Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. David Agema (R) on October 20, 2009, to repeal the state “prevailing wage” law, which prohibits awarding government contracts to contractors who submit the lowest bid unless the contractor pays "prevailing wages," which are based on union pay scales in a particular part of a geographic region. These wage rates may be above the market rate in other parts of the region.
- Referred to the House Labor Committee on October 20, 2009.
Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 5522 (Repeal “prevailing wage” law ) by Mike Hignite on February 24, 2010In 2006, the state put the former Ypsilanti Mental Hospital up for sale with a minimum bid of $11,000,000. Toyota bid $9,000,000. A builder (DPK York?) bid $25,000,000.
When Granholm found out Toyota was interested, she cancelled the bid with the fake excuse that mineral rights weren't considered. Instead of opening it up to the highest bidder again, she went to the legislature and asked them to give her permission to skip the bid process and sell it to Toyota for $9,000,000.
We are out $16,000,000. Not to mention the $102,000,000 property tax abatement York township already gave up, and the additional $40,000,000 Toyota wants in additional abatements.
Check on line if you want more gruesome details.
The "prevailing wage" is the wage in the particular region of the work to be done. It does not preclude the State from awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, it requires all bidders to pay the prevailing wage of the region.
[quote user="Mike Hignite"]This kind of thinking cost Michigan taxpayers $16,000,000 when Granholm overthrew one bid contract to direct the sale to a connected company.[/quote]
Names and details should accompany this statement.
HB 5522 should pass. Any law that encourages taxpayers to pay more for services is flawed.
Instead of impoverished construction workers, replace it with: wealthy surgeons. Taxpayers can't award a contract to a surgeon willing to work for $500,000 because the prevailing rate in town is $600,000? How does that make any sense?
The state can't contract for Ford cars because their union gets $32 an hour, and GM & Chrysler pay $33 an hour?
State contracts should be required to be let out to the minimum bid, and taxpayers shouldn't care anything about the supplier's profit, required costs of wages or supplies.
This kind of thinking cost Michigan taxpayers $16,000,000 when Granholm overthrew one bid contract to direct the sale to a connected company. I don't know about you, but I think the state could use $16,000,000 right now. And that was only one contract!
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
