1. Now that you announced you are running for Governor, why do you refuse to answer questions about the Big Dig, one of the biggest financial challenges facing the state–and your past role in creating it?
2. When you were in charge of state finances, why did you claim, “I don’t see how anybody could argue that the artery will be pulling money away from non-artery projects”–even as the state had shut down scores of other highway projects due to the cash crunch?
In February 1998, then-Secretary for Administration & Finance Charles Baker asserted: “I don’t see how anybody could argue that the artery will be pulling money away from non-artery projects.” At the time, the state highway department had shut down or shelved a reported 200 projects around the state, with officials privately admitting they faced a cash flow crisis in state transportation accounts. Boston Globe, 1/27/1998 and Boston Herald, 3/23/1998
3. Why does your campaign today claim you had “a limited role in the financing process” when in fact you literally wrote a key Big Dig financing report?
In October 1997, the Boston Globe and Boston Herald reported on a newly-released Big Dig “financing report” that called for the “Big Dig to double [the] amount it borrows.” The Globe described the plan as “a new Administration and Finance report” while the Herald spoke of “Baker, who prepared the report.”
4. When you were in charge of state finances, why did you dismiss warnings that Big Dig spending was spiraling out of control–and instead insist you had the “right mechanism” in place to pay for it?
In 1997, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation issued a study finding the Commonwealth would face a serious Big Dig funding shortfall, even if no additional cost hikes occurred. A & F Secretary Baker brushed off the (accurate) warning, insisting: “We have the right mechanism for dealing with a situation that everyone admits is going to be challenging.”
5. When you were in charge of state finances, why did you remain silent in the face of false claims “no one’s contemplating toll hikes”–or did you really believe this?
In November 1994, A & F Secretary Baker remained silent as then-Lt. governor Paul Cellucci publicly claimed “no one’s contemplating raising tolls” to finance the Big Dig. Media reporting of that time describes lawmakers as incredulous at Cellucci’s claim, and sure enough, the Weld Administration later issued a report acknowledging tolls would need to double or triple.
John Walsh, Chair
Massachusetts Democratic Party
Excellent questions, John! It’ll be interesting to see if
Baker responds…
It’s called the smartest boy in the room disorder. Charlies got it too. Should be an interesting discussion, if he bothers to respond.
<
p>Judy, when I saw this, I thought, “no probably about it!” at least when it comes to things political.
<
p>I have a different “disorder” (which I prefer to think of as a “different order” in that my brain is not wired like those of most people), and that has made me vividly aware of the validity of the concept of Gardner’s “multiple intelligences” — we can’t all be smart about everything, and I don’t have a prayer of holding a candle to John Walsh when it comes to understanding what makes the political process tick.
<
p>On the other hand, I bet I know more about the Black-Scholes option-pricing theory than John does (or would ever want to!).
<
p>You imply that we are dealing with two big egos here. I don’t see it that way. I don’t know Charlie Baker except by reputation, but I do know John well, and his ego could fit in the smallest lunch bag you could find — not one to fill a room, or anything close to it.
<
p>I think John raises extremely legitimate issues, especially at a time when the state is STILL suffering from the consequences of bad decisions made oh those many years ago!
<
p>Yeah, it’s early, but Baker is the one who threw his hat in the ring (he coulda waited till after Labor Day!), so I think he’s fair game. And, anyway, we need to have this kind of discussion, about the issues, and not about abstractions, and not about name-calling.
<
p>So, I say to John, thanks for setting the tone of this debate in such a level-headed, honest (yes, challenging) way. It’s what this state needs.
It’s not a disorder, for which one might be diagnosed and treated.
<
p>It’s an attitude. Employed by skilled debaters and negotiators.
and the first thing that I thought was it’s way too early!!!!
<
p>But what do I know anyway.
<
p>Maybe it is as good time as any to ask these questions as many voters do not know who he is and need this information while forming their opinion.
<
p>By the way, Charlie, assigning Big Dig expenses to the Turnpike Authority. Sheer genius.
