SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 5405 words

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY July 21, 1999 TERRY R. YELLIG PARTNER SHERMAN,DUNN,COHEN,LEIFER,& YELLIG,P.C. HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS JOB OPPORUNITTIES IN CONSTRUCTION

BODY:
TESTIMONY OF TERRY R. YELLIG ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Chairman: My name is Terry R. Yellig. I am a member of the law firm of Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig. I am appearing today on behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, which I regularly represent before the courts and Federal and State Administrative Agencies, as well as provide legal advice concerning legislation. Specifically, I represented the Building and Construction Trades Department throughout its legal challenge to four new provisions in the U.S. Department of Labor's regulations adopted in May 1982 that were intended to allow construction employers, performing contracts and subcontracts on federal and federally-assisted construction projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act and the other 60 or more federal statutes that require such employers to pay their construction employee not less than the wages and fringe benefits determined by the Secretary of Labor to be prevailing in the same locality, to expand their use of helpers at wages lower than those paid to laborers and journey-level workers. I The 1982 Helper Regulations Could Not be Effectively Administered or Adequately Enforced. The 1982 helper regulations, as modified in 1989, represented a sharp departure from the Labor Department's longstanding practice of prohibiting overlap of duties between job classifications. Recognizing even then that its new helper rule was susceptible to abuse and contractor non-compliance, a provision was included in the 1982 regulations that limited the number of helpers that could be used on a covered project to a maximum of two helpers for every three journey-level workers. The stated intention of DOL in promulgating the 1982 helper regulations was to allow the expanded employment on Davis-Bacon covered projects of "semi-skilled" helpers. Helpers were to be allowed to perform some journey-level duties, but not the entire range of journey-level work But this attempt to define helpers as similar to, but less skilled than, a journey-level worker resulted in an internally inconsistent definition, because the specific tasks a helper could perform under the 1982 helper regulations were not "semi-skilled but rather included a range of skilled, semi-skilled and skilled duties commonly performed by laborers, journey-level workers as well as apprentices and trainees. Thus, the definition of helpers in the 1982 rule specifically allowed extensive overlap with duties performed by both journey- level craft workers and laborers, instead of providing an objective means for distinguishing between helpers and other classifications. Moreover, the definition of a "helper" in the 1982 regulations provided no guidance for distinguishing between a 'semi-skilled helper" who uses the tools of the trade, and an inexperienced journey-level worker, thus increasing the likelihood that journey-level workers would be misclassified as helpers. Additionally, the supervisory requirement in the 1982 helper definition provided no aid in distinguishing a helper from other classifications of workers. The definition stated: ahelper. . . works under the direction of and assists a journeyman. Under a journeyman's direction and supervision, the helper performs a variety of duties to assist the journeyman...." But supervision by a journey-level worker is not a practical standard for distinguishing "semi-skilled" helpers from others on the work site. Many classifications of laborers and mechanics commonly employed on a construction site are supervised by other classifications of laborers and mechanics. Laborers and lesser skilled journey-level workers frequently work under the supervision of more highly skilled journey-level workers, and apprentices always work under the "direction and supervision' of journey-level workers. In addition, the 1982 definition of helper did not indicate the nature or amount of direction and supervision that helpers must receive to distinguish them from other classifications. Furthermore, the Building and Construction Trades Department argued at the time the 1982 helper regulations were adopted that the language of the Davis-Bacon Act expressly prohibits employment of so-called "intermediate classifications of labor," which is precisely what the helper regulations permitted. We maintained that the reference in the Act to "wages ... prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics in the area" was intended to preclude employers from classifying workers as "helpers" in order to avoid paying them the skilled laborers wage." 1 The Senate Committee report noted that prior to passage of the original Davis-Bacon Act in 1931, and even after that, wage standards on federal public works projects had largely broken down by intermediate classifications of labor and failure to retain the strict lines of demarcation intended to be drawn and maintained between skilled and unskilled labor. The whole tendency has been for wages of the skilled group to descend toward the level of the unskilled group, this by reason of intermediate classification devices. 