Prevailing Wage: Travel Time for Public Works Projects Draft Policy
In order to be transparent and seek input from the diverse business and labor communities, L&I is currently seeking stakeholder feedback on draft administrative policy PW.A.1, Travel Time for Public Works Projects.
We are asking the public to review and provide feedback on the draft of the administrative policy by April 19, 2024.
Feedback can be submitted directly to this page via the “Submit Comments” tab, or using an attached document via the “Upload Documents” tab.
Feedback can also be submitted via the PrevailingWageRules@lni.wa.gov email box. Feedback submitted to the email box will be uploaded to this engagement site.
A virtual stakeholder feedback session to discuss the content of the draft administrative policies is being held on April 12, 2024 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Details on how to participate can be found on the timeline via the Project Timeline of the "Review Draft Administrative Policies" page.
In order to be transparent and seek input from the diverse business and labor communities, L&I is currently seeking stakeholder feedback on draft administrative policy PW.A.1, Travel Time for Public Works Projects.
We are asking the public to review and provide feedback on the draft of the administrative policy by April 19, 2024.
Feedback can be submitted directly to this page via the “Submit Comments” tab, or using an attached document via the “Upload Documents” tab.
Feedback can also be submitted via the PrevailingWageRules@lni.wa.gov email box. Feedback submitted to the email box will be uploaded to this engagement site.
A virtual stakeholder feedback session to discuss the content of the draft administrative policies is being held on April 12, 2024 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Details on how to participate can be found on the timeline via the Project Timeline of the "Review Draft Administrative Policies" page.
To submit your feedback directly to this page, please enter your comments in the text box below.
You need to be signed in to comment in this Guest Book. Click here to Sign In or Register to get involved
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We understand the purpose of this draft is to not expand prevailing wage application in any way, but to make easier the understanding of current law. The thrust of these comments is that some additional clarifications and distinctions are needed to help avoid inconsistent application and enforcement of the policies.
Comments re: 2.6 Time Spent Traveling Between the Public Works Project and Private Work, particularly this criterion: Prevailing wage is required for the time spent loading materials and/or equipment and traveling from an off-site location to deliver to a public works project, even if the drive started at a private project.
While loading equipment and materials requires payment of prevailing wage, it has not been the case if the delivery involves standard tools of the trade. This distinction should be added to this criterion. Also, the wording seems to allow for an interpretation that ANY loading at a private project, even if it’s clean up of tools, equipment, and garbage, is subject to prevailing wage if the next stop is a public project. Some clarification such as if loading involves overstock materials to be taken to/used on a public project would be helpful.
Comments re: 2.8 Time Spent Traveling Between the Staging Yard and the Public Works Project.
The wording implies that ANY work at the staging yard, whether public or private project related, would require prevailing wages. There should be a distinction between work pertinent to the public project (e.g., time assembling fittings at the offsite staging area for the public project) and work that is not.
Comments re: 2.9 Time Spent Traveling Between the Public Works Project and a Supply Source
Previously travel time for materials was not prevailed if it involved material not specific to the public project and was merely dropped off. This wording seems to expand prevailing wages to all materials and all supply runs, for contractors and vendors alike, since no such distinction is made.
Comments re: 2.11 Time Spent Hauling Materials To and From the Public Works Project
Previously, time hauling excess materials (e.g., fill dirt) to a private site was not prevailed because it is in direct relation to the private site. This wording seems to imply that all material hauled off, and by any vendor, would be. This would affect vendors that aren’t working on the public project, such as companies that re-sell bounders or use cleared trees. Some distinction would be helpful here.