Butcher is not winning the Republican nomination, Christy Mihos is. But hey, everything is wonderful! Deval is gonna steamroll his way to victory! He loves animals, he bought a dog! Ignore those nasty zoo closings. We all embrace more taxes, bring them on! Screw the disabled, they don’t vote. Yup, keep thinking those happy thoughts! Everything is wonderful!
Who’s Butcher?
I don’t know who he is either.
When is Governor Patrick and the Democratic Legislature going to support the roll back of the state prevailing wage to at least the Federal level. The state prevailing wage according to the Beacon Hill Institute causes us to waste 17.7% of every dollar we spend on construction. According to David Tuerck this was also true on the Big Dig. You may have seen the video but Governor Patrick was confronted by Congresmsman Darrell Issa over this very issue just last week. You can read all about it here.
<
p>Despite your protestations above, repeal of the prevailing wage is the only way to maximize our transportation dollar spend. I eagerly await your reply.
As the cost of living here is higher than the national average, it is reasonable to have wages reflect that reality.
<
p>Its fascinating to me that the same group that defends 7 figure salaries and bonuses for the investment industry who failed miserably at their jobs, and tax cuts for the wealthy are the first to object to wages to hardworking blue collar workers trying to maintain a middleclass status.
<
p>If you don’t allow some of that money to trickle down, your economic base will eventually wither.
Sue,
<
p>I originally thought as you did, however I now know different. Follow the link above, as I’m in PEI at a self serve computer that doesn’t allow me to open multiple windows.
<
p>The Federal prevailing wage as calculated by the Davis Bacon act already takes into account cost of living increases. My numbers may be off from memory but are close below.
<
p>The average wage for all construction workers in Massachusetts is approximately $27.00 per hour or roughly $56,000 per year for a forty hour week. Hardly a non-livable wage. The prevailing wage as calculated for Massachusetts by the Department of Labor is an average of roughly $37 per hour or $76,960 per annum, this is the wage I am asking John Walsh that the Massachusetts prevailing wage be brought down to. The Massachusetts prevailing wage is an average of roughly $55.00 per hour or may be slightly more. This is an annual wage of $143,000.
<
p>The 17.7% we waste on this higher Massachusetts prevailing wage gets compounded by the interest payments on bonds etc. Also the prevailing wage at the Federal level fluctuates with the economy. As you know we are experiencing wage deflation in this economy, the Federal Prevailing wage takes this into account in other states. In Massachusetts the prevailing wage by statute is raised every six months regardless of the economic conditions.
<
p>Sue, we can’t afford this. I really suggest you follow the link above to learn the truth.
<
p>Rob Eno
EaBo Clipper
Always fun to relive history. In 1988, Barbara Anderson and a group of contractor executives put the repeal of the state’s prevailing wage rate on the ballot. It was defeated 58 to 42 % losing in 349 of the state’s 351 communities.
<
p>EaBo recycles the contractor executives claims about construction workers yearly salary. Construction workers rarely average 40 hours over a 52 week year. Construction is a seasonal activity. That is recognized in the wage rate and in the fact that to qualify for most benefit plans (health, pension) construction workers are required to average 1,200 hours a year.
<
p>Construction workers receive no paid vacation, no paid sick day or holidays.
<
p>There is no “construction prevailing wage” as claimed by Eabo. Wages differ from trade to trade, craft to craft. A Laborers pay rate is different from a Painters, a Plumber’s different from an Operating Engineer. The Massachusetts PW law is based on the negotiated rates between construction employers and the unions representing that craft. In the case of the Painters the rates are in three zones throughout Massachusetts reflecting regional economic conditions.
<
p>And yes, Anderson and the executives (and now Eabo) just want to protect the taxpayers and build more projects by cutting blue collar wages. But just blue collar wages. No limit on contractor profit, no limit on financing and legal profits, no cost controls for materials.
<
p>Public employees have been demonized by many (and by many here at BMG). Just cut public workers wages and benefits and all is well with the world. And now it’s just cut private sector construction workers wages when working on public projects and we will save money.
<
p>What is that well known qoute – “first they came for the Jews but I wasn’t a Jew so I said nothing, Next they came for….. so there was no one to speak up when they came for me”.