1 See e.g. 1932 House Hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, pursuant to S. Res. 228, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) at 414, 428, 559, 530-31. The Senate Committee report concluded by recommending that construction contracts covered by the Davis-Bacon Act should contain a provision stating that the minimum wages to be paid "various classes of laborers and mechanics" shall be based on wages prevailing "for laborers and mechanics," the language ultimately adopted in 1935 when the Act was substantially amended. See S. Rep. No. 332, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1 935), Part 3, at 13, 15-17. The concept of classes of laborers and mechanics" is central to the Davis-Bacon statutory scheme. That is, a "class" of workers is one that has been historically recognized as such and whose members perform well-defined tasks. Therefore, helpers can only be recognized under the Davis-Bacon Act when their use has been found to be prevailing in an area and they have formed a distinguishable group performing discrete tasks. We asserted, ergo, that the now suspended 1982 definition of a "helper was unenforceable because it was simply too difficult to distinguish a helper from a journey-level worker on a job site. Notwithstanding, the U.S. Court of Appeals, although acknowledging that " t he change may mean that some unscrupulous contractors will find it easier to shift what the prevailing practice denominates journeyman work onto helpers," held that the Secretary was entitled to try a different approach to the helper issue. 712 F.2d at 629. Now, the Secretary has concluded, based on DOL's experience "in trying to develop enforcement guidelines to implement the 1 982 helper regulations during the period they were in effect (from February 4, 1991 to April 10, 1991, and from January 29, 1992 to October 21, 1993)," "that a supervisory-based, semi-skilled helper definition would be difficult to administer and enforce consistent with the purpose of the statute, namely to identify and preserve the locally prevailing wage for construction job classifications." 64 Fed.Reg.17442-17458,17444(April8,1999). DOL'sApril8,1999NoticeofProposed Rulemaking acknowledged that: During the period the suspended regulation was in effect, Wage and Hour tried to develop enforcement guidelines to implement the regulation. A fundamental problem that emerged was how to make a meaningful distinction between semi-skilled and skilled workers under the suspended definition. Wage and Hour has traditionally identified and differentiated among job classifications on the basis of the tasks performed by each classification. Among the issues Wage and Hour struggled with in trying to develop enforcement guidelines were: (1) What it means to be semi- skilled; (2) how to identify the line between a semi-skilled and skilled journeyworkers; (3) whether at some point a semi-skilled helper could acquire sufficient skills to qualify as a skilled worker, and how to determine when that had occurred; (4) whether a skilled worker could accept a position as a semi-skilled helper- and therefore be paid the lower helper wage rate-without violating the regulation or the intent of the Act; and (5) whether hiring as a semi-skilled helper a skilled worker who failed to disclose his skill level would violate the regulation or the Act. 64 Fed. Reg. at 17444. These and other similar concerns are consistent with the principal concern that the Building and Construction Trades Department and each of its affiliated national and international unions has had all along about recognizing helper classifications on Davis- Bacon projects, which is that contractors and subcontractors on such jobs should not be allowed to assign their employees to perform the tasks of laborers, of journey-level workers, and of laborers and mechanics on a cross-craft, multi- trade basis. Obviously, if such contractors and subcontractors are permitted to assign helpers to perform the tasks of any and all classes of laborers and mechanics at less pay, the requirement in the Davis- Bacon Act that wages be based on "corresponding classes" will effectively be read out of the law, and there will be little left of the Davis-Bacon Act. For this reason, the suspended 1982 helper regulations were difficult to administer and enforce without betraying the basic principles of the Davis-Bacon Act. 2. Helpers Are Less Widespread Than Previously Believed. DOL stated in 1982, when it adopted new helper rules, that it had concluded that its longstanding policies regarding helpers did not adequately reflect the alleged widespread use of helpers to, perform certain craft tasks. 47 Fed. Reg. 23644, 23649 (May 28, 1982). Specifically, DOL's 1982 Notice of Final Rulemaking stated that BLS survey data of large metropolitan areas indicated that the estimated helper share of employment in the construction industry was between 3.2 percent and 5.6 percent. 