HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #49 - First Reading Ordinance- ....,air. .. ..... ..:: .-. , ..
161
J-87-745
9/8/87
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS AFFECTING THE CITY OF MIAMI;
PROVIDING THAT THE RATE OF WAGES AND FRINGE
BENEFIT PAYMENTS FOR ALL LABORERS, MECHANICS,
AND APPRENTICES BE NOT LESS THAN THE
PREVAILING RATES OF WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFIT
PAYMENTS FOR SIMILAR SKILLS IN
CLASSIFICATIONS OF WORK AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
FEDERAL REGISTER; REQUIRING POSTING OF NOTICE
OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR
PREEMPTION WHEN SUCH CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
INVOLVE FEDERAL FUNDING; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS
FOR CERTAIN EXISTING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION
IN THE CITY CODE.
WHEREAS, the federal government has determined, through
passage of the Davis -Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. Section 276(a) (1976).
that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the nation to
enaot prevailing wage legislation; and
WHEREAS, the federal prevailing wage legislation applies to
federally funded construction projects in the City of Miami; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Commission, has determined that
it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Miami
that prevailing wage legislation be enacted for construction
projects in the City of Miami; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Commission shall require that the
prevailing wage rate be established as determined by the United
States Secretary of Labor as published in the Federal Register
for the State of Florida;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That this Commission hereby requires every
construction contract in excess of $5,000.00 to which the City of
Miami is a party for the construction, alteration and/or repair,
including painting and decorating of public buildings or public
works within the geographical limits of the City of Miami and
which requires or involves the employment of laborers, mechanics
or apprentices, to include a provision that the rate of wages and
x
fringe benefits, or cash equivalent, for all laborers, mechanics
and apprentices employed by any contractor or subcontractor on
the work covered by the contract, shall be not less than the
prevailing rate of wages and fringe benefits or cash equivalents
for similar skills or classifications of work as established by
the Federal Register for the State of Florida.
Section 2. Implementation by the Federal Register. The
prevailing wage rate and fringe benefits payments to be used in
implementation of this Ordinance shall be those last published by
the U.S. Department of Labor in the Federal Register prior to the
date of issuance of specifications by the City of Miami in
connection with its invitation for bids.
Section 3. Notice Requirement. The date a laborer,
mechanic or apprentice commences work on a construction contract
to which this Ordinance applies, the contractor or subcontractor
shall be required to post a notice in a prominent place at the
work site stating the requirements of this Ordinance.
Section 4. Preemption by Federal Funding . When
construction contracts involve federal funding or are otherwise
subject to the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.
276(a)), this Ordinance shall not apply, and the minimum wages to
be paid the various classes of laborers, mechanics and
apprentices shall be based upon the wages determined by the
Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis -Bacon Act (40
U.S.C. 276(a)).
Section 5. Exemption. The provisions of this Ordinance
shall not apply to any existing contract or construction project
in which a Notice for Bids or Request for Proposals has been
advertised in the public media prior to the effective date of
this Ordinance.
Section 6. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances insofar
as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 7. If any section, part of section, paragraph,
clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid,
-2-
the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected.
This Ordinance shall be operative and the provisions thereof,
unless otherwise indicated, shall become effective in accordance
with City Charter provisions.
Section 8. It is the intention of the City Commission that
the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part
of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida as amended, which
provisions may be changed to "section", "article" or other
appropriate word to accomplish such intentions.
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 8th day of
September , 1987.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY
this day of , 1987.
ATTEST:
MATTY HIRAI
City Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
ROBERT F. CLARK
Chief Deputy City Attorney
AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
LUPIA A. DOW
City Attorney
LGK/wpo/pb/ebg/bss/M207
-3-
XAVIER L. SUAREZ, MAYOR
SYI.VESTER LUKIS & ASSO cIAT'I'S. I'.C:.
50.1 MADISON OFFRI BI'1L1)IM,
1151 ISth STR1:11', N W
WASHINOTON.l)t 201MIS
r�(l�i 1`�' ttlrii
August 12, 1987
Mr. Frank Castaneda
Director of Economic Development
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Frank:
The Justice Department ruled yesterday that Davis -Bacon does
not require contractors to pay union wages on projects funded
under the UDAG, CDBG and other HUD programs unless those
programs' funds are used in actual constructions. As you know,
until now Davis -Bacon was interpreted by the Labor Department as
covering all construction workers paid by private funds if other
phases of a project, such as land acquisition, equipment
purchases or payments for architect and engineering services,
were funded with Federal funds. This new Justice Department
interpretation should cut costs on HUD projects by as much as
25%.
Accordingly, the 1985 Labor Department opinion holding that
Davis -Bacon wages had to be paid when UDAG and CDBG funds are
used for "activities which are integrally and proximately
related" to construction is no longer in effect. You should
note, however, that this opinion applies only to HUD contracts.
cc: Liz Sierra
Jerry Gereaux
V381287A
Sincerely,
Sylve j r Lukis
t_
Submitt:,.? :to the public
record cln STY il h
item
Hirai
City Clerk
I' .'Mic MUM
)GtrtJ 5 KNIY,HT. td,tor tmewuw JAME5 t, kNIGHt. Chairman
UE HI[(5. OuL1.,rrer AtVAH H. CHAPMAN )r., Praiden1 JOHN MtMUUAN, fuc. fddor b1 Vt R[Y CAVT[R, Gin.µVw.
JAM HAMOtOtt, td-tor 90HAt INGIt, Monop,no tdoo► DON SHOtMAAtR, 5en,nr tdoor
6-A coos Friday, Dec. 29, 1978
Whirr Home tale Davis.Bacon Act
b
DING its duty, which consists of
pointing out where Federal money
Is being misspent or wasted, the
General Accounting Office has looked at
the results of the Davis -Bacon Act and
sees a $715 million Government payout
that is unnecessary.
Davis -Bacon was enacted during the
Depression to require that workers on
Federal contracts be paid the "prevail.
log" local wages. The idea, at first, was
to protect workers from roving bands of
desperate men who would work for a] -
most any pay.
Since then, given a generous Labor.
Department policy of figuring out what
"Prevails." Davis -Bacon wages have
come to mean union scale, whatever that
may be and no matter what the actual
local wage level is.
riaoney-MaKInz---;;-;,Or' tnoney-
9-•==--procedure had'_ been highly
r-Ath'0ition .official= the "nation
So ttibch so, in fact. that'a local
.W is. whomped up laic spring by
> ommisstover, Bill. Oliver. He
�cii' And county ,construction
'+i ulfi'•iitat::builders pay
6v" plus -s -,benefit"ackage,
tdtlt MemesJwould have added
r Olp*ftlnRw'no
also hap n:'>o be -a
u ion off conflict oMgterest
I olved. although Mayor Steve -dark, a
unioneonto{,ctor, did. -The mayor dis-
�u `ifiM_ $lmseif - from voting on the
eaasunk-Aa-::.�_
Although the little Davis -Bacon failed
here, it continued on the national level,
with an obvious result: higher costs to
taxpayers for the same construction that
could have been done with actual pre-
vailing wages. Considering that Federal
building contracts are parceled out at a
rate of about $40 billion a year. the in-
flationary effect is obvious.
Ideally, a responsible Congress would
simply repeal the act and return Govern-
ment building contracts to the free -en-
terprise system. Realistically, the clout
o' the big labor unions — manifested
only recently In campaign contributions
to any number of congressmen — makes
that result unlikely for now.
It should be possible, however, to
amend the act to require that the Labor
Department edge a bit closer to actuality
In making Its estimates of Just what pre.
Bailing wages are. In 15,000 such deter-
minations during 1977, the GAO found,
the department's estimate was high in •
about 40 per cent. And as the act now
stands, there is no appeal, no court chal-
lenge possible, on the Labor Depart-
ment's estimate of prevailing wages no matter how far off base they are.
This is everybody's money that it is
being wasted. And It is time to stop the
waste.
Submitted into the public
_ _. _... record in con1jection
iterri ifh .
on
Matty Hirai .
City Clerk
AitPENDIX I
FLORID ASSOCIATION.. INC.
A SCHOOL BOARDS
0
a " Lewis State Bank Building = Suite 604, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Phone 904/224-1374
' f970
Eat: -TIDE CCOMM TTEE
►pwont
+K eETENW.EVEAETt MEMORANDUM April 6, 1978
Tatta+Mw
Th 7w •Mh9.^I
MRS MANE e0ZE-011 1
•aneH.a C.le
2^e •J.ta ►•.1-unt
Dp. MAN&AD KIWAEL
West Pslr eeet^
•/%S.Et.tELBELK•tAM TO: All Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee
cveo a.c.t
tens :. •.-. 1
•ETEr. r ,.•:Gt.
Sri. -* I FROM: Dcn Magruder
0.11•J:t too. 7
w:Lt.,AM E.CARTER
Js.bw. ue
=•rib[FT• E'.2 RE: SB 391, Use of Prevailing Wage in School Construction
to a.n
C ,..w. lot,. •
E. D. •t T:E ASO%. JR.
Gr►a..n1
In 1974 the legislature voted to remove school districts from the requirement
G .. C TEE RMAN T. E. SMI gq
of paying "prevailingwages" in school construction.
A&%EA e,• VANS
,;,� F'*. 7 o Since that time, school boards have saved millions of dollars in school construc—
K" tion which has permitted much more construction resulting in more jobs for the
•..1•K1�°.e P .7 9 � I
C14AALES %kGLAVE
Ka SIC20%,la.4r" construction industry.
C t••.t: ;
Because man safeguards — EE" T&";A A. lion has not f gd. .a J _
...��.
. T. LE%%. :KEJ+
We have requested
q ested the local school districts to send us their actucl construction
vFS, rrccTnA a J/Ai LACE
:'.'<I.,a.•a cosh for the last three years, including in indication of the amount of taxpayer's
'iiiEP-EASON money saved through not being required to pay the prevailing wage.
C•1,
A copy of the information received is enclosed along with the supporting letters
.svE::..A'ESTBEARY from the individual school districts.
-.tags
... S•ARcEv. A.
=° The Florida School Boards Association respectfully requests that you consider the
i f:•T• �:, 'T
expense in taxpayer funds and in jobs should SB 391 become law.
_•- "'�'"^' Thank you.
... 4 JR.
.�w an •.
* Enclosures
vc: EIL: A 2LLS :
22
..c• iRt 7M •' d, La•4•
SAJO -Cr,
r
•V.•v
•..larr�s.ac.• n �.nc:a
11.6V.E i %TV.
:•.-:.• 3�::s.r o.• t ,47E - pttsttoo
COUNTY
.'-�lochuo
Bay
Brevard
Clay
Collier
Dade
Escambio
Hendry
Highlands
Indian River
.leiierson
Lee
Leon
Madison
Manatee
M arion
Orange
Palm Reach
Paco
Pinellas
Putnam
Sarasota
Sumter
KI-1001. CONSTRUCTION COSTS COMPARED
Compiled by the Florida School Boards Association, Inc.
Compiled 1977-1978 for Years 1974-1977
COST Of CONSTRUCTION T
$ 6,000,000
108190, 500
8, 084, 269
10,724,392
8,437,000
108,000,000
18,491,358
7,585,557
3,000,000
7, 084,161
635,000
13, 704, 214
70, 800, 000
299,060 o
4,300,000 Tf
9, 859, 078 'v}
20, 344, 872 5 v
28,149, 744
16,582,305
35, 986, 874
6,236..654
9,137, 900
7,090,309
TOTAL $350, 723, 247 j
WAYERS'S SAVINGS
'b 84 2, 000
764,300
606,320
425,000
843,000
9,074,000
2, �3, 703
662,217
300, ODD
1, 416, 832
51,000
274,084
2,160,000
45,000
860,000
2,464,796
3,662,077
2,558,910
3,781,272
7,197,375
1,870,796
2,284,500
11063,546
45,980,728
/"'�TLAID.8
A.LEAGUE.J CITIES.,imc.
225 WEST JEFFERSON STREET - POST OFFICE BOX 1757
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 - TELEPHONE 9041222 9694
bFf10E11s
PPESIMN't
L PLUMMER, JR
VICE MAYOR, IMIAM.
r.RST v.CE PRESIDENT
P A.•. GA LL RISE
MA♦GR,NICEVILLE
SECGNO VICE PRESIDENT
w.LL•AM S. HOWELL
MAYOR ATLANTIC BEACH
PALP•. A MARSICANO
LEAGUE COUNSEL. TAMPA
ai.+MONDt SITt10
E FE CUT.VE DIRECTOR
IALLAMASSEC
D•11ECT014
c• .coot
t•; ir/SS ONE R, 'At T ROPn L.TAN
r,LGE CGUNTY
:E PA �DF THOMPSGN
..:^f SSIr yE R,BPOwAAO COUNTY
LANGFnDr,
:FL-NDG
SSInNAL DISTRICTS
r••�ALL .vISE
r/t •UM, NICE VILLE
•.R.B FULMER
L: J••C '. MAN. RERRY
J.AIAS .+O*1L6
•/A A. ATLANTIC BEACH
_AARENCE J KELLY
NA V �R, DAYTONA BEACH
1: 1* E E IYORK JR.
MA'I�J A. CLERMGNY
/N REED
&vG4� BELLEAIR BLUFFS
C••ARLES MIRANDA
CDUN C.LMAI•, TAMPA
DOSED" HYMERLING
CGMM.SS.ONER, FORT MEADE
AGAT-A I DOEREP
_Sr/M.SSIONER, COCOA BEACH
ZEL:A P BUTLER
VAYOA, SAP41SEL
t N�TAG YOUNT
MA rOR, GLEN RIDGE
AUBERT "SO" DONLV
COMMISSIONER, DANIA
E:NARDJ BURKE
I/A+OR, SISCA VNE PARK
;IJ E PP.NTUP
MA TOR BAL HARBOUR VILLAGE
J. .AM •+ KFROYK
C -,MMISSIOI•ER, CORAL GABLES
_,.PGEST CIT -ES
VACANCY
.AcKSONvILLE
'7SE GORDON
C^, M M I SSIONER, MIAMI
EE DUNCAN
CGVNCILMAN, TAMPA
'CA,NhE FREEMAN
IAAICA.ST PETERSBURG
ANDRE+. (.EGRAF F ENREIDT
C:rJM••„ :NER, FORT LAUDERDALE
�A _E ' ifENNETT
r/L ••... •+.ALEAM
^L:ID F KEATING
iJA•GA, "OLLVINOOD
A ✓:1HUR R KENNEDY
CGI/MISS I NER, ORLANOO
_E :;•.AkC, MABER
•AA.OR IAIAMI BEACH
:AVCS R FORD
ZGVI/.SS.ONER, TALLAHASSEE
PAST PRESIDENTS
:G••N F LANAHAN
C:,uNCILMAN, JACKSONVILLE
J.RGINIA S YOUNG
. CE MA VOR, FORT LAUDERDALE
FCCMA
E-�PL n r. "BUD'• PAAMER, JR.
C-- • MAAGER, KISSIMMEE
March 7, 1979
POSITION PAPER ON COST
OF PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION
The Florida League of Cities will support any
legislation or administrative actions that would
reduce the substantial costs of public con-
struction. Inflationary and mandated costs of
prevailing wage requirements, mandatory sales tax
payments to the state for public w6rks contracts,
requirements for apprenticeship employment all
combine to substantially increase the cost of
public construction in Florida.
The Legislature has exempted school construction
from prevailing wage requirements and an equitable
position should be provided for all other public
construction.
Statutory requirements that increase the cast of
public construction are a substantial factor in
the amount of bonded public debt that has been
issued in Florida and, with increasing interest
rates, such costs become more than doubled over
the term of the bonds. Therefore, the Florida
League of Cities will support any state action
or legislation designed to reduce the cost of
public construction for local governments in Florida.
I
Exetut
( z :..
2e.R�.
C. Sittig
e Directo
I:i'G1 OFFICIAL PUBLICATION:
�.,SHE FLORIDA MUNICIPAL RECORD
MEMBER: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
ir`N r
MEMORANDUM -
101.01- 17 A
To Mitchell M. Priedman DATE February 29, 1984
Capital Improvements Coordinator
sueJecT Economic Impact of Proposed
Prevailing Wage Ordinance
(FROM Victor J. Monzon-Aguirre, Acting Director
General Services Administration
As requested by the February 15, 1984 memo from the County Manager, this report summarizes the
economic impact of the proposed prevailing wage ordinance on non-residential building projects
currently being managed by GSA Construction Management Division.
The attached tabulation shows the current estimated construction cost of each project and projected
cost increase based on average Net Anticipated Project Cost Increase (see Exhibit C) resulting from
the wage differential between average wages of Open -Shop Contracts and Federal wage determination.
It should be noted that there is no comprehensive reliable source of wage and fringe data for Open -shop
Contracts, or the percentage of labor and material costs on non-residential construction projects (see
Exhibits "A" and "B" for sources of information). <,
The projected increases in the attached tabulation are the direct effect on the construction cost and do
not include the cost increases in the consultant's fee, which is usually a percentage of the construction
cost. Assuming an average A/E fee of 6.5%, we can anticipate a total A/E fee increase of $1,197,428
for the total construction cost increase of $18,421,978 on GSA/CMD managed projects.
For the purpose of this report we made the following assumptions:
1. That this Ordinance will not apply to existing contracts, therefore, all projects
presently under construction are excluded from this analysis.
2. That, as suggested by the proposed Ordinance, projects with estimated construc-
tion cost of less than $50,000.00 will not be affected.
3. That the Ordinance will have no impact on interiors projects for acquisition of
systems furnishings and general office furniture and accessories. Such projects are not
included in this analysis.
The proposed Ordinance adopts the minimum wages and fringe benefits for various classes of laborers,
mechanics and apprentices but does not specifically address the issue of monitoring and enforcement,
which could vary from a simple Certification of Compliance from the General Contractor on a monthly
basis, to a detailed monitoring and enforcement similar to that required by "Davis -Bacon" provisions. If
a Monitoring and Enforcement Program similar to "Davis -Bacon" is adopted, these responsibilities could
be shared by the Affirmative Action Division and GSA/Construction Management Division. The
Affirmative Action Division should perform the same functions as the U.S. Department of Labor,
Regional Office and would keep track of DOL determinations and be responsible for monitoring
compliance, handling complaints, coordinating audits and working with the County Attorney's Office on
cases where litigation may be required. The staffing requirements for Affirmative Action Division
should be supplied by them. GSA Construction Management would require one additional person to
receive payroll records, check for technical compliance, maintain files and supply information to
Affirmative Action Division regarding complaints.
VJMA/DJF/NSJ:eos
Attachments: Tabulation Sheet
Exhibits A, B, & C item! /
Page 1 of 2 on
Matty Hire
City Clerk
--
ASTIMATE OF COST INCREASE FCC
PROJEcT5 MA. .GED BY CONSTRUCTION MANA4tMENT DIVISION
GSA
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
CURREN I LSf11MATED
CONSTRUCTION COSC
COSTINCREASE DUE
TO WAGE ORDINANCE
5202P
Stockade - Pretrial Det. Fac.
$33,400,000
$3,383,420
5501-011
Dade County Jail
10 Fl. Medical Clinic
744,165
75,333
5902-017
Justice Building
2nd Fl. C.Rm. 6 be 9 to Jry.Rms.GSA
191,688
19,226
5902-018
Justice Building
Int. Rm. 703 Jury Pool Ref..
671120
6,799
5902-019
Justice Building - Reroofing
263,741
26,716
7701A003
D.C. Cultural Ctr. Library
360,000
36,468
Childrens Section Div.
7905DO02
MDPD 58th St. Training Ctr.
300,000
30,39U
Adm. Bldg. Addition
7905G
MDPD 58th St. Training Ctr.
In -Service Classr. Center
1,200,000
121,560
7905H
MDPD 58th 5t. Training Ctr.