<
p>Every sector of workers you hurt economically just opens the door to hurting the next group. And spare me the “oh the poor taxpayers” -working people are the taxpayers and ir’s a corporate shell game that pits us against each other.
The figures are averages for all trades. They come from research provided by the Beacon Hill Institute as published in the Boston Globe. Note I don’t advocate removing the prevailing wage altogether, only bringing it in line with Davis Bacon. I fully understand that it varies by trade, but the Massachusetts wage is always higher than the Davis-Bacon wage for the same job as calculated by the Department of Labor.
<
p>As an aside it is my understanding you are a Union organizer who is paid to protect the interests of Big Labor, not the taxpayer.
that construction workers wages are waste. It appears that you may have arrived at this conclusion from Dr. Tuerck. Your post on RedMassGroup indicates that you interviewed Dr. Tuerck on this subject. The 2nd paragraph in Dr. Tuerck’s paper, “The Federal Davis-Bacon Act: The Prevailing Mismeasure of Wages” begins
http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIS…
<
p>Really? They seem to be the most professional group in the whole Big Dig fiasco. The ones that got there part right. What did Charlie Baker get paid for screwing up his job?
Exactly how much of your budget is funded by big labor. If I’m correct your non-profit is pretty much a subsidiary of labor unions. It is your job to extract as much of the public’s money as possible for those that fund your organization. Is that an accurate assesment?
Since you asked Judy – fair is fair – who funds what you do?
<
p>Are you empployed? Self employed? Taxpayer funded?
has no coaching or training contracts with organized labor at this time. (Had one with SEIU 615 in 2005-2006)
<
p>ONE Mass (a project of PPI) gets no funding from organized labor.
That’s not the starting premise. The starting premise is discrimination, not waste. Waste is secondary.
<
p>If I bid a State or Federal job, I have to pay a chainsaw operator $40 per hour, even though the market is closer to $20.
<
p>Heavy equip operator requires $60 when I can get a dozen excavator operators for $30 or $35. Light operators require $45 while the market of light equipment operator is huge, and they charge anything in a free market, from $15 to $30 per hour depending on the machine.
<
p>So unless I pay a rigged price, me bidding on a job as a non-union shop, simply doesn’t get the job. Prevailing wage locks out the small business, discriminating against the non-union shop in favor of the big players. To wit: Bectel hired only union workers in the Big Dig. Prevailing wage meant high costs. In a bizarre twist, high costs meant Bectel allowed higher profit margin.
<
p>It’s classic bootleggers and baptists. The Union loving liberals go all doe eyed at the idea of the downtrodden worker getting a fair wage and stickin’ it to the Man; meanwhile the big shops are laughing to the bank. The prevailing wage i) discriminates against non-union and ii) bleeds the taxpayer to pay more than the market bears.
Prevailing wage rates for the state are based on the negotiated rates between contractors and unions representing those crafts. The contractors compete in the public and private sectors – i.e the market for their services. That would make the prevailing rate far more reflective of the market than a rate set solely by a single contractor.
<
p>
<
p>Union and non-union contractors bid for and won work on the Big Dig. With pay and benefit rates set by prevailing wage – contractors bids were based on ability to get the job done – not who can lowball workers wages the most. Non-union contractors who submitted the lowest responsible bid got the project – by law they cannot be discriminated aginst based on union/non-union status. They competed on level playing fields under prevailing wage with Labor costs set evenly during the bidding. How is this a disadvantage for a non-union shop?
<
p>As for big contractors – the average union painting contractor employs 7-10 painters. They are small businesses working everyday on public and private construction projects.
First, about the big dig:
<
p>Through 2001, the big dig was 100% unions, made so by a project labor agreement to that effect. Then, Pres Bush banned the used of such discriminatory agreements. BUT, the big dig was ‘grandfathered’ in and the PLA remained in force.
<
p>If there was non-union on Big Dig it was a very, very small percentage.
<
p>With the Obama Administration, the PLAs are back. Go bid a job as an open shop contractor on a Federal stimulus contract; see how far you get.
