Laserfiche WebLink
4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT'D <br />F. (cont�d) <br />Mr. Wiggins (cont'd) ... and <br />Jeanne Derbeck asked if the <br />which Mr. Brownell said they <br />to pa_ for them. <br />5. OLD BUSINESS <br />still don't have fountains that work. <br />fountains were still under warranty, <br />were and we consequently will not have <br />A. Elimi6ation of Labor Standard Provision, Rehabilitation Contract <br />renort by Keith Crighton adjourned until July 22, 1977 for <br />consideration by the membership of the Lull commission. <br />Mr. N'mtz indicated that with the full commission now present we <br />could now take action on this proposal. <br />Mr. C ighton said he didn't remember the date of the commission <br />meeti g at which this proposal was first presented, that of to <br />reduc the labor rates we had for our contracts. At that time the <br />commi sion asked that Mr. Crighton further investigate the matter <br />with the contractors and discuss the individual rates listed in the <br />labor standard provisions that we are using on a voluntary basis <br />for all rehabilitation contracts that we now have. From the <br />discu sions with the regular contractors they essentially had no <br />objections to the present rates we were using with exception to the <br />commoi labor category. At the present time we are paying $7.40 <br />an hour for common labor and many of our contractors said that <br />rehabilitation contracts are unlike new construction, and that <br />the job is related to picking up materials, hauling equipment, <br />carrying tools, anything within the general. labor classification <br />that Would not fit into carpentry or roofing, for example, and they <br />felt hat $7.40 was high to pay for that type of work. Laborers <br />in new construction do substantially more work, heavier work, so <br />in new construction, $7.40 would be a fair rate to pay. However, <br />under rehabilitation contracts the work is not that heavy and not <br />that strenuous or pressure is not associated with it. Mr. Crighton <br />reque ted that the present rate for general labor be dropped from <br />$7.40 an hour to $5.40 an hour. This is the only classification <br />reque ted for change. Mr. Robinson stated that he could not argue <br />with the intent of this proposal but disagrees with Mr. Crighton's <br />position because of his dealings with employers every day and knows <br />that qithin a 90 -day period of time the so called "savings" will be <br />in th2 contractor's pocket because their prices will come up also <br />withi 90 -days. We are trying to help people in these economically <br />depre sed areas and improve their lot in life but on the other hand <br />we ara trying to cut the wages of these laborers, some of them who <br />might live in this area. Mr. Robinson thinks these people are entitled <br />to ma <e a decent living as others in the construction industry, whether <br />the j bs are rehabilitations or new construction, the job will still <br />involve eight hours, hazards, and in some cases, rehabilitations <br />might even be more dangerous, because of tearing things down instead <br />of putting them up. We should improve the common laborer's economic <br />situation and status for him and his family. Mr. Robinson also stated <br />that 6fter all is said and discussed he would like to make a motion <br />5 <br />