Matthew Rousu, an economist from Susquehana University, recently
wrote a commentary in
the Patriot-News and PennLive calling for the repeal of Pennsylvania's
prevailing wage law. His argument basically boiled down to this: Without
prevailing wage, we could pay workers less and therefore construction
projects would be cheaper. State or local governments could save money.
In the strictest since, Mr. Rousu's point is mathematically true. But
it is a terrible argument for repealing or weakening our prevailing
wage law.
Of course we could save money (at least in the short term) by paying
workers less. In fact, paying workers anything at all costs more than
paying them nothing. So from a purely fiscal perspective, if we paid
workers poverty-level wages, we could erect lots and lots of buildings.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that it completely
ignores the impact on the workers themselves. In fact, Mr. Rousu
explicitly dismisses any legitimate interest workers may have in earning
enough to support their families when he says "whatever wage we can pay
in which someone will accept the work." In a recession, or a soft
economy such as we have now, workers might be forced to accept work at
wages below the poverty level. Their lives would be dismal and their
families deprived of even the basics of life. But heck, we'd have more
cheap buildings.
In my view, Mr. Rousu's decidedly unbalanced perspective is
profoundly misguided. Working men and women aren't disposable
work-horses whose quality of life is irrelevant to us. They are human
beings who are entitled to live decently and support their families.
Paying a living wage is part of the cost of any project, just as much
as the cost of lumber and wiring. A strong prevailing wage law is all
that stands between many hard-working Pennsylvanians and poverty. It
must be retained.
SEN. DAYLIN LEACH, Delaware and Montgomery Counties
