Prevailing Wage Provision Raises Questions & Concerns | Certified life sciences firms have to meet salary standards for builders
At least one provision in the application to become a certified life sciences company in Massachusetts — and be eligible for a share of that $1 billion biotech pie — is rubbing some in the industry the wrong way.
The provision in question requires certified companies to use construction firms that pay workers prevailing wages as defined by the state’s prevailing wage program.
The Life Sciences Center approved the certification application last week. Once a company is certified, the center can award it some of the $1 billion the State Legislature passed to encourage research and to help grow the industry here in the Bay State.
Prior to approval, the center had posted an 11-page draft application that asks companies to include revenue estimates, number of jobs to be created and the salaries for those jobs. The center talked to a lot of different people in creating the application: companies, other state officials and associations like the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.
Out of those 11 pages, the prevailing wage provision is only a few lines, but it was about the only section that the biotech industry was not crazy about.
While prevailing wage is not always the same as union wages, it can be, according to Laura Marlin, who is with the state’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development, which would issue rate sheets for jobs on those construction projects if needed.
Peter Abair, director of business development for the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, said the organization and its members would prefer that companies not be required to pay prevailing wages for construction projects. Abair said it could really hurt small companies that may not be able to afford to pay it for their smaller projects.
Abair was also quick to point out that overall the application reflects the council’s concerns because it ensures that everybody, no matter what size, gets to play, he said. The council also supports the center’s focus on a company’s environmental sustainability and good corporate governance.
So if the only unhappiness is with the prevailing wage passage, then the council and center are seeing the industry and what it needs in the same way.
Of course, unions might beg to differ. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103, based in Dorchester, certainly does.
“Prevailing wages are not a ringing endorsement, they’re not a union shop,” said Louis Antonellis, a Local 103 business agent. The union has been a critic of companies like Genzyme Inc., which hires both non-union and union companies to build its new facilities. It is also a pretty outspoken critic of the $1 billion in life sciences money, which it claims is “just a fancy name for a billion-dollar bio bailout.”
“I will never understand why these multi-billion dollar corporations have a problem conforming to the minimum pay standards in the cities and towns in which they seek to expand,” Antonellis said.
He pointed out that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies don’t sell the drugs they make for less money, so workers constructing the buildings where these drugs are to be made shouldn’t be paid less money than union wages. “Supporting the biotech industry is one thing, but doing it at the expense of cities and towns that are being crippled by budget shortfalls and cutbacks is just not right,” he said.
It’s interesting that the center’s board chose to ask companies if they use construction companies that pay prevailing wages, but will not require companies to do so in order to get funding from the center.
“The center is committed to encouraging fair labor practices throughout the commonwealth, and to promoting best practices in other areas such as environmental impact and corporate governance,” said Angus G. McQuilken, the center’s vice president for communications.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments