If you read my last post, I briefly wrote about the Connecticut Department of Labor’s Prevailing Wage law, which briefly states that a certain rate of pay must be in effect on certain public works projects by the State or its agents, or by any political subdivision of the state (city or town).

For example: the Dodd Middle School gym refurbishing project will be prevailing wage. I don’t know if all projects in this town over $100,000 have been prevailing wage, but I know this one will be.

For all of you, especially the Town Government, that need to brush up on just what pay rates apply to prevailing wage in Connecticut (it differs from state to state), please go to the Connecticut Department of Labor website. Some of the law from this website is shown below with a number to call for even more information.

If you watched my show a few years ago on “How to Fight a Traffic Ticket” which I will be showing on this website soon, the person seen on the show, John Magnesi, who succesfully fought the ticket in Sturbridge, Mass., is one of the people who enforces the prevailing wage law for the Ct. Dept. of Labor. And that is how he spends his time at work!

Here is an excerpt from the Dept. of Labor website:

Connecticut’s prevailing wage law is codified in Connecticut General Statutes Section Section 31-53 and 31-53a. The law applies to each contract for the construction, remodeling, refinishing, refurbishing, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of any public works project by the State or its agents, or by any political subdivision of the State. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53(g) provides monetary thresholds which must be met before the la is applicable. The prevailing wage law does not apply where the total cost of all work to be performed by all contractors and subcontractors in connection with new construction of a public works project is less than four hundred thousand ($400,000) dollars. The prevailing wages law does not apply in connection with remodeling, refinishing, refurbishing, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of any public works project under one hundred thousand ($100,000) dollars.

Prevailing Rate: The prevailing rate consists of a base rate and a fringe benefit rate which may be paid in cash or benefits. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53(d) permits the Labor Commissioner to adopt and use the prevailing wage rate determinations as have been made by the Secretary of Labor of the United States under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended. The agent empowered to let such contract shall contact the Labor Commissioner at least ten, but not more than twenty days, prior to the date such contracts will be advertised for bid, to ascertain the proper prevailing rate. Under Connecticut General Statutes, 31-55a the rates will be adjusted annually on or before July 1st of each year. These new rates will be on the Department of Labor website. Both the Contractor and the Contracting Agent must provide certifications to the Labor Commissioner. Prior to the award of any contract subject to the prevailing wage law, the contracting agent shall certify in writing to the Labor Commissioner the total dollar amount of work to be done in connection with the public works project, regardless of whether such project consists of one or more contracts. Upon the award of a contract subject to the prevailing wage law, the contractor who is awarded the contract shall also certify, under oath, to the Labor Commissioner the pay scale to be used by the contractor and any of his subcontractors for the work to be performed under the contract. Additionally, each employer subject to the prevailing wage law must file certified payrolls with the contracting agent including information, including but not limited to, employee names; occupations; hours worked; rates paid; and the employers compliance with various provisions of law. There are various civil, criminal and administrative penalties for violations of the prevailing wage law. Failure to pay the prevailing rate is a crime which may be a felony depending upon the amount of unpaid wages. Knowingly filing a false certified payroll or failure to file a certified payroll is a Class D felony for which an employer may be fined up to five thousand dollars, imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Disregarding obligations under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53 may result in an administrative debarment which may preclude any firm, corporation, partnership or association in which such person or firms have an interest from receiving an award of a contract until a period of up to three years have elapsed. Additionally, civil penalties of $300 per violation of law may also be assessed upon the employer. Effective October 1, 2005, Public Act 05-50: Any person performing the work of any mechanic, laborer, or worker shall be paid prevailing wages ~~
All persons who perform work on site must be paid prevailing wage for the appropriate mechanic, laborer, or worker classification;
All certified payrolls must list the hours worked and wages paid to all persons who perform work on site regardless of their ownership, i.e.: (Owners, corporate officers, LLC members, independent contractors, et. al); Reporting and payment of wages is required regardless of any contractual relationship alleged to exist between the contractor and such person.

For additional information contact:
Wage and Workplace Standards Division
Public Contract Compliance

IN OTHER NEWS:
I have a download of the minutes of the May 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning meeting where the proposed zone text change was discussed which would allow residential and commercial development in the Interchange Zone near I-691. There is a meeting this coming of the Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall but I will check to see if that is the actual date a decision on the zone text change will be made. Anyway, here is the link to the minutes and thanks to my friend.
Click Here to Download

Also: There was a timely story in today’s New York Times regarding a unanimous Supreme Court Decision which states that now anyone in a car can challenge a police stop, not just the driver. Here is the article.This basically complements the Fourth Amendment search and seizure law. There is a link on my issues page to the New York Times article on this subject. I feel this could go either way in a traffic stop. On one hand it could protect innocent people from illegal search and seizure, but on the other hand, it could hamper the police in law enforcement, because now they not only will have to listen to me complaining about being pulled over, they will have to listen to everyone else in my car complaining! I don’t know.

Sometimes I wonder about the Supreme Court. Let’s face it, they always do not make the best decisions. I think over the past 150 years we have had a few “strikeouts” when it comes to the mindset of the Supreme Court. One that comes to mind is the 1859 Dred Scott decision where essentially, the Supreme Court said slavery was legal in the United States! Good one! The other one was the 2000 Presidential debacle decision that awarded the presidency to George W. Bush over Al Gore. Did these people ever hear the phrase “what were you thinking?” Obviously not. Only time will tell.