid for laid-off workers who, within the first year, either received or started to apply for Social Security.

Kate Schaefers, volunteer state president of AARP Minnesota, said it had a profound effect on older workers as the pandemic began to take shape. She pointed to testimony from a Rochester man who had worked part-time in retail and lost his job but had no unemployment benefits to supplement his income.

"He told us that he cut back on expenses, including his medication, because he couldn't afford them living just off of his Social Security check," Schaefers recounted.

Schaefers pointed out they are disappointed the changes are not retroactive, leaving out many residents devastated by the crisis. But she noted supporters secured a compromise with the Senate by starting the repeal date this year, as opposed to waiting longer to appease concerns about the unemployment fund's balance.

Schaefers said looking ahead, the repeal will be beneficial to the growing number of older adults who cannot afford to solely rely on their pension in the face of rising consumer costs.

"This is a key part of their retirement ... continued work," Schaefers explained. "This is going to benefit them if they get laid off; that they can access those unemployment benefits."

The group estimated 16% of Minnesotans 62 and older receiving Social Security are still in the labor force. It added the benefits are modest, averaging nearly $1,600 a month in Minnesota.

The so-called "great resignation" isn't playing out for all workers. A new survey covering North Dakota and Minnesota shows people on the lower end of the income scale face obstacles in jumping to other job opportunities.

The Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, along with Community Action agencies in both states, heard from more than 200 individuals, mainly working in social services, education and health care. Most expressed a desire to move up the career ladder, but said they lack the resources to learn new skills, or that expenses such as child care get in the way.

Erick Garcia Luna, regional outreach director at the Minneapolis Fed, said it becomes more pronounced for people earning very little in their current job.

"If a family is making minimum wage," he said, "they're going to have a harder time taking the time, for example, to get trained for another job."

Nearly 60% of respondents making between $10,000 and $25,000 dollars a year said it's either "somewhat or very difficult" to make an occupational change. Community Action Partnership of North Dakota said the survey also revealed these individuals are finding it harder to meet basic needs amid rising inflation, but also can't afford to pursue a better-paying job.

Ashley Littlewolf, workforce development case manager lead at the Southeastern North Dakota Community Action Agency, said she sees a lot of overlap with these barriers.

"They're feeding each other, the barriers are increasing each other," she said. "That need for new skills, and then finding the day care - and also, the jobs not paying enough."

While some employers are offering better pay, Littlewolf said the findings should prompt more action to boost starting wages. She said expanding the hiring pool can help, too.

"Taking a chance on someone who may not have that experience," she said, "but offering on-site training, offering the opportunity for them to enter that career path without the experience or education."