Firearms Storage
138,819
14,062
7911-007
DGC Central Support Facility
2nd Floor Development
210,000
21,273
8302
MDPD Headquarters Bldg.
24,000,000
2,431,200
8303
8112-002
No. Dade Branch Courts Bldg.
DUC. Open Space Dev.
4,100,000
r
415,330
100,000
�
�, 10,130
Interim Park'g. & Sv. Area
.
U
8112-004
DGC; Open Space Dev.
Flagler Gateway
450,000
45,585
8112-005
DUC: Open Space Dev.
Ceremonial Plaza
2,000,000
-
202,600
8121
Medical Examiners Building
10,350,000
\
1,048,455
8213
y Miami, City of SPU Complex
Mounted K-9 Unit
952,050
j
96,442
-
Protects funded under The Criminal
Justice Bond Issue, the design for which
has not been initiated at this time
103.030,000
10,436.939
TOTALS
$1819857,583
$18,421,978
NOTE:
No cost increase would result for the following projects which due to Federal Grant were
subject to Federal
minimum wage
determinations.
6701BOGI
MDTA Cntrl.Maint. & Repair
Renovations
$570,360
-0-
6701HG01
MDTA Cntrl. Parts Storage
•
Renovations
1,188,100
-0-
8108
Comprehensive Keh. Ctr.
425,000
-0—
TOTALS
$2,183,460
-0-
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WAGE COMPARISON
(Fringe benefits Not Included) * * * *
Open Union Federal % + % +
Trade Shop . Federal Fed. to
Rate * Rate *„ Rate * * To Open Shop Union
BOILERMAKERS 13.00 17.20 17.20 32% + Same
BRICKLAYERS:
Bricklayers, Cement Masons,
Marble Setters, Plasterers,
Stone Masons, Tile and
Terrazzo Workers 12.50 15.20 14.70 18% + 3% -
CARPENTERS do SOFT FL. LAYERS 12.00 13.75 13.75 15% + Same
ELECTRICIANS 14.81 18.45 17.35 17% + 6% -
ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS:
Mechanics 12.00 17.20 15.27 27%.+ 13% -
Helpers 8.00 12.04 11.11 39% + 8% -
IRONWORKER5 12.50 15.15 14.65 17% + 3% -
LABORERS:
Air Tool Operators, Mason
Tenders, Mortar Mixers,
Pipe Layers, Plaster
Tenders 8.75 10.03 8.77 Same 14% -
Unskilled 7.50 9.75 8.67 16% + 12% -
LINEMEN:
Linemen 11.00 17.13 13.37 22% + 28% -
Gi oundmen 7.00 9.94 7.75 11% + 28% -
MILLWRIGHTS 12.50 15.12 15.12 21% + Same
PAINTERS:
Brush 11.00 13.53 12.55 14% + 8% -
Tapers, Paper Hangers 11.55 14.03 12.80 11 % + 10% -
Spray, Sand Blasters 11.00 14.03 13.05 19% + 8% -
PILEDRIVERS 14.10 14.10 Same
PLUMBERS do PIPEFITTERS 15.00 16.56 16.56 10% + Same
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 2�
Open
Union
Federal
% +
% +
Trade
Shop
Rate
Kate
Federal
Fed. to
Rate *
* *
* * *
To Open Shop
Union
POW ER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS:
Group A
12.65
15.70
15.20
20% +
3%-
Group B
12.65
14.58
14.18
12% +
3% -
Group C
12.65
13.46
13.06
3% +
3% -
Group D
9.30
12.34
12.U4
29% +
2`16 -
Group E
9.30
11.11
10.81
16% +
3% -
REFRIGERATION do A/C MECH:
A/C Units 10 Tons +
12.50
19.24
18.49
48% +
A/C Units Over 7.5 Tons
But Under 10 Tons
12.50
14.37
13.81
10% +
ROOFERS:
Slate, Tile, Composition,
Damp do Waterproofers
10.00
13.88
13.88
39% +
Kettlemen
6.00
10.68
10.68
78% +
SHEET METAL WORKERS
13.00
17.99
18.51
42% +
Average gib Increase In Payroll
22.5% +
* Five open shop contractors were
contacted and the highest hourly wage
in each category was used (telephone
survey).
** The union rates were obtained from
the various local union representatives
(telephone survey).
*** The Federal wage rates are from
Supersedeas Decision No. FL 83-1016,
dated April 1, 1983 and modifications
No. 1 through No. 6, the last' dated
November 25, 1983. These rates are
current as of February 23, 1984.
* * * * Fringe benefits were not included in
this study as benefit rates for open
shop contractors widely vary and no
realistic figures could be arrived at.
irto the public
recc rd i,- cconnectio with
item ,--L._ on�� �7
Pfc'4Y Hirai
Pity Clerk
t:XHIBI C A - Page 2 of 2
4`.fi, -
4 `JI6 -
Same
Same
3% -
8% -
r-h
EXHIBIT B
PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT COSTS ATTRIBUTED TO LABOR
In order to calculate the monetary impact of the proposed Prevailing Wage Ordinance, we
contacted seven General Contractors and asked them the percentage of labor and materials in a
typical non-residential building construction project. Their estimate of the percentages are as
follows:
Labor
Materials
Contractor No. 1
55%
45%
Contractor No. 2
60%
40%
Contractor No. 3
55%
45%
Contractor No. 4
60%
40%
Contractor No. 5
60%
40%
Contractor No. 6
55%
45%
Contractor No. 7
55%
45%
Average
57.14%
42.86%
The contacted Contractors all stated that the
percentages for each project would vary greatly, and
that the percentages therefore would be rough.
The CMD staff feels that the information provided by the
Contractors is based on only the portion of
project work completed by these Contractors with their
own forces. Taking into consideration the
work performed by all Subcontractors, we feel
that the
ratio should be closer to 45% for Labor and
55% forMaterial.
; t e:-:1
t s
0
Exhibit B - Page 1 of 1
_ {taar:�r_r
EXHIBIT C
NET ANTICIPATED PROJECT COST INCREASE
The net anticipated project cost impact of the wage ordinance is calculated as follows:
I. Average increase in payroll from Open -Shop contract wage rates to Federal prevailing wage
rates = 22.5%
(See Exhibit A for source of information)
Note: Our analysis reveals that union wages are generally the same as or greater than the
Federal prevailing wages, and therefore, the proposed prevailing wage ordinance will not impact
on the project cost for projects in which the successful bidder is a union contractor.
2. % of project cost expended on labor and materials:
A. 45% for labor
B. 55% for materials
(See Exhibit B for source of information)
3. Net anticipated project cost increase:
.45 X 22.5 = 10.13%
q i I I c
l�, j,ziT
�1/3 J Ate J. J
Exhibit C - Page 1 of 1
Match 16, 1993 s
be Riami 4 eratb
Broward News Section
Chris Cubbison / Editor .
Bruce Giles / Managing Editor
Robert (Bo) Bryan / Advertising Manager
Russ Moore / Circulation Manager
Mailing address: P.O. Bot 14638, Fort Lauderdale 33302
Fort Lauderdale office: 1520 & -Sunrise Blvd. 33304
News: 527-8400. Circulation: 462.3000. Advertising: 527-8940.
South Broward office: $555 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood 33021
News: 987-3244. Circulation: 462-3000. Advertising: 987-3241.
«'eat Broward office: 9341 NW 57th St., Tamarac 33321
News: ; 21-1400. Circulation: 462-3000.4Advertising: 721-1400.
Editarial
The public good
16
requires `no' vote
on prevailing pay
Broward County commissioners today should reject a pro-
posal to require payment of so-called prevailing wages on all
county construction projects. The proposal, while well-inten-
tioned, is ill-conceived and would needlessly drive up the cost of
such projects. The taxpayer, of course, would make up the dif-
'erence.
"Prevailing wages," a misnomer generally interpreted to
mean union scale, is a concept pioneered in the federal Davis -
Bacon Act, enacted in 1931 during the Great Depression to pre-
vent unscrupulous contractors from taking advantage of terrible
economic conditions by paying workers pitifully small wages on
federal projects.
Today, despite difficult economic times. particularly in the
construction industry. Davis -Bacon has turned into something
Congress never intended. According to federal data, the law cov-
ers 600,000 construction contracts worth S43.1billion. A recent
attempt by the Reagan Administration to alter Davis-Bacon's ad-
ministrative rules would have saved federal taxpayers up to
$585 million this year. But organized labor Intervened and so far
has blocked those changes. •
Florida repealed its own prevailing -wage law in 1979, try-
ing to pare its construction costs.
On the county level, Commissioner Howard Forman has
proposed that all county contracts come under the prevailing
wage rule.
Opponents' argument is most persuasive
There are arguments en both sides., j4oponents argue that
the measure would insure quality in constructioq and prevent
contractors from exploiting workers .with low wages. oppo-
nents argue that the rule would prevent true competitive bidding
because nonunion contractors would have to raise their bids to
union levels. They also argue that it would cause co"ctlon _
costs to mushroom. '
The latter argument is the most persuasive. An examination*
of construction wages in Broward bears this out. Union scale for
equipment mechanics, for example,.is $14.85 an hour. The aver,
age going wage for that skill is $6.25. Painters paid the prevail-
ing wage make $10.15 an hour. The average wage is UAL A.
union plumber makes $13.40 an hour, almost double the $7.22
average.
As they examine construction.bids. county officials must in-
sure that nonunion contractors pay workers a' fair wage. The
county must not be a party to exploitation .born of rocky,copdi-
tions in the construction industry. t
The taxpayers, however, cannot be expected to subsidlze
the wages of construction workers through a guaranteed "pre-
vailing wage." The Integrity of competitive bidding must be
maintained.
Commissioners will serve the public best today by voting
no.
Fort Lauderdale News and Sun -Sentinel, Sunday, Mr
WOOL— MOM
Opinion/Ours
County shouldn't gt
to prevailing wage _
"FORMAN'S FOLLY" 19 WHAT to call it. That's the
half-baked scheme of Broward County Commissioner Howard
Forman to give a gold mine to local unions, and to give
the public the shaft.
If Forman's proposed "prevailing wage law" passes, get
ready for a raid on your wallet and your bank account every
year to raise taxes and increase spending to pay for
excessive salaries for workers on county government
construction projects.
The law would require contractors building county
government facilities to pay the federal "prevailing wage" to
construction workers. In most cases, this would mean the
local union wage, sometimes substantially higher than
nonunion wages.
County officials estimate the law could have added up
to a whopping $17 million in extra cost onto the $157 million
in projects now under way and could boost Fort
Lauderdale Airport renovation costs by up to $15 million.
That's money out of your pocket, folks.
Where did this idea come from anyway? Congress
adopted a prevailing wage law called the Davis -Bacon Act in
1931, but it has repeatedly been discredited. The
comptroller general has recommended it be repealed as
unnecessary, inaccurate in measuring wage rates,
impractical to administer and enormously inflationary.
It has forced the federal government to pay much more
than needed for everything it builds. The Labor Department
has estimated more than half a billion could be saved this
year alone. That could be used to cut the deficit or finance _
other vital government projects..
Florida had a prevailing wage law until 1979, when the
Florida Legislature wisely repealed It, incidentally, with the
support of the then county commissioners and many local
city councilmen.
In Broward County, most construction work is done by
the nonunion workers, and the Iocal going wages have found
their own level in the free enterprise system by natural
market forces. An artificial, arbitrary federal index.of what
kind of salaries must be paid locally isn't needed
The prevailing wage law would force contractors to pay
all plumbers or carpenters, for example, the same salary,
instead of paying them according to.their level of skill or
productivity, as is done n6w.
It could also deter some local contractors from bidding
on county construction projects; thus limiting competition.
With the county facing a $27 million revenue shortfall this
year, and taxpayers in no mood foc further increases in
spending or taxation, there is no excuse for county,
commissioners caving in to their -union supporters by
adopting this ill-advised prevailing. wage law. :
Forman is up for election again in 1984. If he: wants to
build his campaign warchest, he ought to do it without,
sending taxpayers the bill.
As Kurt Volker, executive director of the Broward
County League of Cities, says in a memo to commissioners:
"What possible rationale could anyone have, other than
currying the favor of the union vote in the next election, for
wanting to reinitiate such a discriminatory law?"
County Commissioners will -hold a workshop on this
boondoggle at 2 p.m. Wednesday at the county courthouse in
Fort Lauderdale_
r mmissionem ought to be botpbarded with angry
tAitm ifte preffyj guylp.9f Ind ways to
economize and restrain spending d of wastefully
t :ii ) iih
14aliy
tBA The Miami Herald / IrridaX..Ne'v,Y1;1ii83
a tam Heiatb
JOHNS. KNIGHT (189d ID81) : , . JAMB L. KNIGHT, Chair nae Ernertha
t4 ��� •, y r>,'. RICHARD G. CAPEAI, JR» Chnirn,nn and PubfishaY' J�ctu lY.�dt sb� M .fir; kr.
' BEftRLYILtARTER --••• JIMHAMPTON HEATH,;MERIWET'HEg
President and General Manager Editor - Executive Editor
JOANNA WRAGG, Associate Editor PETS WEITZEL. Managing Editor
Prevailir� Wa,ge?`�Nofg
i PREVAILING -WAGE law,,, for clusive arguments on costs. quality, and
r Broward County Is a bad idea. public policy'
�There is,po compelling reason fdt:::," Despite, a six-month study, the county
it.Although, it is a cherished precept of commission has not been able to deter-
l; the union, movement, a prevailing -wage mine. just• how, much a prevailing -wage
law Is an idea whose time is long past. law..would cost.. County Administrator
The Broward County Commission will • Floyd Johnson reported that he found all
hold a public hearing next Thursday on 9arguments for and against such an ordi-
proposed . ordinance•• requiring all, con- , nance "speculative and not definitive." '
' 'set
tractors on major county projects to pay''; One of statistics does stand out. Of
a prevailing wage as set by the U.S. De-" the last,. 13 major county contracts '
partment of Labor. This would-be simi=, awarded.- non -union companies were
lar to the Davis -Bacon Act, passed in, low bidders on 10 and second low bid-
1931 to protect workers from exploita: • ders on all 13. :.•.,•.,• _
tive employers. r ; r :, .. , ,:-,; tt . It is certainly worth noting that union
The prevailing -wage formula previ• 1 contractors. are building most of two
ously had meant that workers were paid major projects — the county main h-
close to union scale. Under the Reagan-, brary and the jail. Those contracts were
Administration. the formula was rewrit-- won through open bidding, proving that
. ten so that it now is closer to the aver union labor can be price -competitive.
age wages of an area. ''' That being so. why mandate a wage
' Unions' argue'that such a law would floor? Why not let the free market prove
protect local "workers . by ;discouraging-" union claims of quality and economy?...-.
• q Y Y.. `
r..... J ,. ,.l L . a ,:
companies , from hiring'; cheaper, and mot' '"'�+c"'"� 's t ` ; ` " '
f' Tess-tralneil translenfs.' They alsot`" n "to o rQommissioner-.Howard Forman,; who
'that
-- • _ �� ' t ,*•' ,cProposed the. ordinance. concedes,
tjiat prebaltieg'wages wau�d not' '
the law might • make construction' pro-
taxpayers verymuch. because;. union •• .
workers, • or.•, at the least : better -paid - jects a little more costly, but he says that
` -' '' it Kt would provide stability to the econo-
workers. are more productive `,, ,' �`.' :
�� my;;, There., is, however, no proof that
The unions have garnereda great deal''=
more local-. workers would' be hired
of support from_ major Democratic fig- under the law, There is merely hope.. ► :
110
ures, and they may well have the majori-,
'Absent
�b
4
ty sewed up on the county commisslon.'_ any clear evidence that the
— -
:<he k
However, they and opponents among prevailing -wage ordinance will be m red
building
the contractors and real-estate than expensive cosmetics, the c�zs-
interests — have not put together con- sion should reject•it: 1
jec,
�1e
'
items
G 1t4
.w s� fi �� i• 7r
' Fort Lauderdale N
I - , aura, Tuesday, June 5, 1984 •39
Preva"'i in
wage
law -
hehhed-boost
Cos
t of
��.. Iasi$ y
at-romw-uan
L
By ,Diane M. Goldie keep6 '' .
jobs in'Broward County." i the four portables added to existing units at the
$"« ^"' Approved by county commissioners amid a1 Pompano Beach Detention Center will be filled.
SrowaW County'$ prevailing -wage ordinance , Whirl of controversy.last November, the prevail-! with inmates within 90 days, Mrs. Grossman said.
has boosted by $54,V00,2ht price of adding fou- :ing wagi is ,a'federal stapdard for salaries on; y '
portable jails fa the Pompano Beach Detention'.�rdntriiction"jobs 'tostiAg' {he, county more than Contractors, Relocatable Confinement Facili-
Penter. ; . �+ 1•$250,00po;4kis._seb Eby:thg .EJ,S Department oft ties Co. of California will build the portables,
The ;project; initially ticketed. at�$1.4 million Labor .and; is ,based :oa,� vf}at1.50 percent of the Although i the prevailing wage contributed to
and now estimated'at $1.8 nfi% b,Ys intended tp. _ locale,- m a partlCulai trade earn in a certain } cost increases, Mrs. Grossman is convinced the
provide beds for,96 inmates and relieve existing • -, p' : ;ti Y''�~``� �M'' i measure will force contractors to hire Brocdard
county, jails of, overerowding�•;.• T The ul�, U'1 4s400,Od0 increase stems from a + County residents, .
boost Vtonstrtiction costs, .said Ray Carson, J Construction of the portables satisfies a court -
Of the $400,00 hxTease, $54,000 can be attrib- director of the cool t 's ur meat and Facilities'♦ imposed deadline to alleviate overcrowding at
4.Y_ F9 .Q
uted to the ,prevailing -wage ordinance, County Management * iv4ion. • .
Commission 'Chairman Nicki Grossman said He explained.fftat lnitiaf estimates were "low yearcounly fails until an 840-bed facility opens next
Monday after a be.gotiating .session with,,, and very.rough;'Agd thattheitate has demanded t "We want to make sure our commitment to
contractors. larger dayrooms andliathroom areas, which in-; [U.S. District] Judge [William] Hoeveler is up -
"I'm not sorry I supported the prevailing creased the cost.
wage," Mrs. Grossman said. "I am sorry it is The commission is expected to vote on the hi 1 well rwithis. e he reasonable amounsman said. The $400,00ot wee
eex-
costing more, but I'm not sorry we are able to contract at its June 12 meeting. If it is approved, pected to spend."
recut, •a i:. _ .., : � t . ; �� c�,� i t
item
lcrk
14A N ' Sun -Sentinel, Friday, June 8, 1984
Editorials
Costs of prevailing wage
an outrage to taxpayers
BROWARD COUNTY taxpayers ought
to be screaming in outrage at County Com-
missioner Nicki Grossman's report that
the county's prevailing wage law has
forced the price of building four new porta-
ble jail cells up by $54,000.
The law requires that contractors bid-
ding on Broward government facilities
worth over $250,000 must pay the federal
prevailing age to all construction workers.
That prevailing wage level is often the
same as or nearly the same as the local
union wage, averaging as much as 33 per-
cent higher than local nonunion wages.
Mrs. Grossman showed total contempt
for the people who pay her salary and will
foot the unnecessary $54,000 bill when she
said, "I'm not sorry I supported the pre-
vailing wage. I am sorry it's costing more,
but I'm not sorry we are able to keep jobs
in Broward County."
That line about keeping jobs in Broward
County is as phony as Mrs. Grossman's
crocodile tears over the higher cost. In
Broward, the problem of non -local labor is
almost nonexistent. Local employees held
the vast majority of county construction
jobs long before the wage law was passed,
and continue to do so.