Comments pertinent to both 2.4 and 2.6
Consider this scenario: GC drivers haul standard components (or parts) to their own equipment for a public workers project (i.e. crane booms, crane counterweights, excavator buckets, attachments, etc.). Does this fall under prevailing wage laws? L&I has historically differentiated between materials, tools and equipment. Historically, if the tool or material was subject to a drop and delivery (with no work performed) for a standard item, the prevailing wage laws would not apply. As a result, there is an argument that if the delivery driver drops and delivers standard component parts for equipment, then the prevailing wage laws would not apply. [ see Christensen Wage Determination, “Prevailing Wage Requirements for Third Party Vendors – On Site Equipment Repair” (April 8, 2020).] However, draft guidance indicates a potential change of course. Under the draft interpretations, prevailing wage is required for the transportation of power equipment (whether it is standard or non-standard), provided the contractor is performing work on the jobsite. Thus, the draft guidance places this issue in doubt, and suggests a potential expansion of prevailing wage (and expansion is not appropriate for this guidance effort). Clarification on this point would be helpful.
Thank you for y our consideration of these remarks.
-Jerry VanderWood, AGC
Jerry VanderWood
14 days ago
Travel time should not be considered prevailing wage work and employees should just be paid their normal wages.
Jean Sousa
21 days ago
PW should be at the jobsite and if you're hauling materials to/from the PW jobsite. Outside of the job it should be regular pay. Otherwise, it will create a nightmare of paperwork and tracking that is not cost effective and will drive up the cost for everyone.
Diane K
about 2 months ago
Prevailing wage pay should start when employees reach the jobsite and not include travel time. Travel time should be whatever their regular hourly pay is. Our trucks have to stop at weigh stations. A crew cab truck with 5 employees may get a full inspection at a weigh station and have to wait an hour or more if something is found during the inspection. It isn't right to have to pay the employees prevailing wage to sit in the truck and wait. They already get their regular pay for that. Not to mention bad traffic conditions where a highway may have construction or a bad accident that shuts the highway down. It is getting harder and harder to do business in WA State. Contractors would have to raise the prices considerably of their prevailing wage jobs to accommodate prevailing wage travel time. It would make it more difficult to get these jobs. The prevailing wage has been steadily going up as it is. Where is it going to stop?
Karen
about 2 months ago
Prevailing Wages should start when an employee arrives on the jobsite.
Aryella Stickney
about 2 months ago
With review of the Draft, it seems as LNI is trying to make travel time even more complex than it already is. In my opinion all travel time to the jobsites should just be the employees regular pay rate and not at Prevailing wage rates, that meets or exceeds the state minimum wage the employee resides in.
Example: If an employee is traveling from Oregon to Seattle and is working a private Job, and then going to the WA Prevailing wage job without job materials, in a standard pickup truck (such as a F250) then it causes even more havoc for the crew that is traveling, and payroll and our approvers to consider during their time submittals which causes an increased amount of job code classifications, and possibilities for inaccurate CPR's. The drive time with materials, or in-between jobs should not be greater than the General Laborer rates, for a standard pickup truck(F250) with or without materials/equipment. If you want any/all drive time to show on CPR's have a singular rate for a regular truck drive time, or a regular truck with a trailer for drive time. The clause of standard tools, can be manipulated based off of the type of work the employer does, because what our standard tools are, differ from a different companies standard tools. Prevailing wage ultimately I believe should start once they have arrived on the jobsite.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We understand the purpose of this draft is to not expand prevailing wage application in any way, but to make easier the understanding of current law. The thrust of these comments is that some additional clarifications and distinctions are needed to help avoid inconsistent application and enforcement of the policies.
Comments re: 2.6 Time Spent Traveling Between the Public Works Project and Private Work, particularly this criterion: Prevailing wage is required for the time spent loading materials and/or equipment and traveling from an off-site location to deliver to a public works project, even if the drive started at a private project.
While loading equipment and materials requires payment of prevailing wage, it has not been the case if the delivery involves standard tools of the trade. This distinction should be added to this criterion. Also, the wording seems to allow for an interpretation that ANY loading at a private project, even if it’s clean up of tools, equipment, and garbage, is subject to prevailing wage if the next stop is a public project. Some clarification such as if loading involves overstock materials to be taken to/used on a public project would be helpful.
Comments re: 2.8 Time Spent Traveling Between the Staging Yard and the Public Works Project.
The wording implies that ANY work at the staging yard, whether public or private project related, would require prevailing wages. There should be a distinction between work pertinent to the public project (e.g., time assembling fittings at the offsite staging area for the public project) and work that is not.
