The Mid-MO Labor Club will meet on February 8 at the Columbia Labor Temple at 6:00 pm. Come hear what Jerry Wade, Sid Sullivan, Bob McDavid and Sean O'Day have to say about their plans for the city. Below is a summary of the candidates from the Tribune.
By DANIEL CAILLER
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, January 24, 2010
A dozen candidates are set to vie for seats on the Columbia City Council on the April ballot, and half of them are taking part in the most competitive mayoral race in 15 years.
MAYOR
Sean O’Day
Paul Love
Bob McDavid
Sal Nuccio
Sid Sullivan
Jerry Wade
THIRD WARD
Gary Kespohl
Karl Skala
FOURTH WARD
Rick Buford
Daryl Dudley
Tracy Greever-Rice
Sarah Read
Filing closed Thursday for Columbia’s mayoral and Third and Fourth Ward races, and all petitions have been verified. Six candidates are seeking the mayoral seat, from which Darwin Hindman is stepping down after a record five terms. There have not been this many candidates for mayor since 1995.
“Being the mayor of Columbia is a great responsibility and a great privilege,” Hindman said. “We have a lot of candidates who see it that way.”
In 1995, Hindman and five others — including two MU students — sought to replace two-term Mayor Mary Anne McCollum, who chose not to seek re-election. Hindman won that race with 52.5 percent of the vote.
Hindman ran unopposed in 1998 and 2001. In 2004, he won with 71 percent of the vote against community activist John Clark, with 26 percent, and computer consultant Arch Brooks, with 3 percent. In 2007, he faced Clark once more, winning 75 percent of the vote.
Issues likely to be central in the April elections are the city’s budget, economic growth, crime and development. Sales tax revenue continued to dip in fiscal 2009, and ideas for how to maintain city services and encourage economic growth likely will take center stage.
CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR ARE:
Jerry Wade: Finishing his first term on city council as the Fourth Ward representative, Wade spent 12 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Sal Nuccio: The owner of Eastside Tavern on Broadway, he announced a campaign for First Ward councilman against Paul Sturtz in 2007 but withdrew days before the filing deadline.
Sid Sullivan: Chairman of the Boone Electric Community Trust, Sullivan made an unsuccessful bid for the 24th District seat in the Missouri House of Representatives in 2006 and for the Boone County Commission in 2008.
Paul Love: A network analyst for Carfax who served 10 years in the National Guard.
Bob McDavid: A retired obstetrician, McDavid is chairman of the Boone Hospital Center Board of Trustees.
Sean O’Day: The youngest of the candidates at 23, he is a student at Moberly Area Community College.
THIRD WARD CANDIDATES ARE:
Karl Skala: The only incumbent in the April race, Skala is seeking his second term on the council. He spent six years on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Gary Kespohl: The owner of Central Missouri Computer Center, Kespohl is on the Special Business District Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Kespohl and Skala also ran against each other in 2007. Skala won with 908 votes over Kespohl’s 845.
FOURTH WARD CANDIDATES ARE:
Sarah Read: Read owns a law firm and is the founding member and president of The Communications Center Inc.
Tracy Greever-Rice: An associate director for MU’s Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis and a former Planning and Zoning commissioner who serves on the Columbia Vision Commission.
Rick Buford: A senior network administrator for Carfax, he wants to see more discussion in government about long-term effects on spending.
Daryl Dudley: Dudley, the manager of a Hy-Vee gas station, wants to make Columbia attractive to new businesses.
Other city issues on the ballot include a measure on downtown security cameras and five amendments to the city charter.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
NLRB backs drivers in dispute with MFA Oil Deal could return workers to jobs.
Columbia labor got some good news with this decision. If you want to wade into the comments posted by readers go to: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jan/27/nlrb-backs-drivers-in-dispute-with-mfa-oil/.
One warning, the lack of understanding about unions and labor issues by some of the posters may be disturbing!
by JODIE JACKSON JR.
Columbia Tribune
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thirty-five truck drivers put out of work by MFA Oil Co. in the summer could get their jobs back if the National Labor Relations Board has its way.