The main "value" of the prevailing wage
law is to artificially boost salaries above
what free-market competition would set,
to stifle competition from non -union con-
tractors, to impose union pay scales on
non -union businesses and to increase the
likelihood that union contractors will nab
contracts at prices far higher than taxpay-
ers ought to have to pay.
The other "benefit" of this unreasonable,
unnecessary, unfair and recklessly expen-
sive law is to reward unions for their previ-
ous political and financial, support of
county commissioners.
Only two county commissioners voted
against prevailing age: Marcia Beach and
Gerald Thompson. Jack Fried was absent
for the vote.
Remember the names of the commis-
sioners responsible for approving the pre-
vailing wage law:'Nicki Grossman, Scott
Cowan, Howard Forman and Howard
Craft. Forman and Craft will be up for
election this November. Voters should re-
member their views on prevailing wages
in deciding which candidates to support.
This sock -the -taxpayer boondoggle is an
unlimited raid on the public treasury. The
financial pain caused by this law, in terms
of higher -than -needed costs for county con-
struction projects, tax rates and county
budgets, is certain to get worse every year.
It must be repealed.
Broward voters don't have to wait on
commissioners changing their minds to get
this bad law overturned. They can sign
petitions in support of repeal now being
circulated by the Gold Coast Free Enter-
prise Coalition Political Committee. If
36,000 voters sign by August, a voters ref-
erendum on repeal will have to be held.
..� Yu.. w • Y 7i ... - 4 - . .
TOMW
i
BY THE COMPTROLLER GENPRAL
Report To The Conare
' OF THE UNITED STATES 9)
, G
The Mavis -Bacon Act
Should Be Repealed
The Congree- ould repeal the act because:
..Significant changes in economic con•
ditions. and the economic character of
the construction industry since 1931.
plus the pasjge of other wage laws,
make the ect unnecessary.
..After nearly 50 years. the Department
r of Labor has not developed an effect•
ive program to izue and maintain
current and accurate wage determin•
_ ations; it may be impractical to ever
r do so.
--The act results in unnecessary con•
struetion and administrative costs of
I•'''' several hundred million dollars annu•
ally (if the construction projects
reviewed by GAO are representative)
and has an inflationary effect on the
areas covered by inaccurate wage rates
anti the eccnomy as a whole.
�'. Q tr Submif Lle d i::to Vie i_. ublic
^• T � � , ram} �. z a�..;: record in conic . tio�� h
�vit r.
t'•'r �' �;,' " item o'i 9�
CSC �`!.V HRD•79.18 (.
coLN Mat`y Hirai aPaft. z7. t97a t
CifY Clerk
E:
__' _— ___ _ �. �.` �rW:i'r�:�_tr�' r►-s'1�t:_"..U•�•�. �_ ...._ mil•' - �... _ _. _ • .�:� _. _ � t..... _ _ ..
8-43
Vt.
00%
''y
while GAO's selection of the 30 projects was
made on a random sample basis, the sample size
was insufficient for projecting the results to
' all Federal or federally assisted construc-
tion costs during the year with statistical
validity. However, even in the absence of
statistical certainty, the random nature of
GAO's sample leads it to believe that, if
these projects are representative (and GAO
has no reason to believe they are not), the
act results in unnecessary construction
costs of several hundred million dollars
annually. (See pp. 77 and 78.)
The inflated wage costs may have had the most
adverse effect on the local contractors and
their workers --those the act was intended to
protect --by promoting the use of nonlocal
contractors on Federal projects. Nonlocal
;t contractors worked on the majority of these
projects, indicating that the higher rates
may have discouraged local contractors from
bidding.
In the 18 projects where Labor's rates were
lower than those prevailing locally, local
contractors were generally awarded the
contracts. They generally paid workers
the prevailing rates in the community --higher
rates than those stipulated by Labor. Thus,
the act's intent --to maintain the local pre-
vailing wage structure --is carried out.oniy
+� when the administration of the act has no
effect.
In addition, the act and a related weekly
payroll reporting requirement of the Copeland
Anti -Kickback Act result in unnecessary con-
tractor costs --which are passed on to the
Government --estimated at almost $191.6 mil-
lion for 1076 and $189.1 million for 1977.
In addition, estimated unnecessary costs of
$10.9 million in 1976 and 512.4 million in
1977 were incurred by Federal agencies to
attempt to administer and enforce the act.
(See ch. 6.)
ifell
IV
it `y' .E i .
8-48
' '> t � raid _ �' .—" :'r; j. � � � ai k�i "� ►.r� i . a �ye
i
•, , iYET
�i
F
PRESIDENT'S,
PRIVATE SECTOR SURVEY
ON COST CONTROL
' MANAGEMENT OFFICE SELECTED ISSUES
VOLUME IV
WAGE SETTING LAWS:
z IMPACT ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR
CONSIDERATION AT ITS MEETING ON DECEMBER A. 1983
i
EXECUTIVE -SUMMARY
The Task Force conducted an extensive analysis of the
major Federal prevailing wage laws: the Davis -bacon Act
(1931)# the Walsh -Healey Act (1936)# and the Service Con-
tract Act (1965).
The purpose of our analysis was to determine:
o the cost impact of these laws# if any# to the
Federal Government and private contractors;
o the burden to the Government and contractors in
administering and complying with the laws;
o whether the laws# with their implementing regula-
tions# were or are capable of being effectively
and fairly administered; and
o assuming negative conclusions to the preceding
points# whether there were nevertheless adequate
reasons to continue to apply these laws.
The Task Force found that all three Federal prevailing
wage laws:
o significantly increase the cost -of Government in
the aggregate within a range of $2.17 billion to
$4.86 billion annually, or Ln average of $3.52
billion a year. The savings to the Federal
Government over three years# without these laws#
would be $11.65 billion.
o impose significant administrative burdens on both
Government and private contractors;
o are incapable of being fairly and effectively
administered; and
o are not supported by other reasons sufficient to
justify their continued application.
The Task Force recommends that the Davis -Bacon Act#
the Walsh -Healey Act# and the Service Contract Act be re-
pealed.
LLTheDavis-Bacon Act
The Davis -Bacon Act* MEJAFVs ioMotPeV Federal
reco=d La connecticii w::'-i
iteL46= oz 9
Matty Hirai
City Clerk
-
MEMORANDUM
107.07 - 17 A
TO Mitchell 11. Friedman DATE February 29, 1984
Capital Improvements Coordinator
sueJEcr Economic Impact of Proposed
Prevailing Wage Ordinance
FROM Victor J. Monzon-Aguirre, Acting Director
General Services Administration
As requested by the February 15, 1984 memo from the County Manager, this report summarizes the
economic impact of the proposed prevailing wage ordinance on non-residential building projects
currently beine managed by GSA Construction Manaeement Division.
The attached tabulation shows the current estimated construction cost of each project and projected
cost increase based on average Net Anticipated Project Cost Increase (see Exhibit C) resulting from
the wage differential between average wages of Open -Shop Contracts and Federal wage determination.
It should be noted that there is no comprehensive reliable source of wage and fringe data for Open -shop
Contracts, or the percentage of labor and material costs on non-residential construction projects (see
Exhibits "A" and "B" for sources of information).
The projected increases in the attached tabulation are the direct effect on the construction cost and do
not include the cost increases in the consultant's fee, which is usually a percentage of the construction
cost. Assuming an average A/E fee of 6.5%, we can anticipate a total A/E fee increase of $1,197,421
for the total construction cost increase of $18,421,978 on GSA/C,MD managed projects.
For the purpose of this report we made the following assumptions:
1. That this Ordinance will not apply to existing contracts, therefore, all projects
presently under construction are excluded from this analysis.
2. That, as suggested by the proposed Ordinance, projects with estimated construc-
tion cost of less than $50,000.00 will not be affected.
3. That the Ordinance will have no impact on interiors projects for acquisition of
systems furnishings and generalof f ice furniture and accessories. Such projects are not
included in this analysis.
The proposed Ordinance adopts the minimum wages and fringe benefits for various classes of laborers,
mechanics and apprentices but does not specifically address the issue of monitoring and enforcement,
which could vary from a simple Certification of Compliance from the General Contractor on a monthly
basis, to a detailed monitoring and enforcement similar to that required by "Davis -Bacon" provisions. If
a Monitoring and Enforcement Program similar to "Davis -Bacon" is adopted, these responsibilities could
be shared by the Affirmative Action Division and GSA/Construction Management Division. The
Affirmative Action Division should perform the same functions as the U.S. Department of Labor,
Regional Office and would keep track of DOL determinations and be responsible for monitoring
compliance, handling complaints, coordinating audits and working with the County Attorney's Office on
cases where litigation may be required. The staffing requirements for .Affirmative Action Division
should be supplied by them. GSA Construction Management would require one additional person to
receive payroll records, check for technical compliance, maintain files and supply information to
Affirmative Action Division regarding complaints.
VJMA/DJF/NSJ:eos
Attachments: Tabulation Sheet
Exhibits A, B, A C
Page 1 of 2 /
- - - - - - Z 211,
'TIMATE OF COST INCREASE FO.
PROJECTS MANAGED BY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DIVISION
GSA
PROJECT NAME
CURREN 1 LSTEMATED
COS I
INCREASE DUE
PROJECT NO.
CONS] RUCTION COS I
TO WAGE ORDINANCE
52021'
Stockade - Pretrial Det. Fac.
533,400,000
53,383.'1420
5501-011
Dade County Jail
10 F1. Medical Clinic
744,165
75,363
5902-017
Justice Building
2nd F1. C.Rm. 6 be 9 to Jry.Rms.GSA
191,688
1y,226
5902-018
Justice Building
Int. Rm. 703 Jury Pool Ref.
67,120
6,71)9
5902-019
Justice Building - Reroofing
263,741
26,716
7701A003
D.C. Cultural Ctr. Library
Childrens Section Div.
360,000
36,468
7905DO02
%1DPD 58th St. Training Ctr.
Adm. Bldg. Addition
300,000
30,39U
7905G
MDPD 58th St. Training Ctr.
In -Service Classr. Center
1,200,000
121,560
7905H
MDPD 58th St. Training Ctr.
Firearms Storage
138,819
14,062
7911-007
DGC: Central Support Facility
2nd Floor Development
210,000
21,273
8302
ML)PD Headquarters Bldg.
24,000,000
2,431.200
8303
No. Dade Branch Courts Bldg.
4,100,000
415,330
8112-002
DC;C: Open Space Dev.
Interim Park'g. & Sv. Area
100,000
10,130
8112-004
DGC: Open Space Dev.
Flagler Gateway
450,000
45,585
8112-005
DGC: Open Space Dev.
Ceremonial Plaza
2,000,000
202,600
8121
Medical Examiners Building
10,350,000
1,048,455
8213
City of Miami, SPU Complex
Mounted K-9 Unit
952,050
96,442
-
Projects funded under The Criminal
Justice Bond Issue, the design for which
has not been initiated at this time
103.030.000
10.436.939
TOTALS
$131,857,583
13,421,978
NOTE:
-
\
No cost increase
would result for the following projects
which due to Federal Grant,re
subject to Federal
minimum wage determinations.
V�
6701B001
MDTA Cntrl.Nlaint. & Repair
Renovations
5570,360
-0-
6701H001
MDTA Cntrl. Parts Storage
Renovations
1,188,100
-0-
8108
Comprehensive Reh. Ctr.
425.000
-0-
TOTALS $2,133,460 -0-
Page 2 of 2
OR
. s.
Trade
EXHIBIT A
NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WAGE COMPARISON
(Fringe Benefits Not Included) * * * *
Open
Shop .
Rate
BOILERMAKERS
13.00
BRICKLAYERS:
Bricklayers, Cement ,Masons,
Marble Setters, Plasterers,
StoneMasons, Tile and
Terrazzo Workers
12.50
CARPENTERS & SOFT FL. LAYERS 12.00
ELECTRICIANS
14.81
ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS:
Mechanics
12.00
Helpers
8.00
IRONWORKERS
12.50
LABORERS:
Air Tool Operators, Mason
Tenders, Mortar I'vlirers,
Pipe Layers, Plaster
Tenders
8.75
Unskilled
7.50
LINEMEN:
Linemen
11.00
Groundmen
7.00
MILLWRIGHTS
12.50
PAINTERS:
Union
Rate
17.20
Federal % 1
* *,� Federal
Rate
To Open Shop
17.20
32% +
% 4-
Fed. to
Union
Same
15.20
14.70
18',46 +
3% -
13.75
13.75
15% +
Same
18.45
17.35
17% +
6% -
17.20
15.27
27%•+
13% -
12.04
11.11
39% +
8% -
15.15
14.65
17% +
3% -
10.03
8.77
Same
14% -
9.75
8.67
16% +
12% -
17.13
13.37
22% +
28% -
9.94
7.75
11% +
28% -
15.12
15.12
21% +
Same
Brush
11.00
13.53
12.55
14% +
Tapers, Paper Hangers
11.55
14.03
12.80
11% +
Spray, Sand Blasters
11.00
14.03
13.05
19% +
PILEDRIVERS
14.10
14.10
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS
15.00
16.56`uhT"`{''-l`G.�6=
'"_jIIL�G6 +
�«4/w �
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 2
!�w.: y Hi -ai
8% -
10% -
8% -
Same
Same
Open Union Federal % + % +
Trade Shop Pate hate Federal Fed, to
Rate * * * * * * To Open Shop Union
POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS:
Group A
12.65
Group B
12.65
Group C
12.65
Group D
9.30
Group E
9.30
REFRIGERATION & A/C MECH:
A/C Units 10 Tons +
12.50
A/C Units Over 7.5 Tons
But Under 10 Tons
12.50
ROOFERS:
Slate, Tile, Composition.
Damp do W aterproofers
10.00
Kettlemen
6.00
SHEET METAL WORKERS
13.00
* Five open shop contractors were
contacted and the highest hourly wage
in each category was used (telephone
survey).
** The union rates were obtained from
the various local union representatives
(telephone survey).
*** The Federal wage rates are from
Supersedeas Decision No. FL 83-1016,
dated April 1, 1983 and modifications
No. 1 through No. 6, the last' dated
November 25, 1983. These rates are
current as of February 23, 1984.
* * * * Fringe benefits were not included in
this study as benefit rates for open
shop contractors widely vary and no
realistic figures could be arrived at.
15.70
15.20
20`.b +
3% -
14.58
14.18
12% +
3`b -
13.46
13.U6
3% +
3% -
12.34
12.U4
29% +
2ub -
11.11
10.81
16% +
3�, -
19.24
18.49
48% +
4% -
14.37
13.81
10% +
4 ;+6 -
13.88 13.88 39% +
10.68 10.68 78% +
17.99 18.51 42% +
Average % Increase In Payroll 22.5% +
EXHIBI f A - Page 2 of 2
Same
Same
3% -
8% -
C
EXHIBIT B
PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT COSTS ATTRIBUTED TO LABOR
In order to calculate the monetary impact of the proposed Prevailing Wage Ordinance, we
contacted seven General Contractors and asked them the percentage of labor and materials in a
typical non-residential building construction project. Their estimate of the percentages are as
follows:
Labor
viaterials
Contractor No. 1
55`v
45%
Contractor No. 2
60%
40`
Contractor No. 3
55%
45%
Contractor No. 4 60116 4096
Contractor No. 5 603 40%
Contractor No. 6 55% 45`'v
Contractor No. 7 55% 45%
Average 57.14% 42.86`'b
The contacted Contractors all stated that the percentages for each project would vary greatly, and
that the percentages therefore would be rough.
The CMD staff feels that the information provided by the Contractors is based on only the portion of
project work completed by these Contractors with their own forces. Taking into consideration the
work performed by all Subcontractors, we feel that the ratio should be closer to 45% for Labor and
55% for Material.
77-&/ WdIl
Exhibit B - Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C
NET ANTICIPATED PROJECT COST INCREASE
The net anticipated project cost impact of the wage ordinance is calculated as follows:
I. Average increase in payroll from Open -Shop contract wage rates to Federal prevailing wage
rates = 22.5%
(See Exhibit A for source of information)
Note: Our analysis reveals that union wages are generally the same as or greater than the
Federal prevailing wages, and therefore, the proposed prevailing wage ordinance will not impact
on the project cost for projects in which the successful bidder is a union contractor.
2. % of project cost expended on labor and materials:
A. 45% for labor
B. 55% for materials
(See Exhibit B for source of information)
3. Net anticipated project cost increase:
.45 X 22.5 = 10.13%
SLb:___.;�-...
y
item C., 9
i. Tatty Hirai
City Clerk
0
Exhibit C - Page I of 1
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA 73
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honolb Mayor and
Memb rs/of the City Commission
�4°M Luc' a A. Do gherty
Cit Attorn
DATE
SUBJECT
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES
August 24, 1987 'ILE
Proposed Ordinance
Pursuant to the Commission's request of July 23, 1987, this
office prepared four Ordinances relative to construction
contracts affecting the City of Miami. The Ordinances
transmitted herewith for first reading at the September 8, 1987,
City Commission meeting are as follows:
1. J-87-745-Establishes a rate of wages and
fringe benefit payments for all laborers,
mechanics, and apprentices in accordance with
the rates and payments for similar
classifications as set forth in the Federal
Register.
2. J-87-746-Requires contractors to establish
and administer a medical insurance plan for
their laborers, mechanics and apprentices
with employee cash contributions or by
posting a bond.
3. J-87-747-Requires the use of Dade County
residents as laborers, mechanics, or
apprentices.
4. J-87-773-Requires the owners of minority or
women owned business enterprises to be
certified in the construction field for which
a contract is to be let in order to receive
the minority or women preference on such
contract.
LAD/1GVadr
73 -- /
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE WEM00RAWDUb1
To r. Zti
Honorable Mayor and Members " Q C vb 1987
of the City Commission
FROM
Cesar Odio
City Manager
Study on Prevailing
• •Waage Rates
RErLRENCES
ENCL OSLIP! S
Enclosed for your information please find a study on the proposed
City of Miami Prevailing Wage Rates Ordinance, which was passed
on first reading at the City Commission meeting held on September
8, 1987.
Enclosure
I.
City of Miami
Study of Prevailing Wage Rates
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Congress enacted the Davis -Bacon Act
1931, to protect local construction firms
underbid on federally -funded projects and to
nation economy by putting more money into
pockets at a time when the country was in the
Great Depression. The law required payment of
wages" to workers on federal construction
Subsequently, most of the States adopted simil;
wage laws, including Florida.
DEFINITION OF TERMS:
Prevailing Wages
on March 3,
from being
bolster the
the worker's
midst of the
"prevailing
1 contracts.
it prevailing
In general, prevailing wage laws require contractors
performing construction work to maintain minimum rates
of pay for certain employees. The minimum wage rates
are set by the U. S. Secretary of Labor - or by a
designated administrator in the case of the state and
local laws - to be the wage rates that prevail for
similar workers performing similar work on projects of
a similar nature in the locality where the contracted
work is to be performed.
If 50% of any job classification is found to be
receiving the identical wage, that wage is determined
to prevail. Otherwise, the weighted average of wages
paid total employees of each job classification is
determined to prevail. For more detailed information on
the process for Prevailing Wage Rates determination by
the U.S. Department of Labor see Attachment I.
H. PREVAILING WAGE RULES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
In 1979, the Florida Legislature repealed the Prevailing
Wage law which authorized prevailing wage rates on state
contracts for building and certain bridge construction and
repair. Since its repeal, a prevailing wage rule has been
adopted by a number of public sector entities; Broward
County, Sunrise, Lauderhill, and the Port Everglades
Authority. As far as Dade County, technically it still has
an ordinance setting prevailing wages (keyed to the old
Florida Prevailing Wage Law), but the Dade County's
Attorney has issued a written opinion indicating that said
Ordinance is no longer applicable and, therefore, is not
being enforced by the County.