47 Fed. Reg. at 23650. However, the Notice of Final Rulemaking indicated that this estimate may have been biased because it was limited to areas that were 'heavily unionized! Id. In order to correct this perceived 'bias' DOL assumed that the true union share of Davis- Bacon employment was 50 percent and, therefore, adjusted the estimate of the helper share of employment in the construction industry to between 5.98 percent and 9.4 percent. Id. In any event, DOL believed that more nonunion contractors and subcontractors would be able to compete for contracts covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts under the 1982 helper regulations because they would be able to use helper classifications that they supposedly were already accustomed to using. Notwithstanding, the April 8, 1999 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicates that DOL's assumptions about the "widespread" use of helpers in the construction industry grossly overstated the actual use of helpers. 68 Fed. Reg. at 17446. In fact, during the limited time that DOL applied the 1982 helper rule, only 3.9 percent of all the classifications issued, and only 2.7 percent of those classifications were employed by non- union contractors and subcontractors. Id. Moreover, helper classifications were not found to be prevalent in any of the wage surveys conducted during that time. Id. That is, in only 20 out of the 78 wage surveys conducted were any open shop helper classifications found to prevail. Id. (citing 61 Fed. Reg. 68644-45). DOL's experience is consistent with the 1996 Current Population Survey compiled by BLS and the Bureau of the Census that showed helpers only account for 1.2 percent of total construction industry employment. This data supports the contention by the Building and Construction Trades Department and its affiliated national and international unions that the purpose and intent of the suspended 1982 helper regulations was not to simply reflect local prevailing area practices, but artificially to interject a non- prevailing classification of construction workers into Davis- Bacon covered projects as a means of undercutting actual area prevailing wage standards. Of course, this is completely contrary to the purpose and intent of the Davis- Bacon and Related Acts. 3. DOL's Proposed Helper Regulations. Even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Secretary of Labor's authority to adopt a new definition of helper in Building and Construction Trades Deoartment, AFL-CIO v. Donovan, 712 F.2d 611, 629 (1985), the Court noted that the Secretary has the authority to alter or overturn the 1982 definition of a helper upon reconsideration of relevant facts. As the Court acknowledged, the Secretary is especially entitled to deference when his or her "decision turns on the enforceability of various regulatory schemes." Accordingly, the Secretary is entitled to adopt a new definition of uhelper' in light of DOL's experience and the evidence that it has compiled in the intervening years. Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary of Labor published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on April 9,1999 that seeks public comment on a proposal to amend its helper regulations. The proposed helper rule would reflect a policy of recognizing helpers as a distinct classification on projects covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts on1v where the Wage and Hour Division determines that (1) the duties of the helpers are not performed by other classifications in a given area, i.e., the duties of the helper are clearly defined and distinct from those of the journey-level workers and laborers; (2) the use of such helpers is an established prevailing practice in the area; and (3) the term "helper" is not synonymous with "trainee" in an informal training program. It is the consensus of the national and international labor unions affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Department that DOL's proposed helper rule is the best approach, short of completely prohibiting the use of helpers on Davis-Bacon projects, because it comes closest to satisfying the goal of the Davis-Bacon Act to protect the wage standards of workers employed on federal and federally-assisted construction projects, while also complying with the prevailing wage principle in the Act. Having said this, it must be made clear that some of the national and international labor unions affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Department, especially those that represent journey- level workers who must be certified by State licensing authorities and rely most heavily on apprenticeship training as the primary source of new recruits, are deeply concerned that even this alternative is not fully consistent with the purposes of the Davis-Bacon Act because it may still be used to subvert local area classification and wage practices. Despite these concerns, the Building Trades and Construction Department regards the proposed helper rule as a much preferable alternative to the 1982 helper rule. Hence, the Building and Construction Trades Department supports DOL's proposed rule because it re-establishes the duties-based classification approach, provides an objective basis for administration and enforcement, including clear criteria that facilitate contractor compliance, and is consistent with the intent of the Davis-Bacon Act to assure that workers employed on federal and federally- assisted construction projects are paid at least the wages paid to workers performing similar work on similar construction in the same area. Moreover, the prohibition in the proposed rule against permitting helpers to perform duties that overlap with those performed by other classifications of laborers and mechanics should discourage contractor misclassification and abuse, not to mention facilitate collection of wage data necessary to determine