Columbia-based MFA Oil has avoided litigation by the NLRB over unfair labor practices by agreeing to negotiate a settlement with Teamsters Local 833, which represents drivers put out of work when MFA decided to eliminate its transport division.
Naomi Stuart, NLRB Region 17 deputy director, said this morning that MFA has committed to settle the issue rather than let an administrative law judge decide the matter.
Stuart said MFA and the Teamsters have until Feb. 5 to work out a settlement.
If the parties do not reach a settlement, Stuart said, an agreement proposed by the NLRB would be put in place.
“They said if they can’t work it out, they will go back to the initial proposed settlement,” Stuart said. She declined to divulge details of the proposed settlement but said restoring the drivers’ jobs “would certainly be something we would ask for.”
“What we were asking for is” that “the work would come back” to the transport division, Stuart said. The mechanism for restoring the positions and related benefits issues would be a matter of negotiation.
“The union and the employer can determine how to turn back the clock,” Stuart said.
MFA Oil officials did not return phone calls this morning to comment.
Darrell Martin, business agent for Teamsters Local 833 in Jefferson City, confirmed that the union is now negotiating with MFA Oil. Martin said he was unable to comment on the negotiations but added that the union is trying to restore lost jobs.
“We went to bat for them,” Martin said, referring to the displaced truck drivers.
A three-year contract for the transport division expired at the end of August, and MFA notified Local 833 in July that the company was considering eliminating the division, which hauled fuel from MFA terminals to its retail facilities.
Stuart said the Teamsters’ complaint with the NLRB cited an absence of good-faith bargaining by MFA.
NLRB investigators found merit to the complaint and opted to sue MFA through the administrative process.
MFA officials said last summer that using “common carriers” rather than continuing the Teamsters contract would be more profitable for the 40,000-member, farmer-owned cooperative. The company has 1,500 employees and provides fuel and other automobile products to customers in six states. The cooperative owns gasoline-convenience stores, Jiffy Lube outlets, Big O Tires stores and other operations throughout the region.
The company’s transport unit was the only unionized division of MFA Oil.
The labor board’s decision to sue the company spurred officials to come to the bargaining table, Martin said.
“MFA avoided that … by simply rescinding their order to shut down the transport division,” he said. The next step, Martin said, is to restore the jobs that were lost.
That was good news this morning to Greg Miller, a Columbia truck driver who lost his job when MFA axed the transport division. He’s been waiting to hear the outcome of the renewed negotiations.
“To my understanding, everybody’s supposed to get their jobs back, at least those that want them,” said Miller, 50, who had 10 years of service as a transport driver with MFA Oil.
“I’d go back,” he said. “I’ve talked to several others that would probably go back, too.”
Reach Jodie Jackson Jr. at 573-815-1713 or e-mail jjackson@columbiatribune.com.
One warning, the lack of understanding about unions and labor issues by some of the posters may be disturbing!
by JODIE JACKSON JR.
Columbia Tribune
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thirty-five truck drivers put out of work by MFA Oil Co. in the summer could get their jobs back if the National Labor Relations Board has its way.
Columbia-based MFA Oil has avoided litigation by the NLRB over unfair labor practices by agreeing to negotiate a settlement with Teamsters Local 833, which represents drivers put out of work when MFA decided to eliminate its transport division.
Naomi Stuart, NLRB Region 17 deputy director, said this morning that MFA has committed to settle the issue rather than let an administrative law judge decide the matter.
Stuart said MFA and the Teamsters have until Feb. 5 to work out a settlement.
If the parties do not reach a settlement, Stuart said, an agreement proposed by the NLRB would be put in place.
“They said if they can’t work it out, they will go back to the initial proposed settlement,” Stuart said. She declined to divulge details of the proposed settlement but said restoring the drivers’ jobs “would certainly be something we would ask for.”
“What we were asking for is” that “the work would come back” to the transport division, Stuart said. The mechanism for restoring the positions and related benefits issues would be a matter of negotiation.