Broward County
In 1983, Broward County imposed a local prevailing wage
law on county projects of more than $250,000.
Sunrise, Lauderhill, and Port Everglades Authority
Even through these three
prevailing wage rule in
enforcing it, according
recently.
City of Miami Beach
(3) public entities have a
effect, they have not been
to officials contacted
On July 19, 1986, the City of Miami Beach passed an
Ordinance establishing the prevailing wage of rates and
fringe benefits, as established by the Federal
Register, for all laborers, machinists, and apprentices
employed by any contractor or subcontractor covered by
construction contracts to which the City of Miami Beach
is a party. The Commission also established that same
Ordinance applies to every construction contract in
excess of $500,000.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PREVAILING WAGES ON CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
Due to difficulties experienced in gathering pertinent
data, which has not been readily available, and time
limitations, it has been materially impossible to exaust
all available sources of information. However, this study
appears to be representative of what is available on the
subject.
Federal
It should be noted that in August, 1987, the U. S.
Department of Justice sided with the U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development in a long -running
dispute with the U.S Department of Labor in terms of
denying Davis -Bacon Act wages in privately funded
construction projects receiving federal grants when the
federal funds are used for purposes other than actual
construction work. In this light, Davis -Bacon does not
apply to projects with federally financed purchases of
land equipment, design fees or demolition.
U.S. HUD Secretary, Samuel R. Pierce Jr.,
U. S. HUD Secretary, Samuel R. Pierce Jr.,
recently stated, that "Costs can now be cut by as
much as 20% to 25%..." He added "This opinion (by
the U. S. Justice Department) has a major impact
-2-
on reducing costs in these projects, some of which
were not economically feasible when prevailing
wages were required on the whole construction
project". (See Attachment II)
General Accounting Office
In 1983, the General Accounting Office recommended
the repeal of the Davis -Bacon Act on ground that
its administration entailed several inherent
problems; it was inflationary to the government;
and existing data sources do not warrant accurate
determination of wage rates and its development
would be very costly. (See Attachment III)
FLORIDA
Broward County
In 1983, Broward County imposed a local prevailing wage
law on County projects of more than $250,000. One of
the initial fiscal impact projections for this law
called for a 2% average increase in total construction
costs; however, its actual implementation has raised
such initial projections to approximately 15% percent.
(See Attachment IV)
Dade County
In 1987, the Dade County Commission rejected adopting a
local prevailing wage rule when it learned that the
charge would have increased the county's construction
costs by $60 million over a period of six (6) years.
(See Attachment V)
Florida State School Board Association
At the state level, prior to repealing the entire act,
the Florida legislature had experimented with the
effect of eliminating prevailing wage rates coverage by
dropping it for school construction. In 1978, when a
legislative attempt was made to reinstate the school
coverage, the Florida State School Board Association
surveyed its districts and found that in the period of
1974 - 1978, taxpayers saved approximately $32 million
or 15 percent (15%) of the total construction cost of
$206 million. This in turn has permitted much more
construction in 19 school districts and resulted in
more jobs for the state construction industry. (See
Attachment VI)
-3-
I A
City of Miami/Public Works Department
Research analysis conducted by the City of Miami Public
Works Department indicates that officials from other
State of Florida cities who were contacted in reference
to prevailing wages, did not have a valid study of the
impact of wage rate implementation on their
construction costs. In this sense, no two projects are
exactly alike since there are a number of variables
that normally affect costs to a great extent; namely,
soil conditions, materials, categories of trades, etc.
However it should be pointed out that the Department of
Public Works has been able to determine, through
personal contacts with eleven (11) local contractors
who have been are presently involved in City projects,
that three (3) of them use union labor thereby
reporting no effect in their labor costs by the use of
federally mandated wage rates; the remaining eight (8),
who do not use union labor, report a median increase of
seventeen percent (17%) in their project costs as a
result of applying Prevailing Wage Rates, see
attachment VII.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the current available data, the analysis conducted
by the City of Miami Public Works Department, and a number
of personal contacts made with private contractors, it is
estimated that if the proposed Prevailing Wage Rates
Ordinance is passed by the City Commission, the economic
impact on City construction projects will range between 15%
and 20% in additional costs. Taking into consideration the
total cost of construction projects budgeted by the City of
Miami Public Works Department for the current fiscal year
1987-88, which amounts to $44 million dollars, and the
estimated additional costs generated by the implementation
of prevailing wage rates, the fiscal impact of this action
would fluctuate between $6.6 and $8.9 million dollars. (See
Attachment VIII)
It should be noted that union pay scale rates show a
clear,distinctive tendency to eventually become prevailing
wage rates inasmuch as, by and large, only union
contractors respond to the construction surveys conducted
by the U.S. Department of Labor to determine said rates.
Generally speaking, it can be inferred that private
contractors have serious reservations when asked to answer
construction surveys. Therefore, non -unionized private
contractor are usually not taken into account when
construction surveys are conducted for a particular
locality. In the case of Dade County, SMSA, the majority of
local construction firms operating in the area are not
unionized. Consequently, the City of Miami has requested
-4-
01
from the U.S. Department of Labor a cons" -.ruction survey for
the area to determine the Prevailing Wage Rates for future
federally financed construction projects funded ty the U.
S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As of the
date of this report, the Department of Labor has yet to
perform such requested survey, and it has not been possible
to ascertain the last date, that any survey has ever been
performed in the Dade County SMSA. (See Attachment IX and
X)
-5-
ATTACHMENT I
PREVAILING WAGE DETERMINATION
The U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), Atlanta Region is
responsible in conducting prevailing wages revisions.
A wage survey preparatory to determining new Prevailing Wages for
Dade County is not automatic, new wage determinations are
dependent on how much pressure is applied by contractor -type
organizations, counties and cities for such a change, and the
submission by those organizations of adequate wage data to
support their claim that Prevailing Wage determinations should be
revised.
Once a decision has been made to conduct a wage survey the
following steps are followed:
1. The USDOL is required by regulation to advise all
international unions and all contractor associations that a
wage analysis is forthcoming.
2. The USDOL must also notify the local offices of all unions
and contractor associations.
3. The USDOL will pull all Dodge Reports for the area, look at
the amount of construction going on, and make a decision as
to whether to survey data for one year, the last six months,
last three months or just current construction will be taken
into consideration for such an analysis.
4. The USDOL sends an inquiry for wage data to all the general
contractors with projects listed in the Dodge Report, and
also requests that the general contractors submit a list of
subcontractors on the project, and a list of jobs the
contractor has which are not listed in the Dodge Report. If
the contractor is not shown for a project in the Dodge
Report, USDOL sends the same inquiry to the owner or the
architect. Based on the responses from the contractors,
USDOL sends similar inquiries to the subcontractors.
5. Responses to these inquiries are entirely voluntary. As a
general rule, 50% of the inquiries for wage data are "trash
canned" by the recipients; another 25% on follow-up indicate
minimal interest on the part of the recipients; and the
remaining 25% are responded to. Of the responses received
by USDOL, some provide wage data and some indicate they do
not desire to reveal their wage data.
6. The USDOL then reviews the data received and decides what to
do with it. After reviewing all the relevant factors to
include the total amount of construction in the area and the
number and nature of the responses received, a "judgement
Z
call" is made as to whether sufficient data has been
provided. If such is not the case, follow-on efforts
continue until- sufficient voluntary data has been received.
Once a wage survey has been started, USDOL will very seldom
cancel the effort; rather, it normally continues these
follow-on efforts until sufficient data is available
irrespective of how long it takes.
7. After making a "judgement call" that sufficient data has
been received, USDOL arrays the data by project using the
wage data for the one week in which each responder had the
most labor employed on the project. it segregates this data
by job classification and the related wages paid.
B. If 50% of any job classification is found to be receiving
the identical wage, that wage is determined to prevail.
Otherwise, the weighted average of wages paid to all
employees of each job classification is determined to
prevail.
Source: Yow D. Harold, Director of Purchasing. General
Information for Public Hearing on Proposed Prevail g
Wage Ordinance. Broward County, Florida. 1983
ATTACHMENT I_I
VAR Management & Labor all
Wage law nipped back
on NUS grant projects
i'ttcatcfc fitnrlyd cnncttnttvnn ptnlrttc
that ►ctcicr tnme frrlrral Rrants air stilt
covered by the Dmi-t.Ratnn Art when
the federal fund, arc used for "ctift
cnct,." the Derr of +ucttre caul Ia%1
%erk. •tile drpattment titled with the
Dept of lints%ing and ('than 11mrinp.
mrni in a itu►g-mmniury di,pmte with the
((reef of Iahnr dial thrrairnrd tnanv
ref c%'rInpment prnµ•(tc
Until now, frdrtal aFrncic% ha%r rr-
hed no tire Iahnr Dept c tstt( rirretalinrt%
of whrn the federal pte%atlinRPwaRr law
apncc% to con,tnu Linn pmlrcts. file
Fight between file I al)nt ilrp( anti tit-i►
began in Jult 1995, whrn 1hrn-De(►utv
Under Secrrian of Labor Susan R (�1ri.
singer pre,ented huildtng trade uninn%
with the dr(►artmrnt'% interi►retatinn of
how Davie-jtacon rrrlttir(•ntents mesllyd
with the fintitin and Commilnity Dr-
velnpment Art of 1971 (11(:I1A). ltndrr
that law, 11111) is amborved to is%ur
Commmnity De%rinl,mcnt Block Grant%
and Urban DrveInpmrnt Ar-
tinn Crant% (ttt►AG40 " fnr the develop-
ment of viable urhan cnmmunitir%."
Dispute. hickinget %aid that Davis-11a-
con wni ld apply to olhenvi%e pn.%ale
jnh, receiving %ttch grantc even 1f they
were u%rd for nnnronunution arinmrc,
a, long ac the activitir% were "integrally
and prnximateh• rchtcrl to Ilia( ron-
%inrcnnn." Acrorrling In Mrisingrr, a
1 tt m-funded land ptrrchace, for exam-
ple, wnuld trigger Davit -Raclin coverage
of the entire project herause "tire con-
%inirtion wntdd have been impmrihle
without the prior federally financed pur-
cha,e of the land."
MID disagreed, however, arRrting that
Davie -Baron should apply only when
federal Gmd% actually were aced fnr
constniction because (he part of II(:nA
covering Davis -Bacon requirements only
addresses "construction work."
Last week', memorandum by A,.si%-
tant Atromey General Charlr, j. Con er
was even more ,weeping than either
tit m nr Labor officials antic tpated. Con -
per %aid stilt only that fe(leralty financed
land purchases do not art as a trigger
for Davis -Bacon coverage, hilt neither
would expenditures for equipment, de-
sign fees or demolition. Cooper noted
char rntic trrtrtum rnnt[If mrrttc of a rrnj•
et t "hrnc-Nictl tndur(th" It% file grant%
hcnwt c ihrc "trdtlte the total amnrtnt
of nonfrdrral fund, nrrdrd in finance
the ptnjrr t •' Bill he rxhhlatnrd that Da.
%i% Rat nn rid not all Iv hccame "the
oprrame language" nt Ilt:t►A is limited
In direr( crtrMnlrfinn work.
' 1111s opininn ha% a major itnpa(I nil
rrdttcrng rmt% in these projrrt%, %nrnr
of whir h were nor rcnnnmi(aliv fracihlr
whrn [)rrviihnR waRcs wrrr rrtlilirrd on
the w•lmle r•nnctntrtinn ►tolect." cave
Iit,I► Serrrlarn Samuel V -fierce r.
" Co%rc can now he cut by as much as O
to 25 7n, %n the mnney can nnw he tar•
grlyd in nlhrr way% to stimulate ern.
nomic rcrocrr% in depressed area% "
lltc 1111mg (mild affect half of the i3.
billion (:list(; program in fiscal 1988 and
near all of the $225 millinn in Ilom;
proje(t,. ,Tice nrw o ininn now "makes
it irry (Ira( that t e Justice Dept. is
another fonrm" in handling Davi%-Ra-
con di%agreements with the Labor
fl it • sass one Iful) offrrial.
Some union officials fear that nw•ner%
and dc%rinprr% will now iry In avoid
triggering Davi%-Baron wage ra(c% by r1i-
rrcunR kdcral fund% away frnm con.
,tnfclion items and inward other prnjr(t
cn%ts. They arc expected to challenge
the opinion in a test case.
Meanwhile, some contractor% are
pleased. Associated General Confraclors
resident Dana licnnti% congratulatrd
Pltree: 5awngs n1 25% withm,t Davis-9acon
Pirice lint only for intlin %1119 III11 prn.
grime hill also for "addtcccinq .. ex•
p(atmve intrrprctationc of file Da%is-
Rarnn At I and telatrd %taliltc% "
Uwe hrtpactt At Ir.1ct tine lahot
Dept. offtrial Icnd% to downplay the %ig.
nihcant a of the inrmnranrhtm, howc%er.
" l hi% i%cme hrl wrrtl l allot and 111't►
deal% gticil% willt 11110'c Mamie nn
CIM; and t FDA(; . .Wr don't think it
impacts hrvond I1t I►'c nwn statute,"
say% 1erty 1il ern, the Iahnr Dcpt.'% dep.
my solicitor for national rriations.
`Mont say% that fhr rli%pwr %h idd
have become nuntt when the Iahnr
Dcpt wuhdtcw the Nfrkinger npinion
when %he left the dr tattmcrrt a few•
week';1Ro. Rill 111nrn c�ann% that fierce
was not %aticftcd het au%c the letter did
not addlrcc %nft co%t%. "Wt• have never
been asked to title on that issue," fir
,aye. 'I horn alcn hint% ilia( the (Iepart.
ment nrav lint lake the titling lon scri.
nmly. allhnugh no detision lac been
made. "It's an ad%i%ory opininn. We
rnuld chnn%e not in follow il," he says.•
R►' lln:rl (tend/ern' nr II adting►nn and
Il ilhom G Kilian to A'vrr fork
FBI nabs 44 in public works sting
in nor of the largest sting nrcration% of
it,. kind, 44 public works nfftrialc in New
Ynrk Stare have been arrested and
charged with accepting bribes and kick-
backs related to the purchase of high-
way materials and a tlipment.
The a►re%t% capped a Iwo -year probe
by the Federal Bureau of Inve%tigaiinn
into cnmiption among public works of-
ficials in 40 mimicipalitim in New York.
Ten other individuak were charged in
New Irrsey. 'The local officials, mainly
purchasing director,. and highway super-
mtcndrnis for small cilics and town -
chip,, were targeted a, file result of tip%
finm informant%. "Nnhods, was ap-
proanccd rnld•" federal officials say.
fit all of the ca%m the FRI used an
undercover agent posing ac a salesman,
of steel prodtim, who offered bribes in,
relurn for supply contracts for highway,
grlardrails, signpo%is and fences. in an-
other varimI'nn. local officials conspired
with the undcrrnvcr agent in split the
rncecd% no orders that were paid for
htit never delivered. Records %cited in
the investigation cIiowcd that iincet
1990, 31 towns and villages in Nrw
122 ENA/Attgttcr X r9A7
ATTACHMEi;T III
r�
nrr
brrnilirr,c 117nppr VrIpOnfron
f►n►tt rnyetngn m0pr flip nrt Sinrr, fhrcr nit, veep likrly In lit,
rpifnimptl timinly bt• r►ofeccirntnlc rnilinr (Finn liv ftnrlilinnnl cnt-
Orr, nmrinyrrc, flint• wmild by rxrltulprl in nny event. NO fho.v nre
nmv nlcn cltprifirnllY etteml,fPei, Similnily, rnnftnrlc for mninft,.
nnnrr nnrl rrrnit of rtulnoinferl dnln ltrnrpesittg nrlrtirtnrnf, inrlml
ing Wirt, infn►mnfinn cyclrtrro, trinfrfl tzrimilifir noel r11pAiril
tippri nfim. nnrl nffirr ntnrhinnc, nrn crprifirnlly rxetnrlprl 1'innlly,
flip pirvin►tc lit nrfirr trgiiiiinr Srrvirr f'nnlinrf Arf rnmrlinnrp fnt
rnnftnrlc fnr fhe snip of fiml,pr wnv rlrnplied flip itt1T, imtlint fpdI,%
trvipwprl trlrvmtif clnlnlrc nttrl fnunrl "tin inrlirnfinn r
IFinf limltr
cnlrc rnttl t nrlc wri n lttrrinminnnl lv vm virr rit irnleri **` 'Timber
cnlrcrnnlrnrla linel F,prn rnvprrri infnttnnlly Rinrp 1lRR, ntid fnrntnll.�
einrn 1979, bid hive niwnve been nit nnn►nnly in flit, nrf. Thic rrn-
vicion raft I ltrm Itnrlc minor Wnlcli I lenlrw rtivri nge.
i;vnn wifli nil of fliecn nrintinicltnfive clinrigm in rinrn, nnly n
elttrtll rntlinn of flip lttnhlrmc treulling front Ilin nrl limp hr(In
n1winfrrl, noel cn►inite rltteclinna rntttnin nc In wlinflirr flip Rvrvirp
f'onftnrl Art ce►%,rq n valid l,rr,rntnmett) or cnririnl rurrrtcr. 'flip
Crnrrnl Arrnuttlino Offirr, ntnottg nllinic, bn6111! revirwrr) flit, nrl
nflpt flip rinrncpr) rlinnLrc lind linen itih-wlurrd Nif Itnfnte flip 'v
wrtr implf-mptilyd, rerntrimpttrleri runt,) rnflier flinn nvtriifirnlinit
In.Q.7 (irA'Ff?) I, AWMINTING Orrl('I,
.C(, f frA►V, 77ON,g
Fmly in 1(IR'1. Itnvitic tet•irworl ninilirnlioti of 1hp Sri vivo Crittlrnrl
Arf in both iQ7R nnrl IC)R2 nnel Qnnn nvr+r nrrrnxitnntely n 1lirn►annrl
frrlr,tnl rinrnrr(tirnly unrlot it, " flip (inorrnl Arrotmling Offirr
trr•onrtnrnrirrl irltenl of flip nrl nit cpvetnl Qtniitid,;-
lnhelrttl I,tnhlntne r,ticl hi ifc ntlntiniclrnlintt
Wnt+n rn1pc nnrl frinep hrnrfifc cpt miti r if nrr grnry.rilly innp-
n,nnty In flit, (rnvprnntrnl
Arrrtrnlr rlrlrrtttinnl inttc of nrl ttnl rirvniline «•nor rnlrc ntid friner
,riw I c cnn,inf lip ninfin acing pxtc InQ rfnfn cnttirrc
Thp tint n ►tpprlrrl In t,r•rtttrtle1v rlrie,mine piewnilivig wn a rnfee nnri
►It,pt, Iwtiowq won r lip vet; rocly In r=r nl,_
'fhr rnir 1•nhnr Rlnntlnrrle Art mtrl Ihn nrin,iniefrnfive nrnrrrlurrc
tin ,Irinr`Itterl flttnllQlt fl,r t•rnrrnl rnr,ltrtnetll 1nMec rMllrl ,tn
vv p n mnnctttr n wngn ntir trttr t pinlrrlmn nr rntl, n�pra t tr
nrl nnw rnvrtc
'"' hl, inlrnrinrlmv rnn,rnnnfe
corm• nnlrc (14 and Inl, nnrf nrrnmprrnyinq Iexf
1),rr.r of (.Ar) RrjMrF Rrrnntntrrv(itig Rrl,"nl n%Srr nirr (im rr nrl Art. 26 ItA,I.V
I,An nrl, P. hl (Frl„nnty 7, 19R11
Source: Thieblot J. Armand, Jr. Prevailing Wage Legislation: The Davis
Bacon Act, State "Little Davis -Bacon" Acts -, -The Walsh-Fe5T—ey`-7VEt,
,and The Service Contraci. Art. University of Pennsylvania, 1986.
