Editorial: Prevailing wage must be strong

Monday, Feb. 18, 2002 | 8:35 a.m.

Truckers might well want to honk once or twice in appreciation if they pass the offices of Nevada Supreme Court justices, whose ruling Wednesday clarified a section of Nevada law known popularly as the "Little Davis-Bacon Act." This is a law the state passed in 1937 to ensure that workers on government construction contracts are paid the "prevailing" local wage -- determined through Labor Commission surveys -- for the various trades involved. The law was modeled on the 1931 federal act authored by Sen. James Davis, R-Pa., and Rep. Robert Bacon, R-N.Y. As with all laws, they ultimately mean only what they are interpreted to mean by the courts, and the state Supreme Court's interpretation last week clarifies what had been a gray area for truckers.

We agree with the justices, who ruled that Nevada's law is subject to a broader application than the federal law whose wording refers to workers "directly upon" a construction site. Our law's language refers to those employed "at the site" of the work covered by the contract. The case that prompted the ruling had to do with three state highway construction projects in Northern Nevada. Granite Construction Co. sought the decision in 1999 because it disagreed with truckers hauling material away from the sites, who were arguing they were entitled to prevailing wage even though much of their work was not "at the site." The Supreme Court ruled that the truckers were entitled to prevailing wage. Even though this means state construction contracts will be a little more expensive, we agree with Nevada Labor Commissioner Terry Johnson, who said it was "a great deci sion for the workers of the state."

There are many good reasons for the federal and state prevailing wage laws. Most importantly, it protects against contractors who would undermine the local wage standards in the construction trades. Government contracts should not disrupt a community's labor stability, which surely they would do if outside contractors were allowed to bring in unskilled and under-paid workers, idling the local skilled workers. If all workers -- union and non-union alike -- are required to receive prevailing wage, local wage standards cannot be undercut and workers cannot be exploited. Public safety is another issue, as all the government projects -- roads, bridges, sewer lines, buildings -- are intended for public use. Cheap labor puts public safety at risk.

While the Supreme Court's decision regarding truckers is a victory for labor, there are many more prevailing wage issues waiting for thoughtful rulings. For example, both the Nevada and federal prevailing wage laws make reference to the construction "site." What about those cases in which much of the work is prefabricated off-site? Does the prevailing wage apply to those workers? Labor Commissioner Johnson is working on regulations now that will cover this issue, but we suspect the Supreme Court will someday be asked to make a definitive ruling.

There is also the issue of undocumented workers. Should they get prevailing wage? Ironically, one criticism of the Davis-Bacon Act is that it is rooted in racism. Some critics say the act was intended in part to prop up white-only unions, who were losing contracts to out-of-state black workers who were at the time barred from unions and therefore paid far less. There may have been some credence to that criticism in 1930s America. But in today's United States, the act stands strong for all workers. Johnson, for example, ruled last week that five Hispanic workers in a Clark County labor case were entitled to prevailing wage "regardless of their residency status." The Nevada Supreme Court will continue to make rulings regarding the Little Davis-Bacon Act. We hope the rulings continue to strengthen this important labor law. At stake is the safety of everyone w ho uses a public road or building, and fairness toward the workers who build them.