prevailing wage rates. Finally, the proposed rule is consistent with DOL's longstanding policy of encouraging contractors and subcontractors to establish and participate in formal apprenticeship and training programs. Unlike the 1982 helper rule, the proposed helper rule will not require the Wage and Hour Division to make a fact-bound inquiry in each case to assess a worker's skill level and the nature of work-site supervision in order to determine whether the worker will be recognized as a "helper"for Davis-Bacon prevailing wage compliance and enforcement purposes. The requirement that the duties performed by helpers be separate and distinct from journey- level workers and laborers should also facilitate collection of wage data to establish the prevailing wage rates to be paid on projects covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. Nevertheless, it has been proposed that Congress amend the Davis- Bacon Act in order to codify the 1982 helper regulations, thereby precluding the Secretary of Labor from adopting a new definition of "helper" in further study and experience gained in the intervening seventeen years. However, for the foregoing reasons, the Building and Construction Trades Department is staunchly opposed to such legislation, and urges Congress to defer to the Secretary's expertise in this area. 4. Reasons Why the 1982 Helper Regulations Should Not be Codified. A.Codification of the 1982 Helper Regulations Would Undermine Support of Formal Apprenticeship and Training Programs in the Building and Construction Industry. DOL's proposed helper regulations, unlike its 1982 helper regulations, will encourage the creation and support of formal apprenticeship and training programs in the building and construction industry. The National Apprenticeship Act, also known as the Fitzgerald Act, which was passed 1937, provides: The Secretary of Labor is authorized and directed to formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, to extend the application of such standards by encouraging the inclusion thereof in contracts of apprenticeship, to bring together employers and labor for the formulation of programs of apprenticeship, and to cooperate with State agencies engaged in the formulation and promotion of standards of apprenticeship.... Id. Nonetheless, the Fitzgerald Act lacks any enforcement authority. Similarly, there are no penalties or sanctions provided in the statute's implementing regulations. The Secretary of Labor filled this void many years ago by promulgating regulations that currently provide that laborers and mechanics classified as "apprentices" or "trainees" can only be paid less than the prevailing wage rate on a Davis-Bacon project if he or she is enrolled in a bona fide apprenticeship or trainee program registered with the Department's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training ("BAT"), or a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the BAT. 29 U.S.C. 5.5(a)(4) (1998). This regulation creates a powerful incentive for contractors and subcontractors to participate and invest in formal apprenticeship and trainee programs in return for an exemption from the requirement to pay their apprentices and trainees the otherwise applicable Davis- Bacon prevailing wage rate. The 1982 helper regulations offered unfettered use of low-paid semi-skilled helpers on projects covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts without the Ouid Dro ago of investing in apprenticeship training. As a result, contractors and subcontractors that participate in and provide financial support for formal apprenticeship and trainee programs would have been placed at a competitive disadvantage that surely would have undermined their continued participation in such programs. Codification of the 1982 helper regulations would most certainly be inconsistent with the Secretary of Labor's responsibility under the Fitzgerald Act to promote and formulate labor standards to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. Therefore, any legislation concerning recognition of helper classifications for Davis-Bacon purposes must permit the Secretary to continue to satisfy her responsibility under the Fitzgerald Act to promote and formulate labor standards to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. Hence, any policy incorporated in regulations or legislation regarding employment of helpers on federal or federally-assisted construction projects subject to the prevailing wage standards of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts should not be developed in a vacuum without regard for the Secretary's dual responsibility. Any public policy that further undermines formal apprenticeship training could have catastrophic effects on the building and construction industry under any circumstances, but the potential detrimental impact on formal apprenticeship training programs of codifying the 1982 helper regulations at this time is particularly acute because, according to a paper prepared by the Construction Labor Research Council entitled "Craft Labor Supply Outlook 2000 - 2019'(hereafter "CLRC Paper"), a large influx of new entrants into the building and construction industry will be needed to replace an increasing number of older workers who will be leaving the industry and meet the needs created by the anticipated growth in the industry over the same period. The paper explains that the dominant demographic