ATTACHMENT IV
4. AIRPORT EXPANSION. Applying this formulation to the estimated $135,000,000
52,650,000 horizontaland 582,350,000 vertical) of Airport Expansion con-
struction forthcoming, with an estimated 14% to be under Davis -Bacon in anv
case, the estimated increases in total cost under each of the listed authori-
ties is as follows:
a. Dodge Manual - 512,710,338 (9.41)
b. Comparison with Local Going Wage - $15,155,136 (11.2'0)
c. Associated Builders and Contractors - $11,554,853 (8.60)
d. All Other Authorities - Indeterminate
----------------------
Footnotes:
1/ These appear to generally align with the Metro -Dade estimates in 1977
(while the State prevailing wage law was in effect) that use of the
Federal prevailing wages would increase total construction costs 5.171,
to 6.7% over use of State prevailina waaes in effect at that time; and
with estimates in the GAO 1979 Report that prevailing wage rules increase
total construction costs 5% - 15%.
2/ Booklet, Prevailing Waae Laws Are Not Inflationary, December 1980.
3/ Average Local Wages for period October 1 through December 31, 1982, Florida
' Department of Labor and Employment Security (attached as second document
under), amended to add Prevailing Fringes as determined by USDOL (or gross
equivalents when not determined) to the Average Local Wage, to more nearly
get a proper comparison of total labor costs. This comparison is computed
estimating that some 20% of current work is union labor whether under
Davis -Bacon or not, as estimated in a Dade County Manager 1977 Report.
(Memorandum, "Economic Impact of Ordinance Applying Federal Prevailing
Wage Rates to County Projects", M. R. Stierheim, County Manager, March 8,
1977).
4/ "Davis -Bacon Falsehoods and Facts", undated.
5/ "Davis -Bacon Works and Works Well!, An Interview with Former U. S. Labor
Secretary Ray Marshall", undated.
3-4
Source: Yow 0. Harold, Director of Purchasing. feneral Information for Pu ijc
Hearing on Proposed Prevailing Wage Ordinance Broward County, Florida.
1983.
ATTACHP[NT V
I A I rievnilrnr Illncr i.r&t1(?rintt
rnvrtner, fnt erhnnl rnttcfrttrf'tnn anti in fnrf hepnn in rrn+InrnrinlP
rlitnitinfinp the enfitn nrf, whirls if did flip (nilnwing vent"
Rills weto infrnrhirerl In hnf11 linitaeo of flip leaielnittre in mpn
and mein in iQR1 fn rrinctnfe flip pirvnilinp wnpe, Inw, htif wilhnut
pttrreee In inR.1. R►nwntr) t'rn+nfv impnerrl n lnrnl rrrvnilinp wngp
laa•, nnrint n rtnred+tte nllna-pd Itv flit, alnfe IvRielnlurr, a•hirli re-
gi0red rrevnilins! wnaec n1 flip ferlrtnl I)nvie itnrnn level nit rrnlnfv
rrnierfe of titnre flinn win,win Sevrtn) rilire within iltnwnrd
('.nnnf%• frnecerl aimilnr rerl+titemenlc, rnieit+a n rnll fnr Ilse afnfe
Iraiclnl+lto In ntnve In hrnhihif stab lnrni oplinneR' Alfhntt¢h flirre
it, tin ternrf erl nrf inn of f lie of fitp level, I he ]hide Cnmif v Cnmmic-inn
in I(1R4_rejrr1rrl ndnhii±)g_n.lnrnl_nrlinn_wltt,n if Irnrned Ihnf tltn
rhnngn t mild hnvr inrreneed f lip rnutif �'a rnncl turf ion rncic by $fn
millinn nvr+t flip next ght vrntc
Gentpra
Genrgin line tin rrevniling wngp Ingiclnfinn nit ifs brink-
I{ntraii
'flip ilnwnii Inw wnc rnnrfrd in IQtiri nnrl Intl nmendpd in I969"
11 npl+lirc in lnrnl nc well no, -Into, rnnfrnrlc fnr nvrr $2,nnn, find
rnnfnitie eevoini 1lnimint l►tnt•Icln►ra' if tipplipc fn fhe frnnarnrinlinrl
of ennflc to nnrf frnm inh ailec nnrf In flit, tnnnttfnrlitre and ct,rrly
of mnterinlc if (trrennc petfnrrning fltncp cnrvirrs nre rinpinved riff.
wile lit• flip rnnfinrinr; in Qenern) it nlrrliec In "pvery rorcnn rnid
I,v n rnnftnrfrn fnr lim lnhnr" (fill li ugh, lireriminl,ly, nnl In anl+er-
vicnra nr innnnprmenfl; wngec mrtcf by rniel of lencl evrty five
wniking dn)c; nnrf It rnhy of wngp rnte crhedulec rnncl fin givrn to
pvrry wnrkninn tint n mrinher of n rnllprfivp hnignining Qrntip.
'('lie mr-flind fnt rcfnitlichinQ flip l+revniling rnfe in linwnii is crl
lit• flip Ina• ifcrlf, nnrf fnllntvn flip nld ferlrtnl Iminuln Alfltnugli crf
by ciirt•pt•c rnrtrlurlyd fruit limns n Vpnr, n al+nkrcmntt fnt Ilse pinW.R
dphnrltnpnf of Intent indirnfed flint flip preerrihed rnfec nre ttaunlly
flip union ernlp, hernttcn of flip Intge prnl+nrtirnt of iminn telrte-en•
fnlinn in flip iclnndc'I'lip alnlidn is nnucunl in al+nrifvinR flint flip
" /7nr id,7 /'rrel Cfnrr In IRr1,rnl ,Cln/r rrrr•nilinQ WO re Slnlu/r. 1231 i'nNcrnitf'trnN
l,An Rrr A 14 (Art it 7t:. In79)
"/lrrnilrnp tin 11•n/rry (rthInrinll Alinmi lfrrnlrl. Ilrrrtnbrr 1n. InA1
" Slnlr 11•npr /.nrr•v Affnrkrrl, FNrrNrrnrNr7 N►w•e Rrr•nnn 1'19 4n (April 14, inFM
" 11AWAn Rry crA♦ rh In4
" Whntlnn Inrhtcf,inl Rrerrttrh Ifni( infnrview, ffn%vn;i Itrrnt►mrnf of I•nhnr nnrl
Inrlualrirtl flrinfinna, 11nnnlnht, .fitly 7, 1ng2
Source: Thieblot J. Armand, Jr. Prevailing Wage Legislation: The Davis
Bacon Act, State "Little Davis -Bacon" Acts, The Walsh-Heal-y Acts
and The Service Contract Act. University of Pennsylvania, 1986.
ATTACHMENT VI ;
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS COMPARED'
Compiled by the Florida School Boards Associotion, Inc14 " 141 e)
COUNTY
COST OF CONSTRUCTION
TAXPAYERS'S SAVINGS
Alachua
S 6,000,000
$ 842,000
Bay
10,190,500
764,300
Clay
10,724,392
425,000
Collier
8,437,000
843,000
Es comb i a
18, 491, 358
2,773,703
H i g h l onds
31,0001000
300,000
Indian River
7,0840161
1,416,832
Jefferson
6351000
51,000
Lee
13,704,214
2741084 -
Leon
10, 800, 000
2,160, 000
Madison
299,060
45,000
Manatee
49300,000
860,000
Marion
9,859,078
2,464,796
Palm Beach
26,149,744
2,558,910
Pasco
16, 582, 305
3,781,272
Pinellas
35, 986, 874
7,197, 375
Putnam
6,236,654
1,870,796
Sarasota
9,137, 900
2,284,500
Sumter
7,090,309
1,063,546
TOTAL
$206, 708, 549
$31, 976,114
*Resource letters enclosed
- 3 year period
ATTACIiMCNT VI1
PUBLIC WORK PROJECTS FUNDED IN FISCAL YR 87-88
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
NORTH RIVER DRIVE
$1,700,000
S.E. OVERTOWN PARK WEST
1,400,000
MANOR PHASE IV
1,950,000
N.W. 8TH STREET ROAD
640,000
DO NTOW14 PHASE II
1,700,000
MORNING SIDE
11800,000
CITYWIDE PHASE IV
685,00E
SILVER BLUFF
1,540,000
EAST LITTLE HAVANA PHASL 11
11800,000
BUENA VISTA PHASE III
11800,000
SHENANDOAH PHASE II
1,800,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS $16,815,000
SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS
NORTH FLAGER SANITARY
$3,860,000
S.E. OVERTOWN PARK WEST
591,000
SHENANDOAH STORM
570,000
FLAGAMI CEMETARY
1,700,000
COCONUT GROVE STORM
510,000
FLAGAMI STORM PHASE I
1,370,000
WAGNER CREEK PHASE III
1,540,000
GREATLAND STORM
940,000
EAST LITTLE HAVANA PHASE II
425,000
SOUTH FLAGLER
2,550,000
LAWRANCE WATERWAY RENOVATION
880,000
LOCAL DRAINAGE E-57
680,000
THE LAST SANITARY SEWER
3,400,000
N.W. 36TH STREET
940,000
CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER
850,000
SOUTH GROVE
5,100,000
TAMIAMI STORM
1,540,000
TOTAL SANITARY SEVIER PROJECTS $27,446,000
GRAND TOTAL PUBLIC WORK PROJECTS $44,261,000
Source: City of Miami, Department of Public Works, 1987
to
PRO
Contracts Engineer
Public Works
rTTACHNENT VIII �",
CItY Or MIAMI, PLORICA q! to
INI ER -OFFICE MEMORANOUM
DATE September 30, 1987 riLE
SUftjECT Contractor Report for Davis -
Bacon & non -Davis -Bacon
Projects
PEFERENCES Follow-up to our memo of
September 15
ENCLOSURES
A member of our staff has been in touch with several agencies and
contractors that deal with the Davis -Bacon Act on a continuous basis.
Some governmental agencies, like Broward County and Miami Beach, have
implemented a prevailing wage ordinance for project above a certain
cost range ($25U,000 fur Broward County and $500,000 for Miami
Beach.) :
The officers contacted explained that they have not been able to do a
valid analysis of the impact of wage rate implementation on their
construction costs. This is because no two projects are exactly
alike: soil conditions, materials used, categories of trades, etc.,
may significantly affect costs. In the case of the City of Miami, it
has been several years since we have had to implement Davis -Bacon due
to the curtailment of federally funded projects.
The results of conversations with 11 local contractors, who have been
or are presently involved in City projects, are as follows: Three (3)
contractors use union labor, so they report no effect by the use of
federally mandated wage rates; of the other eight (8), all report an
increase in their costs of anywhere from 2% to 30%, with a median
increase of 17%._
Attached for your information are a wage summary report from the
Florida Department of Labor, and an article and editorial that
appeared in the August 20, 1987, edition of Engineering News Record.
These documents reflect the mood of the industry concerning federally
mandated wage rates.
If you need further assistance on this matter, please let me know.
EMP:emp
cc: Walter Pierce, Asst. City Manager THIS Y
Fred Fernandez, Community Development FOR
PAGE 1
TABLE 1
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY 1. 1986 T14RU JUN 30. 1987
SMSA 5000
41) MIAMI
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWO
JOB
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
HIGHEST
OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY
OIGIT
I
ORDERS
OPENISWAGE
I
I OFILL I
WAGE
I I
WAE
CODE
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
DS
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROFESSIONAL. TECHNICAL. MANAGERIAL 00-19
1.460
2.545
535
S 3.35
S 6.26
$19.23
CLERICAL
20-24
6.104
19.056
6.764
3.35
4.16
15.25
SALES
25-29
1.587
4.704
1.486
3.35
4.20
18.75
SERVICES
30-38
8.137
18.070
6.273
3.35
4.14
18.75
AGRICULTURAL. FISHERY. FORESTRY.
AND RELAT 40-46
480
1.073
591
3.35
4.42
18.75
gROCESSIWG
50-59
302
762
437
3.35
4.53
9.50
CHINE TRADE
60-69
1.361
2.271
726
3.35
6.41
18.00
VENCHWORK
70-79
1.873
4.167
1.158
3.35
4.02
15.63
STRUCTURAL WORK
so-so
2.723
5.558
2.470
3.35
6.14
19.63
MISCELLANEOUS 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90-97
3.575
8.468
4.517
3.35
4.63
15.63
TOTAL OF ALL DOT CODES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 27.602
1 66.674
1 26.959
1 3.35
1 4.53
1 19.63
ZIIRCE: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. DIVISION OF LABOR. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.
A. THE DATA REFLECT THE WAGES BEING OFFERED ON THOSE JOBS LISTED WITH THE JOB SERVICE OF FLORIDA RATHER THAN ACTUAL
VAGES PAID.
8. THE DATA ARE DRAWN FROM THE RECORDS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PROGRAM YEAR TO THE LAST DAY OF THE QUARTER FOR WHICH THE
PROGRAM IS RUN.
C. CODES AND TITLES USED ARE FROM THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL 1l1LES. FOURTH EDITION 1977.
D ORDERS WITH WAGES OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF $3.35 TO S20.00 PER HOUR ARE NOT USED IN THE COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE WAGES.
m
PAGE 1
TABLE 2
WAGE
SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
JOB OPENINGS
AVAILABLE FROM
JULY
1. 1986
THRU JUN 30.
1987
SMSA 5000
11'1 MIAM1
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NINDIGIWAGE
B
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
HIGHEST
�fOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES
I
I
I OPENINGS I
I
WAGE
WAE
I
CODE
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFTER. ARCHITECTURAL
001.261-010
6
6
2
= 5.50
: 9.53
$14.00
ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN
003.161-014
/9
33
22
3.35
7.95
12.50
DRAFTER. CIVIL
005.281-010
5
5
2
5.00
7.25
13.00
MECHANICAL -ENGINEERING TECHNIC
007.161-026
6
6
2
6.68
8.26
10.68
.DRAFTER. MECHANICAL
007.281-010
6
6
2
6.50
8.64
13.00
SYSTEMS ANALYST. ELECTRONIC.DA
012.167-066
7
7
0
3.35
12.10
15.61
RAFTER APPRENTICE
017.281-014
5
6
4
5.00
5.80
7.50
ROJECT ENGINEER
019.167-014
6
6
0
11.54
12.96
14.42
PROGRAMMER. BUSINESS
020.162-014
12
12
0
7.50
11.09
17.31
PROGRAMER. ENGINEERING AND SCI
020.167-022
6
6
0
12.00
14.09
17.54
COUNSELOR
045.107-010
21
66
10
3.35
4.28
13.00
MARKET -RESEARCH ANALYST 1
050.067-014
6
7
2
8.00
9.72
12.69
PHARMACIST
074.161-010
5
5
1
5.50
7.63
11.00
MURSE. GENERAL OUTV
075.374-010
19
55
3
3.35
9.45
16.75
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST
078.361-014
6
8
1
6.00
6.76
9.73
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGIST
078.362-026
7
12
0
5.00
9.03
10.00
MEDICAL-LABORATORV TECHNICIAN
078.381-014
a
118
3
3.35
4.44
5.00
MEDICAL ASSISTANT
079.367-010
43
51
27
3.35
5.71
10.45
DENTAL ASSISTANT
079.371-010
24
24
12
3.35
4.62
6.25
EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN
079.374-010
5
9
1
4.41
5.55
6.00
NURSE -LICENSED PRACTICAL
079.374-014
15
19
3
4.00
6.34
8.57
,FINANCIAL -AIDS OFFICER
090.117-030
5
5
0
6.00
7.16
9.62
FACULTY MEMBER. COLLEGE OR UNI
090.227-010
17
18
7
3.35
7.47
15.34
TEACHER. SECONDARY SCHOOL
091.227-010
10
10
2
3.35
7.93
11.39
TEACHER. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
092.227-010
17
18
2
4.00
5.79
10.00
TEACHER. PRESCHOOL
092.227-018
11
14
3
3.35
4.02
6.69
INSTRUCTOR. VOCATIONAL TRAININ
097.227-014
31
35
11
3.35
8.19
13.00
ACHER AIDE 1
099.327-010
9
19
16
3.35
4.15
5.56
IYER
ti-RAPHIC
110.107-010
5
5
0
10.10
11.58
11.12
DESIGNER
141.06/-018
6
7
4
4.75
5.71
9.75
ILLUSTRATOR
141.061-022
10
12
B
3.35
4.87
8.75
CLOIHES DESIGNER
142.061-018
6
6
0
7.50
8.79
10.63
FLORAL DESIGNER
142.081-010
17
31
20
3.35
4.06
8.00
INSTRUCTOR. SPORTS
153.227-018
7
13
0
3.35
4.21
7.25
COUNSELOR. CAMP
159.124-010
5
13
1
3.43
3.67
3.8B
AUDITOR
160.162-014
B
9
3
5.50
7.43
12.02
ACCOUNTANT
160.167-010
15
15
8
3.35
6 94
14.42
ESTIMATOR
160.267-018
5
6
2
3.35
5.01
1000
PURCHASING AGENT
162.167-038
18
18
4
3.35
7.42
11.54
MANAGER. EXPORT
163.117-014
B
e
0
8.75
12.04
17.31
MANAGER. SALES
163.167-018
20
25
1
3.35
6.38
12.50
EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWER
166.267-010
29
40
r
29
3.35
6.72
10.10
INSPECTOR. AGRICULTURAL COMMOD
168.287-010
21
53
35
5.00
5.29
6.35
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
169.167-010
33
42
13
4.00
7.35
14.42
PAGE
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY 1. 1986 THRU JUN 30. 1987
SMSA 5000
it) MIAMI (2)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a)
E
NINDIGIT
JOB
IOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
HIEST
FOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES
ORDERS
I OPENINGS
I OPENINGS
WAGE
WAGE
(
I
CODE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 169.167-014
9
71
3
= 3.35
= 5.11
------------
S 0.75
MANAGER. OFFICE 169.167-034
6
17
4
4.00
5 St
12 02
SUPERINTENDENT. CONSTRUCTION 182.167-026
5
5
1
10.00
11.47
14.42
PRODUCTION SUPERINTENDENT 183.117-014
21
21
3
3.35
8.84
16.83
MANAGER. WAREHOUSE 184.167-114
13
32
a
4.25
5.24
i1.06
-MAINTENANCE SUP 184.167-266
5
5
0
14.83
14.83
14.83
(iTRANSPORTATION
11ANAGER.:DEPARTMENT STORE t80.tt7-010
(MANAGER.