“The union and the employer can determine how to turn back the clock,” Stuart said.
MFA Oil officials did not return phone calls this morning to comment.
Darrell Martin, business agent for Teamsters Local 833 in Jefferson City, confirmed that the union is now negotiating with MFA Oil. Martin said he was unable to comment on the negotiations but added that the union is trying to restore lost jobs.
“We went to bat for them,” Martin said, referring to the displaced truck drivers.
A three-year contract for the transport division expired at the end of August, and MFA notified Local 833 in July that the company was considering eliminating the division, which hauled fuel from MFA terminals to its retail facilities.
Stuart said the Teamsters’ complaint with the NLRB cited an absence of good-faith bargaining by MFA.
NLRB investigators found merit to the complaint and opted to sue MFA through the administrative process.
MFA officials said last summer that using “common carriers” rather than continuing the Teamsters contract would be more profitable for the 40,000-member, farmer-owned cooperative. The company has 1,500 employees and provides fuel and other automobile products to customers in six states. The cooperative owns gasoline-convenience stores, Jiffy Lube outlets, Big O Tires stores and other operations throughout the region.
The company’s transport unit was the only unionized division of MFA Oil.
The labor board’s decision to sue the company spurred officials to come to the bargaining table, Martin said.
“MFA avoided that … by simply rescinding their order to shut down the transport division,” he said. The next step, Martin said, is to restore the jobs that were lost.
That was good news this morning to Greg Miller, a Columbia truck driver who lost his job when MFA axed the transport division. He’s been waiting to hear the outcome of the renewed negotiations.
“To my understanding, everybody’s supposed to get their jobs back, at least those that want them,” said Miller, 50, who had 10 years of service as a transport driver with MFA Oil.
“I’d go back,” he said. “I’ve talked to several others that would probably go back, too.”
Reach Jodie Jackson Jr. at 573-815-1713 or e-mail jjackson@columbiatribune.com.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Obama's Pro-Union Nominations to Labor Relations Board Stalled
by STEVEN HILL & DMITRI IGLITZIN
Published by The Nation Magazine
January 20, 2010
A pitched battle is taking place behind closed doors over the Obama administration's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It's unfortunate that the conflict has avoided the glare of the public spotlight, because the outcome of this partisan skirmish may be more important than that over the labor movement's number-one legislative priority, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
This fight is clearly ideological, pitting progressives and liberals against conservatives, including conservatives within the Democratic Party. But the conservatives have been more vigilant, mobilizing their opposition, while the White House, lacking sufficient pressure from either labor unions or their progressive allies, or from Congressional Democrats busy fighting over healthcare, has been content to avoid any additional bruising conflict.
In keeping with organized labor's wishes, President Obama has nominated two Democrats and one Republican to join the two sitting members, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, on the five-member NLRB. If these nominations are approved by majority vote in the Senate, the NLRB will be controlled by labor-friendly Democrats for the first time since the Clinton administration.
To understand what is at stake, it's necessary to understand the potential power of the NLRB, a little-known administrative agency with broad authority over labor matters. The president appoints and the Senate confirms members to this body, and an NLRB on which Obama appointees constitute a majority could overturn a number of key decisions issued by the Bush administration-appointed board. Most legal scholars and labor experts believe that the NLRB has the authority to enact procedural changes that could, among other things:
• drastically shorten the time frame for holding union elections;
• eliminate cumbersome pre-election procedures that allow employers to dispute who is eligible to vote in such elections;
• require the employer to turn over employee names, addresses and phone numbers early in any union organizing drive;
• require equal access to both workers and the workplace for unions during campaigns; and
• increase the penalties on companies that violate their workers' legal rights.
The NLRB even could make it easier for workers to unionize based on a card check showing of majority support--just as the EFCA would. It could force employers to recognize a union as the representative of its employees so long as a neutral third party verified that more than 50 percent of those employees had signed a written statement expressing a desire to be represented by that union. That's a fairer way for workers to become unionized than the current cumbersome and flawed NLRB election process, which is often abused by employers who threaten retaliation against their workers.