Comments re: 2.9 Time Spent Traveling Between the Public Works Project and a Supply Source
Previously travel time for materials was not prevailed if it involved material not specific to the public project and was merely dropped off. This wording seems to expand prevailing wages to all materials and all supply runs, for contractors and vendors alike, since no such distinction is made.
Comments re: 2.11 Time Spent Hauling Materials To and From the Public Works Project
Previously, time hauling excess materials (e.g., fill dirt) to a private site was not prevailed because it is in direct relation to the private site. This wording seems to imply that all material hauled off, and by any vendor, would be. This would affect vendors that aren’t working on the public project, such as companies that re-sell bounders or use cleared trees. Some distinction would be helpful here.
Comments pertinent to both 2.4 and 2.6
Consider this scenario: GC drivers haul standard components (or parts) to their own equipment for a public workers project (i.e. crane booms, crane counterweights, excavator buckets, attachments, etc.). Does this fall under prevailing wage laws? L&I has historically differentiated between materials, tools and equipment. Historically, if the tool or material was subject to a drop and delivery (with no work performed) for a standard item, the prevailing wage laws would not apply. As a result, there is an argument that if the delivery driver drops and delivers standard component parts for equipment, then the prevailing wage laws would not apply. [ see Christensen Wage Determination, “Prevailing Wage Requirements for Third Party Vendors – On Site Equipment Repair” (April 8, 2020).]
However, draft guidance indicates a potential change of course. Under the draft interpretations, prevailing wage is required for the transportation of power equipment (whether it is standard or non-standard), provided the contractor is performing work on the jobsite. Thus, the draft guidance places this issue in doubt, and suggests a potential expansion of prevailing wage (and expansion is not appropriate for this guidance effort). Clarification on this point would be helpful.
Thank you for y our consideration of these remarks.
-Jerry VanderWood, AGC
Travel time should not be considered prevailing wage work and employees should just be paid their normal wages.
PW should be at the jobsite and if you're hauling materials to/from the PW jobsite. Outside of the job it should be regular pay. Otherwise, it will create a nightmare of paperwork and tracking that is not cost effective and will drive up the cost for everyone.
Prevailing wage pay should start when employees reach the jobsite and not include travel time. Travel time should be whatever their regular hourly pay is. Our trucks have to stop at weigh stations. A crew cab truck with 5 employees may get a full inspection at a weigh station and have to wait an hour or more if something is found during the inspection. It isn't right to have to pay the employees prevailing wage to sit in the truck and wait. They already get their regular pay for that. Not to mention bad traffic conditions where a highway may have construction or a bad accident that shuts the highway down. It is getting harder and harder to do business in WA State. Contractors would have to raise the prices considerably of their prevailing wage jobs to accommodate prevailing wage travel time. It would make it more difficult to get these jobs. The prevailing wage has been steadily going up as it is. Where is it going to stop?
Prevailing Wages should start when an employee arrives on the jobsite.
With review of the Draft, it seems as LNI is trying to make travel time even more complex than it already is. In my opinion all travel time to the jobsites should just be the employees regular pay rate and not at Prevailing wage rates, that meets or exceeds the state minimum wage the employee resides in.
Example: If an employee is traveling from Oregon to Seattle and is working a private Job, and then going to the WA Prevailing wage job without job materials, in a standard pickup truck (such as a F250) then it causes even more havoc for the crew that is traveling, and payroll and our approvers to consider during their time submittals which causes an increased amount of job code classifications, and possibilities for inaccurate CPR's. The drive time with materials, or in-between jobs should not be greater than the General Laborer rates, for a standard pickup truck(F250) with or without materials/equipment. If you want any/all drive time to show on CPR's have a singular rate for a regular truck drive time, or a regular truck with a trailer for drive time. The clause of standard tools, can be manipulated based off of the type of work the employer does, because what our standard tools are, differ from a different companies standard tools. Prevailing wage ultimately I believe should start once they have arrived on the jobsite.