6
7
2
3.50
5.54
8.13
FAST FOOD SERVICES 185.137-010
/S
32
12
3.35
4.97
8.17
4MLESALER 2 185.157-018
20
20
0
7.50
10.74
17.50
MANAGER, RETAIL STORE 185.167-046
75
130
34
3.35
5.74
1n.0O
CONTROLLER 186.117-014
6
6
1
12.02
15.11
19.23
MANAGER. APARTMENT HOUSE 166.167-016
5
7
1
3.35
5.71
8.08
LOAN OFFICER 186.267-018
8
9
1
5.00
7.82
10.00
RECREATION SUPERVISOR $67.137-010
6
35
1
4.75
5.55
17.31
EXECUTIVE CHEF 187.161-010
5
5
0
4.00
8.94
13.56
APPLIANCE -SERVICE SUPERVISOR 187.167-000
7
8
1
3.35
5.18
EXECUTIVE HOUSEKEEPER 187.167-046
13
25
173
1
3.35
4.66
7.00
7.70
MANAGER, f000 SERVICE 187.167-106
39
26
3.35
6.35
15.14
ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE 189.117-010
18
21
6
3.35
7.70
9.62
PROJECT DIRECTOR 189.117-030
8
8
1
6.44
9.62
12.02
IIICE PRESIOENT 189.117-034
5
5
0
14.42
15.04
15.65
CONSULTANT 189.167-010
MANAGEMENT TRAINEE 189.167-018
12
13
O
5.00
0.97
14.42
MANAGER. DEPARTMENT 189.167-022
68
8
211
t0
22
3.35
4.25
12.92
SECURITY OFFICER 189.167-034
14
29
1
9
4.00
3.90
7.51
4.31
12.02
SUPERINTENDENT, PLANT PROTECTI 109.167-050
7
38
2
4.00
5.00
5.50
SOCIAL 1/ORKER. PSYCHIATRIC 195.107-034
6
10
1
4.00
5.25
5.50
7.00
ROGRAM AIDE. GROUPWORK 195.227-010
5
14
9
3.50
3.68
4.50
1 ASf AIDE 195.367-010
5
24
1
4.00
4.24
6.55
LEGAL SECRETARY 201.362-010
61
70
28
3.35
6.44
12.50
MEDICAL SECRETARY 201.362-014
22
31
a
3.35
5.37
7.90
SECRETARY 201.362-030
CLERK -TYPIST
485
522
165
3.35
5.80
15.25
203.362-010
IN -FILE OPERATOR 203.362-014
336
561
ISO
3.35
4.67
11.18
TERMINAL -SYSTEM OPERATOR 203.362-018
9
8
23
10
10
7
3.35
5.15
6.00
WORD-PROC#SSING-MACHINE OPER 203.362-022
41
139
16
4.00
5.23
7.00
MORTGAGE -PROCESSING CLERK 203 382-022
6
3.35
5.61
11.54
DATA TYPIST 203.582-022
30
12
38
4
4.25
4.92
5.00
DATA -CODER OPERATOR 203.582-026
12
16
14
- 6
3.35
5.11
7.64
KEMPUNCH OPERATOR 203.582-030
22
62
4.00
5.26
7.50
TERMINAL OPERATOR 203.582-054
66
101
a
3.35
4.59
6.35
TRANSCRIBING -..MACHINE OPERATOR 203-682-058
9
10
r 32
3.35
5.61
9.62
TYPIST 203.582-066
47
56
2
27
4.00
6.45
12.00
EMPLOYMENT CLERK 205.362-014
3.35
5.04
9.25
8
12
10
5.20
5.87
7.69
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT
SERVICE
JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE
FROM
JULY
1. 1986 THRU
JUN 30.
1987
SMSA 5000
(1) MIAMI (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)
(4)
I ----------------------------------
(5)
(6)
NINE
JOB
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
fOURf" EOITION,OOT CODE TITLES DIGITI
ORDERS
OPENINGS
OPENINGS
WAGE
I
CODE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
NOSPITAL-AOMITTING CLERK 205.362-Ot8
12
17
12
S 3.35
MEW -ACCOUNTS CLERK 205.362-026
6
6
1
4.00
CREDIT CLERK 205.367-022
10
10
1
3.50
SURVEY 61ORKER 205.367-054
14
123
10
3.35
fl,LE CLERK I 206.362-Of0
74
87
46
3.35
FILE CLERK 2 206.367-014
�NISERTING-MACHINE OPERATOR
12
15
9
3.35
208.685-016
t"IRCULATION CLERK
a
40
20
3.35
209.362-Of0
15
16
of
3.50
PERSONNEL CLERK 209.362-026
6
6
4
3.45
CLERK. GENERAL 209-662-010
780
6.112
718
3.35
ORDER CLERK. I.00D AND BEVERAGE 209.567-014
7
19
4
3.35
ADDRESSER 209.587-010
5
10
9
3.35
MAIL CLERK 209.587-026
64
459
334
3.50
MARKER 209.587-034
16
119
21
3.35
CHECKER 2 209.687-010
15
26
20
3.35
MAIL;HARDL.ER 209.687-014
65
650
621
3.35
,AUDIT CLERK 210.382-010
5
1 e
1
3.35
BOOKKEEPER 1 210.382-014
112
119
40
3.35
BOOKKEEPER 2 210.382-018
69
98
27
4.00
BOOKKEEPING -MACHINE OPERATOR 2 210.382-026
6
7
2
3.35
NIGHT AUDITOR 210.382-054
23
28
14
3.35
TILLER.;HEAD 211.132-010
5
7
0
7.21
CASHIER 1 211.362-010
273
852
471
3.35
fORLIGN BANKNOTE TELLER -TRADER 211.362-014
19
30
4
3.35
TELLER 211-362-018
77
162
to
3.35
CASHIER 2 211.462-010
342
835
393
3.35
CASHIER -CHECKER 211 462-014
284
1.235
603
3.35
SHIER -WRAPPER 211 462-018
6
339
337
3.35
C'1fCK CASHIER 21t-462-026
CHECKER
9
21
3
3.35
.WD 211 462-Ot4
6
9
2
3.35
FOOD -AND -BEVERAGE CHECKER 211.482-018
7
7
2
3.35
COMPUTER OPERATOR 213.362-010
66
83
42
3.35
COMPUTER -PERIPHERAL -EQUIPMENT 213.302-010
10
21
3
4.2S
INSURANCE CLERK 214.362-022
5
5
3
4.35
BILLING TYPIST 214.382-014
10
10
4
4.00
FOREIGN CLERK 214.467-010
7
7
3
3.35
BILLING -MACHINE OPERATOR 214.482-010
7
7
5
3.85
PAYROLL CLERK 215.482-010
17
17
10
3.35
BALANCE CLERK 2t6.382-Ot8
6
6
- 0
4.25
ACCOUNTING CLERK 216.482-010
109
129
57
3.35
PROOF -MACHINE OPERATOR 217.382-010
14
21
3
4.00
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK 219.362-010
205
256
82
3 35
CLERK. TELEGRAPH SERVICE 219.362-022
7
11
5
3-50
PRODUCTION CLERK 221.382-018
5
16
4
3.50
(7)
AVERAGE
WAGE
OFFERED
-------------
= 4.81
4.65
5.22
5.13
4.17
4.07
3.44
4.2f
6.09
3.56
3.46
4.04
5.03
3.48
4.11
5.00
5.35
6.08
5.60
5.72
6.13
7.21
3.62
3.66
4.78
3.65
3.68
4.35
4.20
3.97
4.24
5.51
4 99
5.85
5.46
5.39
5.70
4.98
4.96
5.35
4.90
4.70
4.82
3.09
PAGE 3
(a)
I HIGHEST
WAGE
OFFERED
-------------
s 6.00
5.77
6.00
6.00
6.92
7.00
4.50
5.ff
9.89
10.40
4.00
5.00
10 00
7.50
6.00
9.50
10.00
14.42
10.00
7.50
7.00
7.21
7.50
4 50
e 00
6.57
5.50
4.75
5.45
5.00
5 00
8.50
5.50
6.94
6.50
7.50
7.21
6.50
5.50
8.75
8.00
7.69
5.50
5.75
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY 1. 1986 114RU JUN 30. 1987
SMSA 6000
11) MIANI (2) (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------
NINE JOB
FOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES DIGIT ORDERS
CODE RECEIVED
--------------------------------------------------------------
fxPEDITER 222.367-018 5
PARTS CLERK 222.367-042 15
AIRCRAFT -SHIPPING CHECKER 222.387-010 10
CAR CHECKER 222.387-014 7
SWENTORY CLERK 222.357-026 54
ATTENDANT
222.387-030
5
�INEN-ROOM
;HIPPING,AND�RECEIVING CLERK
222.381-050
180
SORTER -PRICER
222.387-054
5
STOCK CLERK
222.387-058
293
KITCHEN CLERK
222.587-022
7
RECEIVING CHECKER
222.687-018
6
TICKETER
229.587-018
9
MESSENGER. SAW
230.367-014
13
DELIVERER. OUTSIDE
230,667-010
119
ADVERTISING -MATERIAL DISTRIBUT
230,687-010
16
CENTRAL -OFFICE OPERATOR
235.462-010
24
TELEPHONE OPERATOR
235,662-022
85
APPOINTMENT CLERK
237.367-010
36
INFORMATION CLERK
237.367-Ot8
5
MANAGER. TRAFFIC 2
237.367-030
5
RECEPTIONIST
237.367-038
540
HOTEL CLERK
238.362-010
157
RESERVATION CLERK
238.362-014
7
TICKET AGENT
238.367-026
11
DISPATCHER. MAINTENANCE SERVIC
239.367-014
8
OFFICE HELPER
239.567-010
28
COLLECTION CLERK
241.357-010
13
OLLECTOR
241.367-010
23
USTOMER-COMPLAINT CLERK
241.367-014
7
MEDICAL -RECORD CLERK
245.362-010
12
ORDER CLERK
249.367-054
67
PROCUREMENT CLERK
249 367-066
18
TEACHER AIDE II
249.367-074
13
SALES AGENT. INSURANCE
250.257-010
34
SALES AGENT. BUSINESS SERVICES
251.357-010
15
TRAVEL ,AGENT
252.157-010
17
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. ADVERTIS
254.357-014
18
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. PRINTING
254.357-018
8
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. HOTEL SE
259.157-014
6
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. EDUCATIO
259 257-010
13
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. TELEVISI
259 357-022
7
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. FOOD PRO
260.357-014
11
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. UNIFORMS
261.357-034
5
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. W(IMEN' S
261 .357 -038
12
(4)
TOTAL
OPENINGS
RECEIVED
5
44
22
10
890
12
309
7
1.222
9
8
95
13
394
56
81
�19
43
6
5
741
227
14
11
11
as
15
29
7
12
106
IB
22
177
41
27
97
14
6
81
35
38
7
17
(5)
TOTAL
OPENINGS
FILLED
3
7
s
5
162
6
177
3
854
5
54
O
224
6
6
40
19
4
2
264
88
3
3
6
14
1
10
5
10
35
5
6
22
3
5
0
0
6
0
2
~ 2
1
5
(6)
LOWEST
WAGE
OFFERED
--------------
S 3.35
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.35
3.50
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.50
3.35
3.75
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.75
3-75
3.35
3.35
4.00
3.35
4.00
3.35
4.50
3.35
4.00
4.57
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.50
3.35
3.35
4.25
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
(7)
AVERAGE
WAGE
OFFE---------------
RED
S 4.14
5.14
4.05
3.93
3.77
4.04
4.44
3.81
4.01
4.58
4.00
3.60
6.46
6.96
4.84
4.71
4.66
4.71
4.46
4.45
4.52
4.56
5.35
4.25
4.52
3.65
5.44
4.85
5.22
5.56
4.32
5.81
3.62
4.00
4.12
5.41
7.28
3.68
7.50
3.88
3.72
5.06
3.54
4.01
PAGE
(a)
HIGHEST
WAGE
OFFERED
•-------------
S 5.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
7.21
6.00
7.50
5.00
14.29
5.00
5.00
3.75
6.00
10.50
5.80
6.25
7.50
10.00
6.00
5.00
9.20
9.62
6.50
5.50
5.50
6.25
7.50
6.50
7.00
6.90
7.69
8.38
5.50
11.54
13.85
8.00
12.50
5.00
12.00
12.50
5.00
6.75
4.00
9.62
PAGE 5
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY
1. 1986 THRU JUN 30.
1987
SMSA 5000
11) MIAMI (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NINE
JOB TOIAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
T
#DURTH £DITIDN:DDT CODE TITLES DIGICODE
ORDERS OPENINGSOFILLEDS
I I
I
I
WAGE
I
I FERED
RECEIVED RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFWAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SALESPERSON. INFANTS' AND CHIL 261.357-046
6 8
1
f 3.35
f 3.63
S 4.50
SALESP.ERSON.,MEN'S AND BOYS' C 261.357-050
16 39
3
3.35
3.50
5.00
SALESPERSON. SHOES 261.357-062
40 71
19
3.35
3.94
6.00
SALESPERSON. WOMEN'S APPAREL A 261.357-066
53 156
10
3.35
3.43
5.00
SALES -PROMOTION REPRESENTATIVE 269.357-018
6 6
0
3.35
6.63
11.54
SOLES REPRESENTATIVE. HOME FUR 270.357-010
8 26
1
3.35
5.31
10.00
JWA►ESPERSON. FURNITURE 270.357-030
10 13
0
3.35
5.18
7.50
'J&ESPERSON. HORTICULTURAL AND 272.357-022
6 8
0
3.75
5.00
6.00
SALESPERSON. :AUTOMOBILES 273.353-010
10 15
a
3.35
3.59
5.00
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. MOTOR VE 273.357-022
7 12
2
3.35
4.72
6.25
SALESPERSON. AUTOMOBILE ACCESS 273.357-030
10 11
1
3.35
5.24
10.00
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. HARDWARE 274.357-034
6 10
1
3.75
5.54
8.08
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. COMPUTER 275.257-010
12 25
0
5.00
6.87
11.54
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. BARBER A 275.357-010
B 13
3
4.25
8.33
14.42
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. OFFICE M 275.357-034
11 20
3
3.75
5.28
10.00
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. SHOE LEA 275.357-046
7 7
2
3.35
4.03
5.00
SALESPERSON. SPORTING GOODS 277.357-058
8 115
2
3.35
3.87
5.00
SALES EXHIBITOR 279.357-010
11 34
3
3.35
4.04
4.62
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. GENERAL 279.357-014
44 145
a
3.35
3.83
15.00
SALES REPRESENTATIVE. PAPER AN 279.357-026
B 32
4
5.77
6.86
8.75
SALESPERSON -DEMONSTRATOR. PART 279.357-038
6 43
5
4.00
4.06
5.00
SALESPERSON. GENERAL HARDWARE 279.367-OSO
14 16
3
3.35
3.92
5.00
SALESPERSON. GENERAL MERCHANDI 279.357-054
213 556
89
3.35
3.77
10.00
SALESPERSON. JEWELRY 279.357-058
25 47
10
3.35
4.64
7.50
SALESPERSON. PARTS 279.357-062
49 63
7
3.35
4.36
8.45
COUPON-REOEMPTION CLERK 290-477-010
17 17
15
3.35
3.52
4.00
SALES CLERK 290.477-014
87 194
42
3.35
4.01
18.75
SII.ES CLERK. FOOD 290.477-018
36 219
184
3.35
4.09
5.15
(K.ES REPRESENTATIVE. DOOR -TO- 291.357-010
22 116
6
3.35
3.80
6.00
tw.VER. SALES ROUTE 292.353-010
101 186
78
3.35
4.96
10.86
COIN COLLECTOR 292.483-010
5 5
1
4.00
5.35
6.25
DRIVER HELPER. SALES ROUTE 292.667-010
9 10
5
3.35
4.13
6.50
AUTOMOBILE -RENTAL CLERK 295.477-010
8 9
3
4.00
4.72
5.50
DEMONSTRATOR 297.354-010
17 53
5
3.50
4.79
7.00
MANAGER. DEPARTMENT 299.137-010
7 16
6
4.25
5.24
6.67
TELEPHONE SOLICITOR 299.357-014
132 454
122
3.35
4.28
11.54
CUSTOMER -SERVICE CLERK 299.367-010
23 56
26
3.35
5.13
7.50
STOCK CLERK. SELF-SERVICE STOR 299.367-014
61 130
._ 68
3.35
3.77
5.45
DELIVFRER..MERCHANDISE 299.477-010
142 270
56
3.35
4.05
8.75
STOCK CHECKER. APPAREL 299 667-014
6 18
3
3.35
3.51
4.00
SALES ATTENDANT 299.677-010
6 636
597
3.35
4.04
5.00
HOUSEKEEPER. HOME 301.137-010
565 587
�.
543
3.35
4.08
6.25
HOUSE WORKER. GENERAL 301.474-010
994 1.053
919
3.35
4.24
18.75
CHILD SIONITOR 301.677-010
46 47
6
3.35
3.76
5.00
PAGE 6
TABLE 2
WAGE
SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
JOB OPENINGS
AVAILABLE FROM
JULY
1. 1986
THRU JUN 30.
1987
SMSA 6000
(11 141A141
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
NINEDIGIT
JOB
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
HIEST
FOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES
�
ORDERS
� OPENINGS
I OPENINGS�
WAGE
WAGE
I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CODE !
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
CARETAKER
301.687-010
6
7
2
S 3.75
S 4.38
s 5.00
DAY WORKER
301 687-014
481
593
466
3.35
4.58
18.75
HARD WORKER
301.687-018
21
24
18
3.35
4.32
6.00
COOK
305.261-010
5
5
1
3.35
3.98
4.50
COMPANION
309.677-010
59
62
24
3.35
4.33
7.81
VT/HOSTESS.-RESTAURANT
310.137-010
78
195
96
3 35
4.79
6.00
VEWARO/STEWARDESS
310.137-018
6
6
1
3.35
4 87
TER/WAITRESS. CAPTAIN
311.137-018
10
25
0
3.35
4.66
8.65
8.65
fAST FOODS,WORKER
311.472-010
42
116
66
3.35
3.46
4.00
CARHOP
311.477-010
96
215
161
3.35
3.42
4.25
COUNTER ATTENDANT. LUNCHROOM 0
311.477-014
318
1.935
1.086
3.35
3.72
5.00
NAITEII/WAITRESS. BAR
31t.477-018
56
184
58
3.35
3.79
8.00
WAITER/MATTRESS. FORMAL
311.477-026
74
295
83
3.35
4.54
8.25
WAITIR/WAITRESS. INFORMAL
311.477-030
251
790
218
3.35
4.21
8.00
WAITER/WAITRESS. ROOM SERVICE
31/.477-034
27
109
50
3.35
3.99
5.50
CAFETERIA ATTENDANT
311.677-010
61
471
78
3.35
3.47
4.20
COUNTER ATTENDANT. CAFETERIA
311.-677-014
167
1.J30
587
3.35
3.73
6.00
DINING ROOM ATTENDANT
311.677-018
178
548
233
3.35
3.66
5.50
BARTENDER
312.474-010
63
165
76
3.35
3.96
6.25
BARTENDER HELPER
312.687-010
18
29
7
3.35
3.96
4.55
CHEF
313.131-014
37
41
10
3.35
7.67
12.50
BAKER. SECOND
313.361-010
30
38
14
3.35
4.73
7.50
COOK
313.361-014
285
532
191
3.35
4.75
9.06
COOK APPRENTICE
313.361-018
a
14
4
3.35
4.25
7.13
COOK. SHORT ORDER 1
313.361-022
173
421
116
3.35
4.13
8.33
COOK. SPECIALTV. FOREIGN FOOD
313.361-030
65
70
0
3.35
6.71
12.00
BAKER
313.321-010
15
26
10
3.35
4.30
10.00
ER. PIZZA
313.301-014
12
23
1
3.35
3.69
5.00
fit. BARBECUE
313.381-022
a
f0
3
3.35
4.18
5.00
OK. ,PASTRY
313.321-026
7
7
0
3.75
5.83
8.33
COOK. SHORT ORDER 2
313.67t-010
43
BB
15
3.35
3.99
7.50
COOK HELPER. PASTRY
313.687-010
5
25
24
3.50
3.53
4.00
COOK
315.361-010
65
86
32
3.35
4.39
7.62
BUTCHER. MEAT
306.681-010
10
13
2
4.00
4.79
6.00
DELI CUTTER -SLICER
316.684-014
12
16
6
3.35
3.76
5.00
MEAT CUTTER
316.684-016
12
55
43
3.35
7.66
6.50
MEAT -CUTTER APPRENTICE
316.684-022
5
5
2
3.35
4.55
5.63
SALAD MAKER
PANTRY 000D5 MAKER
317.384-010
8
13
- 2
3.35
3.75
5.00
SANDWICH MAKER
317.664-014
32
74
47
3.35
4.10
6.25
COOK HELPER
317.684-018
317.697-010
34
33
196
40
3.35
3.58
5.00
dCITCHEN HELPER
318.667-010
668
69
1.219
16
~ 476
3.35
3.35
3.77
3.70
6 00
7.50
SCULLION
FOOD -SERVICE SUPERVISOR
319-687-014
319.137-010
6
6
3
3.35
4.04
4.50
11
16
9
6.25
7.04
7.69
PAGE
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT
SERVICE
JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE
FROM
JULY
1. 1986 T11RU
JUN 30.
1987
SMSA 5000
(1) MIAM1 (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
NI NE
JOB
TO'
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
HIGkiEST
FOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES DIGICODE
(
(
I OFINI
I
WAGE
I I
WAE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OS
OFWAGE
FERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
FOUNTAIN SERVER 319.474-010
6
16
0
S 3.35
S 3.50
s 4.00
I`OOD ASSEMBLER. KITCHEN 319.464-010
9
to
5
3.35
3.95
6.00
COUNTER -SUPPLY WORKER 319.687-010
9
12
6
3.35
3.86
4.00
MANAGER. LODGING FACILITIES 320.137-014
12
18
3
4.50
9.14
15.00
J10USEKEEPER 321.137-010
82
199
92
3.35
3.93
7.63
INSPECTOR 321.137-014
20
60
18
3.35
3.83
5.75
SANER. HOSPITAL 323.687-010
27
44
22
3.35
3.73
4.55
k.FLANER. HOUSEKEEPING 323.667-014
201
500
229
3.35
3.91
18.75
HDUSECLEANER 323.607-018
92
230
116
3.3S
4.18
6.00
DELL CAPTAIN 324.137-014
8
25
9
3.35
5.31
5.75
BELLHOP 324.677-010
33
52
19
3.35
3.76
5.00
DOORKEEPER 324.677-014
20
29
6
3.50
4.33
5.00
MANICURIST 331.674-010
14
22
0
3.35
4.20
5.21
COSMETOLOGIST 332.271-010
59
72
49
3.35
3.99
8.00
COSMETOLOGIST APPRENTICE 332.271-014
5
8
8
3.35
4.91
6.25
HAIR STYLIST 332.271-016
14
20
2
3.35
3.84
7.50
WIG DRESSER 332.361-010
6
1 7
0
3.35
3.35
3.35
410ST/HOSTESS 352.667-010
19
25
8
3.35
4.15
6.25
HOME ATTENDANT 354.377-014
48
88
21
3.35
3.94
6.50
PSYCHIATRIC AIDE 355.377-014
5
19
4
3.75
6.16
7.41
CHILD-CARE ATTENDANT. SCHOOL 355.674-010
1t
23
15
3.35
3.62
4.00
NURSE AIDE 355.674-014
121
232
98
3.35
4.21
17.50
1`000-SERYICE WORKER. HOSPITAL 355.677-010
40
47
26
3.35
3.70
5.37
CHAUFFEUR 359.673-010
14
16
4
3.75
5.53
10.00
ATTENDANT. CHILDREN'S INSTITUT 359.677-010
19
20
10
3.35
3.76
5.00
NURSERY SCHOOL ATTENDANT 359.677-018
39
51
23
3.35
3.51
4.50
SUPERVISOR.,LAUNDRY 361.137-010
7
9
5
3.35
3.57
5.00
LAUNDRY WORKER 1 361.684-014
21
33
15
3.35
3.91
5.25
1ADRY WORKER 2 361.685-018
B
9
0
3.35
3.81
4.42
11AWRY LABORER 361.687-018
10
25
18
3.35
4.14
4.50
DRY-CLEANERiHELPER 362.686-010
5
11
0
3.40
3.41
3.50
SILK FINISHER 363.680-010
7
8
0
3.35
4.44
6.00
PRESSER. ALL-AROUND 363.682-014
12
17
4
3.50
5.21
7.50
PRESSER. MACHINE 363.682-018
64
84
10
3.35
4.34
8.00
PRESSER. HAND 363.684-016
83
104
25
3.35
3.74
5.00
PRESSER. AUTOMATIC 363.685-014
15
25
6
3.35
4.30
5.50
PUFF IRONER 363.687-018
13
16
5
3.35
4.27
6.25
OIIER MELPER 364.687-010
5
6
4
4.00
4.00
4.00
OUG CLEANER. "AND 369.364-014
17
21
_
6
3.35
4.02
5.50
SERVICE -ESTABLISHMENT ATTENDAN 369.477-014
31
58
13
3.35
3.5t
5.00
SELF-SERVICE-LAUNDRY-AND-DRY-C 369.677-010
5
6
1
3.40
3.82
4.50
LAUNDRY OPERATOR 369.664-014
8
10
r 2
3.35
3.45
3.50
fOLDER 369.607-018
5
6
3
3.35
3.95
4.50
CORRECTION OFFICER. MEAD 372.137-010
8
17
6
3.50
3.87
4.00
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULV 1, 1986 THRU JUN 30. 1987
SMSA 6000
44) MIAMI
(2)
-----------------------------------------------
NINE
FOURTH EDITION 001 CODE TITLES
DIGIT
CODE
-------- ----------------------------------------
GUARD. CHIEF
372.167-014
AIRLINE SECURITY REPRESENTATIV
372.667-010
CORRECTION OFFICER
372.667-018
GATE TENDER
372.667-030
GUARD. SECURITV
372.667-034
MERCHANT PATROLLER
372.667-038
gbFTECTIVE 4
376.367-014
S, 4°11111LIfF
377.667-010
DISPATCHER. RADIO
379.362-010
LIFEGUARD
379.667-014
SUPERVISOR, JANITORIAL SERVICE
301.137-010
CENTRAL-SUPPLV WORKER
381.687-010
CLEANER. COMMERCIAL OR JNSTITU
361.687-014
CLEANER. INDUSTRIAL
381.667-018
JANITOR
382.664-010
fUMIGATOR
383.361-010
EXTERMINATOR
389.684-010
FARMWORKER, fIfLD CROP 1
404.663-010
MORTJCULT.URAL WORKER /
405.684-014
64ORTICULTURAL WORKER 2
405.607-014
CEMETERY WORKER
406.664-010
GROUNDSKEEPER. INDUSTRIAL-COMM
406.684-014
GROUNDSKEEPER. PARKS AND GROUN
406.607-000
SUPERVISOR.'SPRAV. LAWN AND TR
408.131-010
LANDSCAPE GARDENER
408.161-010
PLANT -CARE WORKER
408.364-010
,LAWN -SERVICE WORKER
408.664-010
TREE PRUNER
408.684-018
MR -BORER. LANDSCAPE
408 687-014
'AAARMWORKER, LIVESTOCK
4/0.664-0t0
ANIMAL CARETAKER
410.674-010
STABLE ATTENDANT
410.674-022
ANIMAL 4CEEPER
412.674-010
fARMWORKER, GENERAL 1
421.683-010
FORESTER AIDE
452.364-0/0
SANDBLASTER
503.687-010
LABORER. GENERAL
509.666-010
CHILLER TENDER
523.505-014
CAKE DECORATOR
524.361-010
POULIRV EVJSCERATOR
625.687-074
POULTRY -DRESSING AIORKER
525.687-082
BAKER
526.381-010
RAKER MELPER
526.686-010
fACTORV HELPER
529.686-034
(3)
JOB
ORDERS
RECEIVED
---------------
15
13
67
100
234
156
10
5
13
31
41
431
95
174
5
6
1/
7
36
7
106
it
7
52
6
68
6
46
6
17
6
6
5
9
5
9
7
5
10
5
IS
13
13
(41
TOTAL
OPENINGS
RECEIVED
32
65
136
373
912
412
16
23
7
22
40
53
881
138
349
9
1 7
93
13
76
27
182
30
13
143
17
119
e
122
15
19
27
6
8
It
8
22
25
66
43
13
102
14
32
(5)
TOTAL
OPENINGS
FILLED
15
30
109
71
281
133
4
O
2
2
14
24
433
77
165
2
4
92
B
3S
14
104
4
1
70
16
57
8
66
15
6
0
3
7
ft
5
10
25
65
43
r 13
92
5
29
(6)
LOWEST
WAGE
OFFERED
--------------
f 3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
4.00
4.25
4.75
3.43
3.50
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
4.00
3.35
3.35
3.50
3.35
3.50
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.50
3.35
4.00
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.75
3.35
5.49
4.00
3.35
5.21
4.30
5.21
5.31
4.00
3.35
3.35
(7)
AVERAGE
WAGE
OFFERED
--------------
S 4.71
4.76
6.73
4.21
4.84
4.16
5.78
4.25
6.72
4.27
4.75
4.06
4.04
4.10
4.16
4.89
5.32
7.38
3.99
3.82
3.99
4.14
3.70
5.07
4.54
3.53
4.40
4.67
4.40
5.74
3.90
3.86
4.79
3.59
6.51
4.67
4.55
5.28
4.75
5.21
5.31
4.96
4.42
3.89
PAGE 8
(a)
HIGHEST
WAGE
OFFERED
--------------
S 7.21
6.00
10. 10
8.65
8.79
6.59
15.00
4.25
10.22
5.00
12.00
5.00
7.00
6.00
6.65
6.00
6.25
12.50
5.46
5.77
4.25
13.13
5.00
10.00
6.56
4.00
18.75
6.00
6.00
6.34
5.00
8.33
5.00
4.00
7.69
6.00
9.00
5.31
5.00
5.21
5.3f
7.50
5.50
4.50
PAGE 9
TABLE 2
WAGE
SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
JOB OPENINGS
AVAILABLE FROM
JULV
S. 1986
THRU JUN 30.
1987
SMSA 5000
41) MIAMI
---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6I
(7)
(8)
NINDIGIT
RS
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
EST
fOURTH :EDJTJON DOT CODE 'TITLES
I
ORDERS
I OPENINGS
I OPENINGS I
WAGE
WAGE
I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------••------------------
CODE
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
EGG CANDLLR
529.6B7-074
B
10
7
: 3.35
S 3.35
: 3.35
INJECTION-MOLOING-MACHINE OPER
556.382-014
16
52
15
3.35
3.73
4.80
INJECTION -MOLDING -MACHINE TEND
556.685-038
5
12
0
3.50
3.93
5.50
EKTRUDER,OPERATOR
557.382-010
7
9
2
3.55
5.18
6.02
INSPECTOR
569.381-010
6
11
2
4.00
5.14
6.00
LABORER. GENERAL
559.685-/10
5
6
5
3.75
3.85
4.00
4WILTER CLEANER
659.687-038
5
6
4
4.00
4.17
4.25
\f4ABORER. CHEMICAL PROCESSING
559.687-050
11
26
18
5.85
5.85
5.65
LABORER.,GENERAL
579.667-010
7
IB
11
3.35
4.37
6.00
MACHINIST
600.280-022
25
76
13
3.35
9.82
12.00
LATHE OPERATOR. PRODUCTION
604.605-026
7
7
1
4.50
4.99
5.68
LABORER. GENERAL
609.684-014
5
5
3
3.50
4.30
6.00
PUNCH -PRESS OPERATOR -1
615.482-022
14
15
5
3.35
4.72
7.00
SHEAR OPERATOR 1
615.482-034
5
6
1
5.00
5.83
7.00
41ACHJNE OPERATOR 1
616.360-018
20
93
48
3.35
4.76
7.63
BRAKE OPERATOR 1
647.360-010
16
20
4
3.35
5.07
6.00
11BENDING-MACHINE OPERATOR 1
617.482-010
13
131
28
4.00
4.31
5.50
MACHINE OPERATOR 2
619.685-062
11
13
7
3.35
4.44
7.00
METAL-fABRICATING-SHOP HELPER
619.686-022
14
24
12
3.35
4.44
6.00
SUPERVISOR. GARAGE
620.131-014
8
9
2
3.35
6.88
18.00
AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC
620.261-010
252
312
90
3.35
5.53
13.75
AUTOMOBILE -MECHANIC APPRENTICE
620.261-012
6
e
4
3.35
4.32
6.00
.AUTOMOBILE -REPAIR -SERVICE ;ESTI
620.261-018
6
7
2
3.75
5.80
8.75
CONSTRUC710N-LOUIP14ENT MECHANI
620.261-022
17
30
6
3.35
6.32
10.00
AIR-CONDITIONING MECHANIC
620.281-010
19
21
a
3.35
5.65
6.75
FRONT-END,MECHAMIC
620.281-036
12
13
3
3.35
5.91
0.99
MECHANIC. INDUSTRIAL TRUCK
620.281-050
7
20
1
3.35
6.20
6.00
TRANSMISSION MECHANIC
4031NUNANCE MECHANIC HELPER
620.281-062
14
43
3
3.50
6.17
9.38
620.664-014
5
5
1
3.35
3.35
3.35
#IUOMOBILE WRECKER
620.684-0/0
7
e
3
3.35
4.77
6.00
AUTOMOBILE -MECHANIC HELPER
620.684-014
63
92
40
3.35
4.36
7.00
AIRFRAME -AND -POWER -PLANT MECHA
621.281-014
32
BS
19
4.50
8.42
12.00
FARM-:EOUJPMENT-MECHANIC APPREN
624.281-014
5
6
4
3.50
3.83
01ESEL MECHANIC
625.281-010
29
32
14
3.35
6.59
4.00
10.00
SMALL -ENGINE MECHANIC
625.281-034
20
22
7
3.35
4.70
6.00
ENVIRONMENTAL-CONTROL-SVSTEM J
637.261-014
59
315
42
3.35
11.15
13.69
GAS -APPLIANCE SERVICER
637.261-018
13
13
4
4.00
5.03
6.50
REFRIGERATION MECHANIC
637.261-026
9
32
4
4.50
6.30
10.00
ENVIRONMENTAL -CONTROL -SYSTEM 1
637.664-010
28
32
_
24
4.00
5.32
8.00
AIR-CONDITIONING INSTALLER-SER
637.687-010
7
e
3
3.50
4.41
7.00
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC
638.281-014
52
58
23
3.35
6 65
12.50
MAINTENANCE -MECHANIC HELPER
638.664-018
10
35
~ 5
3.35
4.61
5.50
SEWING -MACHINE REPAIRER
639.281-018
12
16
3
3 35
4.21
6.00
BAG-JIACHINE OPERATOR
649.685-014
5
5
- 0
4.50
4.80
5.00
PAGE 10
TABLE 2
WAGE
SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
JOB OPENINGS
AVAILABLE FROM
JULY
1. 1986
THRU JUN 30.
1987
$USA 500D
11) MIAMI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)
(3)
14)
(5)
(6)
i7)
(e)
NI
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
FOURTH EDITION OOT CODE TITLES
DIGIT
ICOOE I
I
I OPENINGS
I
WAGE
WAGE
I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
MACHINE,OPERATOR. GENERAL
649.685-070
5
15
14
= 3.35
f 4.24
: 4.50
CYLINDER -PRESS OPERATOR
651.362-010
8
8
0
5.00
6.00
7.00
PRINTER 2
651.360-010
20
23
15
3.35
5.59
8.00
ENGRAVING -PRESS OPERATOR
651.382-010
6
6
4
4.00
4.88
5.50
OFFSET -PRESS OPERATOR 1
651.482-010
it
12
2
3.35
4.92
7.00
f&OTH PRINTER
652.382-010
6
8
5
3.35
4.58
6.25
*-SCREENPRINTER. MACHINE
WORKER
652.665-010
9
16
4
3.35
3.75
5.00
.EVERY
653.685-010
15
22
it
3.35
3.92
5.00
CABINETMAKER
660.260-010
76
99
33
3.35
5.79
10.00
CABINETMAKER APPRENTICE
660.280-014
20
27
10
3.35
4.55
7.50
LOFT WORKER
661.281-010
5
12
1
4.50
4.79
7.00
CUT -OFF -SAW OPERATOR
667.602-022
5
5
2
3.35
4.71
6.00
SAWMILL WORKER
667.686-014
a
11
11
3.45
3.86
4.00
MACHINIST. WOOD
669.380-014
a
12
5
3.35
4.15
7.00
WOODWORKING -MACHINE OFFBEARER
669 666-034
5
6
3
3.35
4.62
6.00
LIMBER STRAIGHTENER
669.667-018
8
18
17
5.00
5.00
5.00
*HITTING -MACHINE OPERATOR
695.665-004
7
Ito
2
3.35
4.11
5.00
STITCHER. STANDARD MACHINE
690.662-082
8
19
7
3.35
3.36
3.60
CUTTER OPERATOR
699.682-014
12
15
10
3.35
5.29
6.00
OUALJTV-CONTROL INSPECTOR
701.261-010
6
e
3
3.35
5.19
7.40
POLISHER
705.684-058
7
15
5
4.00
6.13
8.00
AlR-CONDITIONING-COIL ASSEMBLE
706.664-010
5
IB
13
3 75
3.99
4.00
ASSEMBLER. SMALL PARTS
706.684-022
17
32
17
3.35
3.59
5.80
ASSEMBLER. PRODUCTION
706.687-010
23
66
18
3.35
4.29
10.00
FIRE -.EXTINGUISHER REPAIRER
709.384-010
5
5
2
3.35
4.45
6.00
ASSEMBLER. METAL FURNITURE
709.684-014
10
IS
14
3.35
3.65
0.00
REPAIRER
709.684-062
5
5
0
4.00
5.80
7.00
SECISION-LENS GRINDER
716.382-018
5
7
2
3.60
4.93
7.00
''EVISION-ADD-RADIO REPAIRER
AAAL
720.221-018
22
27
5
3.35
4.18
7.00
TESTER
721.261-014
7
9
e
6.15
6.15
6.15
ELECTRICAL -APPLIANCE REPAIRER
723.381-010
5
7
3
4.00
4.86
5.00
APPLIANCE REPAIRER
723.584-010
10
11
4
3.50
5.68
7.00
ASSEMBLER
723.684-010
9
16
a
3.35
3.70
4.25
ASSEMBLER 1
723.684-014
5
6
4
3.55
4.01
5.00
ELECTRONICS !FESTER 1
726.281-014
12
13
6
5.00
6.66
9.20
ELECTRONICS INSPECTOR 1
726.381-040
9
27
18
3.35
4.05
5.30
ELECTRONICS ASSEMBLER
726.684-018
34
80
51
3.35
4.40
9.10
FRAMER
739,684-078
7
12
0
3.35
4.08
6.00
ASSEMBLER. SMALL PRODUCTS
739.687-030
5
8
2
3.35
3.60
4.00
PAINTER. &RUSH
740.664-022
10
16
9
3.35
4.29
6.25
PAINTER. SPRAY 1
741.684-026
19
24
t. 14
3.50
5.10
10.00
SPRAY -PAINTING -MACHINE OPERATO
741.695-010
7
7
2
3.85
5.23
7.78
.PAINTER HELPER. SPRAY
741-667-014
5
8
8
4.00
4.19
5.00
MASKER
749.687-018
a
16
9
3.50
4.44
5.00
PAGE 11
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY
1. 1986 T/1RU
JUN 30.