characteristic of the 2000 to 201 0 period will be the significant growth in the number of people in the general population between the ages of 55 and 64 years of age due to the "baby boomer population bubble' that will be reaching this age group. CLRC Paper at 6. This is the age group in which most retirements occur. Id. At the same time the number of people reaching their later working years rapidly expands, the primary source of new entrants into the labor force, those ages 18 to 24, will increase only modestly. CLRC Paper at 7. According to the CLRC Paper, this phenomenon will adversely impact the building and construction industry compared to other industries because its workforce tends to be younger than the general workforce, and it loses workers at an earlier age than the rest of the workforce. CLRC Paper at 9. As a result, the aging population will impact the building and construction industry sooner than other segments of the economy. Id. The CLRC Paper estimates that the industry will require at least 75,000 new workers annually just to replace those retiring, as well as 25,000 new entrants per year to meet the demand created by expansion in the industry. CLRC Paper at 15-16. This data clearly indicates that there will be a substantial increase in the demand for new entrants into the building and construction industry in the coming years. CLRC Paper at 17. The CLRC Paper asserts that this demand will undoubtedly be met, but the quality of the workers hired to meet that demand is suspect. Although the CLRC declined to estimate how well formal apprenticeship training programs will meet the looming replacement needs of the building and construction industry, the Business Round Table issued a "White Paper in October 1997 entitled "Confronting the Skilled Construction Work Force Shortage: A Blueprint for the Future' (hereafter ""White Paper), which estimates that the industry must recruit 200,000 - 250,000 new craft workers per year to meet future needs from attrition and anticipated growth. White Paper at 4. Aside from improving its image among young prospective entrants, according to the Business Roundtable, the building and construction industry must expand its training and development efforts in order to retain the workers it has attracted. White Paper at 5. In particular, the White Paper points out that the non-union segment of the building and construction industry has never supported formal craft training to the extent necessary to meet the future needs of that segment of the industry. White Paper at 6. Instead, the open shop segment of the industry has succeeded in attracting skilled workers from the union sector as the market share shifted, and recruiting skilled workers from competitors as individual contractors' workload changed. Id. Notwithstanding its past success, the White Paper says that the well is beginning to dry up, thereby reducing the ability of the non-union segment of the industry to use this method instead of investing in formal training programs. The White Paper opines that the non-union segment must change its attitude on the value of training. Id. Otherwise there will be a substantial shortage of skilled, qualified craft workers in the building and construction industry. This hypothesis is consistent with the numbers produced by the CLRC that was discussed hereinabove. The Business Roundtable suggests that in order to address the shortage of skilled building trades craft workers, private owners should only do business with contractors who invest in training and maintain the skills of their workforce. White Paper at 9. The White Paper asserts, "owners must create a level playing field amongst contractors bidding on their projects by establishing expectations in the area of work force training and development, work force recruitment and worker retention. White Paper at 1 1. The Federal Government should do no less than that advocated by private owners to create a level playing field amongst contractors bidding on federally financed and federally- assisted public works projects. One way to accomplish this objective is to ensure that contractors do not get a competitive advantage because they do not invest in apprenticeship training. This policy objective can be served by adopting prevailing wage standards that do not permit contractors that do not invest in training to underbid those that do. The proposed new helper regulations would serve that policy objective much better than the 1982 helper regulations because they would discourage government contractors and subcontractors from hiring workers as "helpers' and paying them substantially less than workers classified as skilled journey-level workers by making it extremely difficult successfully to employ helpers to perform work on projects covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts that has previously been performed in the same locality by journey-level workers and apprentices and/or trainees. B.Codification of the 1982 Helper Regulations Would Have an Adverse Effect on Minority and Female Participation in the Building and Construction Industry. Finally, DOL originally defended the 1982 helper regulations in part on the ground that it would facilitate non-formal training of women, minorities and young workers by lowering wage rates thereby inducing a shift of work to less-skilled workers, and that employing a greater proportion of less-skilled workers on public projects leads to the hiring of greater numbers of minority workers. A series of recent academic studies refutes this contention. These studies indicate that the long-term impact of the 1982 helper regulations on formal apprenticeship and training programs actually would have adversely affected minority and women workers. There is simply no evidence that supports the hypothesis that employing women and minorities as low-paid helpers would increase their share of employment opportunities in the industry. In fact, the 1982 helper regulations would more than likely have spawned a permanent subclass of low-wage minority and female workers on federal construction projects called "helpers.' It was for this reason that many members of Congress repeatedly supported provisions in DOL's annual appropriations legislation that prohibited using any appropriated funds to implement or enforce the 1982 helper regulations. For example, Congressman William Clay, then-Chairman of the House Labor Standards Subcommittee, observed: There are a number of leading minority members of Congress who specifically dispute that the new helper regulation will advance minority employment... The proposal will allow contractors to substitute helpers for laborers and pay them lower wages for the same work ... It is clear that the Stenholm helber proposal codifying the helper reculationl will limit training of young workers and have a devastating impact on the living standard of minority construction laborers - many of whom now struggle to maintain a decent standard of living at backbreaking and dangerous work. 134 Cong. Rec. H2823 (emphasis added). Other members of Congress have expressed similar concerns, eg., " T his new underclass of workers will be disproportionately represented by women and minorities, working in frequently dangerous jobs with little chance of advancement. Proponents of this erosion of Davis-Bacon argue, as always, that we will save money. There is no secret why: exploiting a workforce has always been a short-term means of saving money." 137 Cong. Rec. S3628 (1991) (Senator Adams); " C onstruction laborers are the largely minority and female component of the construction workforce ... fly the new helper class is now used ... t heir wages are cut and they lose health care coverage ... C ontractors can now simply reclassify these minority and female laborers as helpers and cut their wages and eliminate their fringe benefits." 137 Cong. Rec. H1531 (Congressman Washington). In reviewing the 1982 helper regulations, former Labor Secretary Dr. John T. Dunlop, the nation's leading expert on the construction industry, and former Chairman of the Department of Economics of Harvard University, who has chaired or has been a member of a variety of other key national policy boards under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, concluded that "minority laborers will now find work in the construction industry dramatically reduced" if the helper regulation was implemented. See, 138 Cong. Rec. 13476 (1992). Since the 1982 helper regulations were promulgated, other leading academicians have joined Dr. Dunlop in describing how a strong prevailing wage law correlates closely with better minority employment in the construction industry and greater participation in formal apprenticeship programs. It has been found that in states before the repeal of their prevailing wage laws, minorities accounted for almost 20 percent of all construction apprentices. After repeal, minority participation fell to 12.5 percent of all construction apprentices. Thus, after repeal of these state prevailing wage laws, minorities became significantly more under represented in construction apprenticeships. Losing Ground: Lessons from the Repeal of Nine "Little Davis-Bacon" Acts, G. Mangum, P. Philips, N. Waitzman and A. Yeagle, Working Paper (Univ. of Utah, 1995). Furthermore, this study concluded that: R epeal means that minority workers will begin construction work in unskilled jobs and get their training, if at all, on a catch- as catch-can basis. Furthermore, minorities will enter an industry that is less able to provide a secure blue-collar, middle-class income ... Without skills training, workers are less productive; without safety training, they are at greater risk of injury in an already dangerous profession. Losing Ground at 70. Thus, contrary to the rationale for the 1982 helper regulations that expanded use of helpers would benefit minorities and women seeking employment and training opportunities in the construction industry, the policy imbued in those discredited regulations would assign members of such groups to the lowest classification of workers, and likely keep them there on a permanent or long- term basis. The proposed new helper regulations, on the other hand, should contribute to expanded opportunities for women and minorities to not only obtain employment in the construction industry as apprentices and trainees, but help assure that they will receive the quality of training necessary to enable them to become journey-level laborers and mechanics. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL- CIO, believes the proposed helper rule is much preferable to the 1982 helper rule or any legislation that would codify the 1982 helper rule as a means of administering and enforcing the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. Thank you.

LOAD-DATE: July 26, 1999