The Democrats appointed by President Obama have considerable skin in the game. The sitting Democrat, Wilma Liebman, formerly with the Bricklayers and Teamsters unions, is a longtime hero to organized labor for her eloquent dissents from numerous antilabor decisions issued by the Bush-appointed board. Mark Pearce, one of Obama's current appointees, also is a longtime union advocate.
But it is not Liebman or Pearce who has business interests petrified, but one of Obama's other appointees, Craig Becker. Becker serves as associate general counsel to the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO.
Becker has argued that employers "should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives." In practice, this means that employers could no longer oppose union organizing drives through NLRB or other administrative proceedings but would instead become mere bystanders in that process, removing one of the most powerful tools in the employer arsenal of antiunion strategies. It is because of these types of opinions that the Wall Street Journal has called Becker "labor's secret weapon" and accused him of wanting to "rig the rules to favor unionization."
Becker's nomination last spring triggered a seesaw controversy that has been playing out for months. On Christmas Eve the Senate officially "returned to the White House" Becker's nomination after Senator John McCain "put a hold" on Becker. Labor advocates were concerned that President Obama would quietly drop Becker's appointment, but to the president's credit he plans to renominate Becker (though Obama could have gone even further and given Becker a recess appointment, a power former President Bush was never reluctant to use).
To date, none of Obama's three appointees have been confirmed by the Senate; they remain mired in political quicksand. Without a stronger push from the White House, few are expecting this battle to conclude anytime soon. And without more pressure from unions, the grassroots and labor-supportive Beltway forces, the Obama administration feels little compulsion to move.
In the meantime, few beyond labor insiders even know what's going on. The saga of the NLRB nominations has stayed out of the spotlight, except for right-wing blogs and unionbusting law firms' newsletters sent to employers. On January 14 the New York Times reported that the NLRB, with only two of its five members seated for the past two years, has become near comatose. Not only are there a very high number of tie votes on disputed issues but the legal validity of the decisions issued by those two members, even when they agree, is currently the subject of conflicting federal court decisions. In May the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that because two members do not constitute a quorum of a five-person board, the NLRB decisions currently being issued are not legally binding. That issue is pending before the Supreme Court but is not likely to be resolved soon.
The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than EFCA, may be what really determines the extent of labor's gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB. But White House loyalty to these nominees may never gain sufficient spine unless labor and its progressive allies mobilize to push Congress to finish the confirmation process. Without mobilization, this episode may end up being yet another example of Obama's promises not being realized and hopes going unfulfilled.
Published by The Nation Magazine
January 20, 2010
A pitched battle is taking place behind closed doors over the Obama administration's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It's unfortunate that the conflict has avoided the glare of the public spotlight, because the outcome of this partisan skirmish may be more important than that over the labor movement's number-one legislative priority, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
This fight is clearly ideological, pitting progressives and liberals against conservatives, including conservatives within the Democratic Party. But the conservatives have been more vigilant, mobilizing their opposition, while the White House, lacking sufficient pressure from either labor unions or their progressive allies, or from Congressional Democrats busy fighting over healthcare, has been content to avoid any additional bruising conflict.
In keeping with organized labor's wishes, President Obama has nominated two Democrats and one Republican to join the two sitting members, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, on the five-member NLRB. If these nominations are approved by majority vote in the Senate, the NLRB will be controlled by labor-friendly Democrats for the first time since the Clinton administration.
To understand what is at stake, it's necessary to understand the potential power of the NLRB, a little-known administrative agency with broad authority over labor matters. The president appoints and the Senate confirms members to this body, and an NLRB on which Obama appointees constitute a majority could overturn a number of key decisions issued by the Bush administration-appointed board. Most legal scholars and labor experts believe that the NLRB has the authority to enact procedural changes that could, among other things:
• drastically shorten the time frame for holding union elections;
• eliminate cumbersome pre-election procedures that allow employers to dispute who is eligible to vote in such elections;
• require the employer to turn over employee names, addresses and phone numbers early in any union organizing drive;
• require equal access to both workers and the workplace for unions during campaigns; and
• increase the penalties on companies that violate their workers' legal rights.