<
p>
<
p>About that. Me, I don’t need studies and statistics to know that when the prevailing wage for a “laborer” in Worcester is from $33 to $39 per hour, it’s based on something other than ‘negotiated rates between contractors and unions representing those crafts’.
The Federal Law is Davis-Bacon (filed by a Republican Congressman and US Senator). Davis Bacon is determined by wage surveys alone.
<
p>The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a Prevailing Wage Law. The Massachusetts Prevailing Wage is determined by DOS based on collective bargaining by trade and region.
<
p>
<
p>The link to Mass DOS and the 51 page PDF is: http://www.mass.gov/Elwd/docs/…
<
p>You are talking apples and oranges when you compare the federal and state construction wage laws.
<
p>And yes the Big Dig is under a Project Labor Agreement (PLAs having been determined as legal and lawful tools to be used on public construction projects by the US Supreme Court). That means that any contractor can bid and win the work. If a non-union contractor wins the bid, that contractors workers are covered by the craft/trade union and the approporiate contract while they work on the project.
<
p>Go bid a project under the federal stimulus using the correct Davis-Bacon wage rates and you will be competing on a level playing field with every other contractor.
The normal, full-time 40-hours-a-week work year has 2080 hours in it. 55 X 2080 = 114,400, not 143,000. As noted above, construction workers almost never work that many hours in a year.
To use a calculator on a blackberry, you are correct.
I guess it’s easy to understand why you might not want to talk about the topic of the post so a change of topic was (predictably) in order. Interestingly, the topic of the MA prevailing wage didn’t seem to generate much interest over on your side of the world either – based on looking at the RMG posts you link to. I can see that others have already begun to respond so I’ll leave it to them for now.
<
p>Back to the topic of the post – what do you think Charles Baker would say if he answered the Five Questions? And do you think he should?
<
p>It would be interesting to have your perspective.
<
p>John Walsh, Chair
Massachusetts Democratic Party
We’re experiencing our first real stretch of summer weather and I’m enjoying it immensely. Pardon me if I cannot (yet) get worked up about the week old candidacy of Chuck Baker. That said, I’m sensing some hyper-vigilance (fear?) from the Governor’s camp. I guess that beats getting caught flat-footed.
I had a different take and certainly did not sense
in Mr. Walsh’s questions. They are important queries that need to be answered especially in the day of campaigns that run on rhetoric and lack substance.
<
p>I certainly do not know much about Mr. Baker and am pleased to have the discussions begin. The Governor is at his best when he has challenges so, it is really fun to see at least a semi-formidable field developing.
as a Pioneer Institute-sponsored attachment. The Pioneer Institute basically ran the DOE in those days, and Peyser was the Chairman. Now, if Peyser were running, I’d be spoiling for a fight. He was a true believer in the right wing education mantras. To his credit, Charlie Baker used to occasionally ask inconvenient questions (visibloy annoying Peyser sometimes) about the demographics of school systems and schools. Peyser was not interested in reality, merely the Pioneer “trash schools at every opportunity” agenda.
<
p>That said, Baker voted with the program consistently. He strikes me as a Weld clone, without the hint of Weld’s rumored (or not-so-rumored) “eccentricities”. Oh, Baker’s attendance was spotty at DOE meetings.
may seem like the Christmas display they’ve already got set up in the Hallmark store (saw it Thursday), but retailers start selling stuff early for a reason.
<
p>It’s never too early to start characterizing your opponent the way you want him characterized.
<
p>
The decisions made by Baker and the Republican Governors not only crippled the Turnpike Authority but also the MBTA.
that Baker has the bandwidth to handle the state’s organization and financing issues. The big problem is that he has the wrong attitude, and the wrong beliefs about the role of government in the lives of its citizens. Sure he can balance the budget, but at what cost. There are things that we want government to do, and as a community should pay to do with taxes. He has a different point of view of what the state should do, and how those things should be paid for.
Down the toilet would go several thousand union votes and dollars. Would you vote for a guy that put you out of work? I didn’t think so. As a former union worker, I am well aware of the “suggestions” to vote democratic.