1987
SMSA 6000
(1) MIAMI (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
16)
(7)
(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NINE
JOB
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
HIGHEST
fOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES DIGIT
IWAGE
I
I OPENIFILLGS
I
WAGE
(
WAE
(
CODE
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABORER. GENERAL 754.687-Of0
9
17
7
S 3.35
S 4.65
f 6.00
fURNITURE fiNISHER 763.381-010
29
38
9
3.35
6.21
15.00
CABINET ASSEMBLER 763.664-014
13
19
2
3.35
4.71
7.50
FURNITURE ,ASSEMBLER 763.684-038
31
53
16
3.35
3.94
6.50
LAMINATOR. HAND 763.684-050
57
79
21
3.35
5.15
8.00
' WORKING -SHOP HAND 769.667-054
30
50
20
3.35
3.95
10.00
IASS•CUTTER 775.684-022
5
6
1
3.35
4.03
5.00
FURNITURE UPHOLSTERER 780.381-018
19
19
3
3.35
5.71
10.00
UPHOLSTERY SEVER 780.682-018
13
15
3
3.35
4.13
5.00
CUSHION BUILDER 730.684-046
10
12
4
3.35
4.91
8.00
fA8R3CATOR. ]FOAM RUBBER 780.684-062
14
43
32
3.35
3.72
5.00
MARKER 1 781.384-014
t0
23
13
3.35
3.80
8.00
CUTTER APPRENTICE. HAND 781.584-010
5
6
2
3.75
4.54
7.00
CUTTER. HAND 1 781.584-014
26
30
6
3.35
4.90
8.00
CUTTER. MACHINE 1 781.684-014
58
74
9
3.35
5.66
8.00
SPREADER.;MACHINE 701.685-010
11
18
2
3.35
4.25
6.00
ASSEMBLER 781.687-010
23
141
2
3.35
3.78
4.50
MARKER 781.687-042
10
12
2
3.35
3.71
6.00
SPREADER 1 781.687-058
58
92
12
3.35
4.23
6.50
TRIMMER. HAND 781.607-070
18
33
13
3.35
3.41
3.75
SEWER. HAND 782.684-058
25
51
24
3.35
3.50
5.56
SEWING -MACHINE OPERATOR 783.682-014
31
80
58
3.50
3.97
5.00
ALTERATION TAILOR 785 261-010
23
26
10
3.35
4.18
5.00
CUSTOM TAILOR 785.261-014
5
6
0
7.00
8.90
10.63
DRESSMAKER 785.361-010
6
e
2
3.35
3.96
5.00
SAMPLE STITCHER 785.361-018
12
13
3
3.35
4.44
6.00
.4,1UPERVISOR. GARMENT MANUFACTUR 786.132-010
7
e
2
3.35
5.08
7.50
4 NDER. LOCKSTITCH 786.682-042
160
424
69
3.35
3.56
5.00
�OINDSTITCH-MACHINE OPERATOR 786.692-046
34
91
1
3.35
3.49
4.25
ELASTIC ATTACHER. CHAINSTITCH 786.682-086
a
20
3
3.35
3.41
3.50
LOCKSTITCH MACHINE OPERATOR 786.682-170
279
908
105
3.35
3.65
5.00
LOCKSTITCH-SEWING-MACHINE OPER 786.682-174
13
54
3
3.35
4.02
5.25
ZIGZAG -MACHINE OPERATOR 786.682-278
7
8
1
3.35
3.90
4.50
BUTTONHOLE -MACHINE OPERATOR 786.685-014
19
27
0
3.35
3.67
4.00
EIOROIOERY-MACHINE OPERATOR 787.682-022
7
12
1
3.50
4.19
7.00
SEWING -.MACHINE OPERATOR 787.682-042
6
52
47
3.35
4.01
4.50
SEWING -MACHINE, OPERATOR 787.682-046
93
397
167
3.35
3.43
5.50
SEWING -MACHINE OPERATOR 787.682-062
6
IS
1
3.50
3.85
5.00
SEWING -MACHINE OPERATOR 787.682-066
5
5
1
3.50
4.35
5.00
GUALITV-CONTROL CHECKER 789 387-010
9
13
1
3.35
4.25
6.25
]FINISHER 789.667-050
7
12
3
3.35
3.69
4.50
GARMENT INSPECTOR 789.607-070
16
25
r 7
3.35
3.59
5.00
STRUCTURAL -STEEL WORKER 801.361-014
12
44
29
4.00
6.33
10.00
SHEET -METAL WORKER 804.201-010
32
55
20
3.35
5.91
11.52
PAGE 12
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY 1. 1986 THRU JUN 30. 1987
SMSA 5000
(4) MIAMI
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NtNDIGIT
B
IOiAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
EST
FOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES
I
OPENI
I
OFENINGSLLED
I
I WAGE
WAGE
(
(
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CODE
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
ASSEMBLER. BICYCLE 4
806.684-014
7
19
3
6 5.00
S 5.71
= 6.00
AUTOMOBILE -ACCESSORIES INSTALL
806.684-030
12
22
1
3.35
4.98
6.00
FIBERGLASS LAMINATOR
806.684-054
17
22
a
3.35
4.69
7.00
SUPERVISOR, AUTOMOBILE BODY RE
807.137-010
5
5
1
4.00
7.73
14.42
TRUCK-8 ODY BUILDER
207.281-010
5
6
4
4.50
5.17
6.00
ILE-BODY CUSTOMIZER
807.361-010
5
5
4
4.00
5.13
7.00
ILE-BODY REPAIRER
807.38t-Ot0
118
182
36
3.35
5.81
10.00
AUTOMOBILE -BODY -REPAIRER HELPE
007.687-010
26
39
13
3.35
4.31
6.45
fABRICATOR-.ASSEMBLER. METAL PR
809.381-010
6
7
0
3.50
4.43
7.00
ASSEMBLER. :PRODUCTION LINE
809.684-010
10
19
5
3.40
4.73
7.00
METAL HANGER
809.684-030
5
9
2
4.50
5.25
6.00
WELDING -MACHINE OPERATOR. ARC
810.382-Of0
6
7
5
4.00
6.46
9.00
WELDER APPRENTICE. ARC
010.384-010
15
16
6
4.00
5.59
9.50
WELDER. ARC
8f0.384-014
98
152
96
3.35
7.68
15.00
WELDER. -GAS
011-684-014
14
16
7
3.35
6.48
6.75
WELDER -FITTER
819.361-010
5
5
0
5.50
6.09
6.97
WELDER. COMBINATION
819.384-010
57
181
49
3.35
5.81
12.00
'WELDER HELPER
619.687-014
e
9
2
3.50
4.02
5.00
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC. TELEPHON
$22.281-015
7
16
0
5.00
6.07
9.00
PRIVATE -BRANCH -EXCHANGE INSTAL
822.381-018
5
6
3
3.35
4.43
6.25
AVIONICS TECHNICIAN
823.281-010
6
/8
3
5.00
10.59
12.00
ELECTRICIAN. RADIO
823.281-014
5
It
1
5.00
5.00
5.00
METEOROLOGICAL -EQUIPMENT REPAI
823.281-015
5
7
6
4.30
4.58
5.00
ANTENNA INSTALLER
823.684-010
5
8
6
3.35
4.59
9.00
ELECTRICIAN
824.261-010
62
269
25
3.35
11.41
15.00
ELECTRICIAN APPRENTICE
824.261-014
9
10
3
4.00
5.9t
t2.00
JV ECTRICIAM
.•CTRICAL-APPLIANCE
824.681-0f0
5
12
3
3.35
5.88
9.00
SERVICER
827.261-010
8
B
O
4.50
7.43
/2.00
R-COIDITIONING INSTALLER. 00
827.464-OtO
B
t0
2
3.35
4.29
5.00
APPLIANCE ASSEMBLER. LINE
827.684-010
it
15
1
3.35
4.35
6.00
ELECTRONICS MECHANIC
828.201-010
28
53
47
3.35
7.38
9.32
ELECTRICAL REPAIRER
829.281-Ot4
6
6
3
5.00
7.01
11.66
ILECT4IICIAN HELPER
829.684-022
49
146
83
3.35
4.94
0.00
PAINTER
840.381-010
114
216
105
3.35
5.14
8.00
PAINTER APPRENTICE. SHIPYARD
840.381-014
5
7
2
5.00
5.34
7.35
GLASS TINTER
240.684-010
10
15
4
3.35
4.32
6.50
PLASTERER
842.361-018
17
37
4
5.00
6.74
12.50
DRY -WALL APPLICATOR
042,381-010
5
6
1
3.35
4.74
7.00
TAPER
842.664-010
5
10
_
1
3.35
4.38
7.00
CEMENT MASON
844.364-010
18
26
10
3.35
6.61
10.00
PAINT SPRAYER. SANDBLASTER
845.381-014
30
38
5
3 35
5.92
10.00
PAINTERHELPER, AUTOMOTIVE
845.694-014
29
36
12
3.35
4.50
6.50
BULLDOZER -OPERATOR 4
850.683-010
6
8
4
3.35
6.69
10.39
POWER -SHOVEL OPERATOR
850.683-030
11
14
3
3.35
6.87
10.00
PAGE 13
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY 1. 1986 THRU JUN 30. 1987
SMSA 5000
(I) MIAMI
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(e►
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NINE
JOB
TOIAL
TOTAL
LOWIST
AVERAGE
EST
FOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES
I IVED
I
OFENINGS I
I
WAGE
(
( FERED
RECECODE
RECEIVED
ILLED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFWAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATING ENGINEER
859.683-010
31
38
19
i 3.35
f 6.25
$10.00
CARPENTER. MAINTENANCE
860.281-010
17
25
12
3.35
7.41
12.00
ACOUSTICAL CARPENTER
860.381-010
7
9
6
4.00
4.98
6.35
BOATBUILDER. MOOD
860.381-018
12
54
47
4.15
5.09
10.00
860.381-022
119
258
70
3.35
7.31
14.00
r&RPENTIER
TER APPRENTICE
860.381-026
25
49
24
3.50
4.72
6.00
ENTER. ROUGH
860.381-042
28
67
19
3.35
7.59
10.00
FORM BUILDER
860.381-046
20
44
11
3.35
7.05
12.00
CARPENTER 4
860.664-010
5
9
3
5.00
7.44
8.00
JOINER�HELPER
860.664-014
8
16
10
3.35
4.99
6.00
,BRICKLAYER
861.381-018
10
21
3
7.00
13.50
19.63
TILE SETTER
861.381-054
6
10
1
3.35
11.23
18.75
PIPE FITTER
062.381-018
29
40
17
3.35
6.78
12.00
PLAIMBER
862.381-030
32
256
it
3.35
12.61
14.00
PLUMBER APPRENTICE
862.381-034
6
29
25
3.35
5.23
5.50
LABORER. CONSTRUCTION OR LEAK
862.684-014
14
34
16
3.35
4.44
5.50
SIDER
863.684-014
5
111
4
3.35
3.94
4.00
CARPET LATER
864.381-010
8
13
0
3.35
6.32
8.00
GLAZIER
865.381-010
16
27
14
3.35
5.01
7.00
GLASS INSTALLER
065.684-010
11
12
5
3.35
4.98
9.50
GLASS INSTALLER
865.684-014
15
24
7
3.35
4.35
7.32
ROOFER
866.381-010
28
54
28
3.35
5.19
8.00
ROOFER APPLICATOR
866.684-010
a
11
7
4.00
5.82
9.00
POLE :INSPECTOR
869.307-010
7
25
9
4.65
4.77
4.90
SURVEYOR HELPER
869-667-010
10
29
5
4.00
4.78
5.35
CONCRETE -BUILDING ASSEMBLER
869.664-010
71
167
130
3.35
4.35
8.50
STRUCTJON WORKER 1
869.664-014
303
853
558
3.35
4.95
10.00
LER '869.667-014
f
5
IB
10
4.00
4.17
5.00
CE ERECTOR
869.684-022
14
32
10
4.00
4.94
6.25
INSTALLER
869.684-026
a
13
2
3.35
5.19
7.00
AWNING -MANGER HELPER
869.687-010
83
148
98
3.35
4.50
8.00
CAMOUFLAGE ASSEMBLER
869.687-014
12
31
18
3.50
4.15
5.00
CLEANER
869.687-018
9
20
9
3.35
3.83
6.00
CONSTRUCTION WORKER 2
869.687-026
108
228
108
3.35
4.81
10.00
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
891.137-010
12
12
3
3.35
6.26
10.00
SWIIMING-POOL SERVICER
891.604-018
21
23
6
3.35
4.32
6.25
LITILIT:IES-AND-MAINTENANCE SUPE
899.131-018
7
11
8
5.00
7.28
10.00
MAINTENANCE REPAIRER. FACTORY
899.281-014
12
16
_ 8
3.35
5.13
10.00
MAINTENANCE REPAIRER. BUILDING
299.381-010
346
504
235
3 35
5.11
9.00
MOBILE -HOME -LOT UTILITN WORKER
899.464-010
6
7
2
4.00
4.86
6.00
MAJNTENANCE-REPAIRER HELPER. F
899.684-022
15
21
6
3.50
6.99
10.00
DUMP -TRUCK DRIVER
902.683-010
20
33
~ 16
3.35
4.43
6.50
TRACTOR -TRAILER -TRUCK DRIVER
904 383-010
92
138
54
3.35
7.49
12.50
GARBAGE COLLECTOR DRIVER
905.663-010
28
34
19
4.00
4.76
7.00
TPAGE 14
ABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS AVAILABLE FROM
JULY 1. 1986 THRU JUN 30. 1987
SMSA 5000
41) MIAMI (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a)
NINDIGIT
TOTAL
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
EST
FOURTH EDITION DOT CODE TITLES
I
I I
OPENINGSLED
I WAGE
WAGE
I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OFFERED
OFFERED
OFFERED
TRUCK DRIVER.;HEAVY 905.663-014
351
529
270
= 3.35
: 5.17
$12.00
VAN DRIVER 905.663-018
48
76
29
3.35
5.20
9.44
(WATER -TRUCK ;DRIVER 2 OOS.683-010
17
19
t0
4.00
5.07
6.50
fR11CK-DRIVER HELPER 905.687-010
42
136
101
3.46
6.59
8.00
VAN -DRIVER HELPER 905.687-014
14
19
10
3.35
5.52
15.63
SERVICE DRIVER 906.683-010
17
23
1t
3.35
4.52
6.00
j UCK DRIVER. LIGHT 906.683-022
294
361
178
3.35
4.70
9.50
LABORER. GENERAL 009.607-014
6
e
3
3.35
4.42
5.00
CLEANER 3 911.687-014
5
5
2
3.35
4.54
7.00
BUS DRIVER 913-463-010
30
46
15
3.35
4.67
6.25
CHAUFFEUR 913.663-010
10
25
5
3.35
4.36
5.00
LOADER 1 914.667-010
9
35
27
3.35
3.78
5.00
AUTOMOBILE -SERVICE -STATION ATT 915.467-010
76
115
42
3.35
4.14
6.00
PARKING -LOT ATTENDANT 915.473-010
26
63
26
3.35
3.50
5.00
AUTOMOBILf-SELf-SERVf-SERVICE- 915.477-010
29
51
26
3.35
3.76
4.50
CAR -WASH ATTENDANT, AUTOMATIC 915.667-010
23
36
10
3.35
3.81
4.50
TIRE REPAIRER 91S.684-010
58
184
23
3.35
4.74
6.25
PORTER. MSED-CAR LOT 915.667-022
6
6
4
3.35
3.77
4.00
DELIVERER. CAR RENTAL 919.663-010
10
29
4
3.35
3.58
5.00
TOW -TRUCK OPERATOR 919.663-026
24
55
13
3.35
4.56
7.00
DRIVER 919.663-014
15
At
9
3.35
4.12
5.50
CLEANER 2 919.687-014
63
86
36
3.35
4.35
10.33
CLOTH -BOLT BANDER 920.587-010
5
e
7
3.50
4.37
4.65
PACKAGER, HAND 920.587-018
184
605
403
3.35
3.82
5.85
PACKAGER. MACHINE 920.685-078
/2
43
16
3.35
3.80
4.75
BAGGER 920-687-014
17
31
7
3.35
3.40
4.00
AAGGER 920.687-018
5
6
3
3.35
3.58
4.00
ER. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE 920.687-134
CSTRIAL-TRUCKOPERATOR
8
11
8
3.35
3.44
4.00
921.683-050
58
83
51
4.00
5.02
7.00
81#4fILLER 922-687-010
26
97
Bt
3.35
4.65
7.50
BOBBIN SORTER 922.687-016
49
BO
47
3.50
4.36
5.50
LABORER. STORES 922-687-058
844
2.453
1.019
3.35
4.09
8.45
LABORER. WHARF 922.607-062
8
21
6
4.00
9.50
12.00
WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR 929.137-022
tt
11
2
3.35
5.26
7.50
CUTTER. BANANA ;ROOM 929.607-010
51
BO
55
3.35
4.23
10.00
KILN DRAWER 929.687-014
7
17
11
3.35
3.72
5.00
LABORER. SALVAGE 929.607-022
a
25
19
3.35
4.77
5.00
MATERIAL HANDLER 929.687-030
672
2.13E
1.561
3.35
5.13
15.63
DRILLER HELPER 930 666-010
5
5
1
3.35
4.57
6 00
SAMPLE WASHER 939.687-030
9
13
7
3.50
4.35
5.00
PAINTER. -HAND 970.331-022
7
13
6
3.50
4.08
7.00
PAINTER. SIGN 970.381-026
6
6
r
1
3.35
4.47
7.00
REPRODUCTION TECHNICIAN 976.361-010
6
10
6
3.50
3.75
6.00
SILK-SCREEN CUTTER 979.681-022
5
5
3
3.35
3.35
3.35
PAGE 15
TABLE 2
WAGE SUMMARY REPORT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE JOB OPENINGS
AVAILABLE FROM
JULY
,+ 1. 1986
THRU JUN 30.
1987
S05A 6000
4t) MIAMI
-----•------------------------•-----------------------------•--------------------_--------------------------------------------------
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a)
MI NE
JOB
TOTAL
LOWEST
AVERAGE
HIGHEST
#QURTN EDITION DOT CODE TITLES
DIGICODE (
ORDERS
OP:OTAL
�
I OPENINGSFILLED I
� �
-------------------------------------------------------------_—_--------------------------------------------------------------------
BECEIVET
RECEIVED
OFWAGE FERED
QWAGEffile
QWAGE
SCREEN PRINTER
: 3.35
S
SCREEN PRINTER
979.66
I
(
,
'SCREEN PRINTER HELPER
R79.647-022
20
78
56
3.35
4.32
5.00
1#
N
FRANk (A,,lANFDA
f)uPt lnr
October 22, 19R6
Mr. Don Outland
Regional Wage Specialist
U.S. Department of Housing
6 Urban Development
Atlanta Regional Office IV
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303- 3388
Dear Mr. Outland:
(-fSAR
C riy
This letter is regarding the Construction Survey to be clone on
Dade County by your office to determine the new Davis Bacon Wage
Decision for future Construction Projects funded by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Will you please respond to the following questions of concern:
I. Have you begun work on the Survey? If so will you
please inform us of the status.
2. How long do you expect the process to take?
3. And, when can we expect the results of the Survey?
Thank you for your assistance and we appreciate your cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerel
L
Frank Castaneda , Director
Community Development
FC:AG/lg
DEPARTMENT OF COMM(INITY E)EVEI OPMFNT/1145 N.W 11 StrPoi/Miami, FL 33136/(305) 579.6853
snow-
U.S. Depatiment of Labor 0 Empinyme+nl Standards Administration
1.171 Peachtrpo SIrf#et, N E
Allanta, Georgia 30361
Reply In the Attention ol:
Wage and Hour RECEIVED
November 20, 1996
Mr. Frank Castaneda L
11Directcr, Community Development UNITY
City of Miami PMENT
1145 N41, 11 Street
Miami, Florida 33136
Dear Mr. Castaneda:
This is in response to your letter dated October 22, 1986 concerning
this office's plannPd building construction survey of Dade county,
Florida.
I will answer your questions using the same numbering of your
letter of October 22, 1986.
1. No, we have not beclun work on the survey.
2. I expect the survey process to take approximately six to
seven months.
3. I hope to be able to forward the survey results and our
r.Qcommendations to our national office in Washington, DC by
the end of March, 1.987. I cannot speak for our national office
but I believe the review and publication process may be
completed sometime in June or July of 1987.
My office hopes to initiate the survey by December 1, 1986 and
we will establish a cutoff date for the receipt of data of
February 20, 1987.
I trust that this information is responsive to your request. I
will appreciate any assistance that your agency can provide in
this survey initiative.
Sincerely,
DONALD T. OUTLAND
Regional Wage Specialist
.,