The NLRB even could make it easier for workers to unionize based on a card check showing of majority support--just as the EFCA would. It could force employers to recognize a union as the representative of its employees so long as a neutral third party verified that more than 50 percent of those employees had signed a written statement expressing a desire to be represented by that union. That's a fairer way for workers to become unionized than the current cumbersome and flawed NLRB election process, which is often abused by employers who threaten retaliation against their workers.
The Democrats appointed by President Obama have considerable skin in the game. The sitting Democrat, Wilma Liebman, formerly with the Bricklayers and Teamsters unions, is a longtime hero to organized labor for her eloquent dissents from numerous antilabor decisions issued by the Bush-appointed board. Mark Pearce, one of Obama's current appointees, also is a longtime union advocate.
But it is not Liebman or Pearce who has business interests petrified, but one of Obama's other appointees, Craig Becker. Becker serves as associate general counsel to the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO.
Becker has argued that employers "should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives." In practice, this means that employers could no longer oppose union organizing drives through NLRB or other administrative proceedings but would instead become mere bystanders in that process, removing one of the most powerful tools in the employer arsenal of antiunion strategies. It is because of these types of opinions that the Wall Street Journal has called Becker "labor's secret weapon" and accused him of wanting to "rig the rules to favor unionization."
Becker's nomination last spring triggered a seesaw controversy that has been playing out for months. On Christmas Eve the Senate officially "returned to the White House" Becker's nomination after Senator John McCain "put a hold" on Becker. Labor advocates were concerned that President Obama would quietly drop Becker's appointment, but to the president's credit he plans to renominate Becker (though Obama could have gone even further and given Becker a recess appointment, a power former President Bush was never reluctant to use).
To date, none of Obama's three appointees have been confirmed by the Senate; they remain mired in political quicksand. Without a stronger push from the White House, few are expecting this battle to conclude anytime soon. And without more pressure from unions, the grassroots and labor-supportive Beltway forces, the Obama administration feels little compulsion to move.
In the meantime, few beyond labor insiders even know what's going on. The saga of the NLRB nominations has stayed out of the spotlight, except for right-wing blogs and unionbusting law firms' newsletters sent to employers. On January 14 the New York Times reported that the NLRB, with only two of its five members seated for the past two years, has become near comatose. Not only are there a very high number of tie votes on disputed issues but the legal validity of the decisions issued by those two members, even when they agree, is currently the subject of conflicting federal court decisions. In May the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that because two members do not constitute a quorum of a five-person board, the NLRB decisions currently being issued are not legally binding. That issue is pending before the Supreme Court but is not likely to be resolved soon.
The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than EFCA, may be what really determines the extent of labor's gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB. But White House loyalty to these nominees may never gain sufficient spine unless labor and its progressive allies mobilize to push Congress to finish the confirmation process. Without mobilization, this episode may end up being yet another example of Obama's promises not being realized and hopes going unfulfilled.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Interview 4th Ward City Council Candidates
Mid-Missouri Labor Club Members are invited to help interview candidates for the Columbia 4th Ward City Council seat at our meeting on Monday, January 11, 6:00 pm at the Labor Temple, 611 N. Garth Street. Now is the time to ask the candidates where they stand.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Payroll dispute riles company Shepherd’s Co. sues MU over rejection.
This story on the front page of the Sunday Tribune has created a buzz online. If you want to read the sometimes crazy comments by readers, go to http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jan/03/payroll-dispute-riles-company/. It's clear that some people in Columbia are so anti-union that facts don't matter to them and others don't have a clue what unions are really about...or both! On the other hand, there are comments by people who understand the importance of prevailing wage laws.
JANESE HEAVIN
Sunday, January 3, 2010
A Fulton-based company is suing the University of Missouri for denying it the chance to bid on future construction projects.
__________________________________
STATE ANNUALLY SETS PREVAILING WAGES PER JOB DESCRIPTION
State and federal laws require the payment of prevailing wages to employees working on public projects. In Missouri, prevailing wages are based on wages paid in each county and the city of St. Louis for 26 different occupational titles, such as carpenter or iron worker. The state sets the rates each March.
The Cole County rates, for instance, range between $17 and $33, depending on job title. Employers can voluntarily pay more than prevailing wages.
In a petition filed Oct. 30 in Boone County Circuit Court, The Shepherd’s Co. argues the university has unlawfully denied its constitutional right and is asking a judge to restore the company as an eligible bidder.
___________________________________
The university’s facilities planning and development office in October sent a letter to Shepherd’s Co., saying it had been placed in a rejection list. “Should your firm be the low bidder on any University of Missouri construction project, a recommendation will be made to reject your bid,” Director David Sheahen wrote. “Should your firm bid as a subcontractor or supplier on a university construction project, appropriate action will be taken to prohibit your firm’s participation.”
The letter claimed the company “balked at requests to release records related to prevailing wage compliance.”
But Jabbock Schlacks, who oversees the construction partnership, said the company complies with prevailing wage laws when required to do so and denied that the company rejected university requests for proof.
“We have nothing to hide,” Schlacks said. “We believe we’ve always been in compliance.”
Shepherd’s Co. is a partnership made up of more than 60 owners, all of whom attend Shepherdsfield Church. The church has been in existence for more than 20 years in the Fulton area and is a communal society whose members relinquish personal property to the group. The company offices are located on property deeded to New Christian Life Fellowship, which adjoins the church property.
Payroll documents from a September job at the university show each of the owner-employees of Shepherd’s Co. were paid separately. Rates of pay were $40 an hour for the week of Sept. 11, with standard pay between $35 and $45 in earlier weeks at the same job.
Curtis Chick Jr. with Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 36 said local labor unions are concerned about the company. He said they began looking into Shepherd’s Co. after the group was awarded the university contract for work at the Bradford Technology and Transfer Center.
“Sixty-four owners — give me a break,” he said, referring to the company’s partnership setup. “That’s a game. I want to make sure they don’t keep taking work away from the contractors and people I represent.”
The Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards appears to be looking into Shepherd’s Co., although spokeswoman Amy Susan said she could neither confirm nor deny an investigation exists. The division’s director, Carla Buschjost, formerly worked with Chick at Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 36.
The labor division has requested thousands of payroll documents from the company. Shepherd’s owners originally fought the request in Cole County Circuit Court, citing demands on time and resources, Schlacks said. “That’s a tremendous amount of work for a small company,” he said, adding that the state division wants some 35,000 documents that span three to four years.
Circuit Judge Richard Callahan subsequently ordered the company to release documents.
In the meantime, the labor division sent a letter about Shepherd’s Co. to Columbia Public Schools, which was ready to award the company a contract for work at the Columbia Area Career Center.
“We were prepared to award them a contract but received a letter from the Division of Labor Standards saying there were allegations the company didn’t pay prevailing wage,” said Greg Cooper, who works in the district’s business office. “This particular job requires that of a contractor. That was supposed to be factored into the bid. We thought it would be best to pull the bid and in January consider the next low bidder. We thought it was best to wait until the issues were resolved.”
Shepherd’s representatives were adamant that the allegations are unfounded.
“Shepherd’s Co. complies with prevailing wage laws in every public contract,” the company’s Jefferson City-based attorney, Mark Comley, said.
The city of Columbia last week sent Shepherd’s Co. payroll documents to the state labor division, said Marilyn Starke, the city’s purchasing agent. She said she’ll let the division determine whether the employee-owner wages are up to par. The company is currently working on a project at the city’s Grissum Building.
“We’re not pulling them off the project at this time,” Starke said. “They do good work, high-quality work.”
Reach Janese Heavin at 573-815-1705 or e-mail jheavin@columbiatribune.com.
JANESE HEAVIN
Sunday, January 3, 2010
A Fulton-based company is suing the University of Missouri for denying it the chance to bid on future construction projects.
__________________________________
STATE ANNUALLY SETS PREVAILING WAGES PER JOB DESCRIPTION
State and federal laws require the payment of prevailing wages to employees working on public projects. In Missouri, prevailing wages are based on wages paid in each county and the city of St. Louis for 26 different occupational titles, such as carpenter or iron worker. The state sets the rates each March.
The Cole County rates, for instance, range between $17 and $33, depending on job title. Employers can voluntarily pay more than prevailing wages.
In a petition filed Oct. 30 in Boone County Circuit Court, The Shepherd’s Co. argues the university has unlawfully denied its constitutional right and is asking a judge to restore the company as an eligible bidder.
___________________________________
The university’s facilities planning and development office in October sent a letter to Shepherd’s Co., saying it had been placed in a rejection list. “Should your firm be the low bidder on any University of Missouri construction project, a recommendation will be made to reject your bid,” Director David Sheahen wrote. “Should your firm bid as a subcontractor or supplier on a university construction project, appropriate action will be taken to prohibit your firm’s participation.”
The letter claimed the company “balked at requests to release records related to prevailing wage compliance.”
But Jabbock Schlacks, who oversees the construction partnership, said the company complies with prevailing wage laws when required to do so and denied that the company rejected university requests for proof.
“We have nothing to hide,” Schlacks said. “We believe we’ve always been in compliance.”
Shepherd’s Co. is a partnership made up of more than 60 owners, all of whom attend Shepherdsfield Church. The church has been in existence for more than 20 years in the Fulton area and is a communal society whose members relinquish personal property to the group. The company offices are located on property deeded to New Christian Life Fellowship, which adjoins the church property.
Payroll documents from a September job at the university show each of the owner-employees of Shepherd’s Co. were paid separately. Rates of pay were $40 an hour for the week of Sept. 11, with standard pay between $35 and $45 in earlier weeks at the same job.
Curtis Chick Jr. with Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 36 said local labor unions are concerned about the company. He said they began looking into Shepherd’s Co. after the group was awarded the university contract for work at the Bradford Technology and Transfer Center.
“Sixty-four owners — give me a break,” he said, referring to the company’s partnership setup. “That’s a game. I want to make sure they don’t keep taking work away from the contractors and people I represent.”
The Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards appears to be looking into Shepherd’s Co., although spokeswoman Amy Susan said she could neither confirm nor deny an investigation exists. The division’s director, Carla Buschjost, formerly worked with Chick at Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 36.
The labor division has requested thousands of payroll documents from the company. Shepherd’s owners originally fought the request in Cole County Circuit Court, citing demands on time and resources, Schlacks said. “That’s a tremendous amount of work for a small company,” he said, adding that the state division wants some 35,000 documents that span three to four years.
Circuit Judge Richard Callahan subsequently ordered the company to release documents.
In the meantime, the labor division sent a letter about Shepherd’s Co. to Columbia Public Schools, which was ready to award the company a contract for work at the Columbia Area Career Center.
“We were prepared to award them a contract but received a letter from the Division of Labor Standards saying there were allegations the company didn’t pay prevailing wage,” said Greg Cooper, who works in the district’s business office. “This particular job requires that of a contractor. That was supposed to be factored into the bid. We thought it would be best to pull the bid and in January consider the next low bidder. We thought it was best to wait until the issues were resolved.”
Shepherd’s representatives were adamant that the allegations are unfounded.
“Shepherd’s Co. complies with prevailing wage laws in every public contract,” the company’s Jefferson City-based attorney, Mark Comley, said.
The city of Columbia last week sent Shepherd’s Co. payroll documents to the state labor division, said Marilyn Starke, the city’s purchasing agent. She said she’ll let the division determine whether the employee-owner wages are up to par. The company is currently working on a project at the city’s Grissum Building.
“We’re not pulling them off the project at this time,” Starke said. “They do good work, high-quality work.”
Reach Janese Heavin at 573-815-1705 or e-mail jheavin@columbiatribune.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)