Re: RE: Labor Board Issues Three Complaints Against WW1

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 19:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Dan Billings
<billingsdan@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On 4 Aug 2002 at 18:23, tklaundry@juno.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Perhaps you know the answer to the question I
> > threw open when last I
> > > responded to Dan.  Is a firm like WW1 with a
> > contract with the state
> > > required to pay prevailing wage as is the case in
> > many of the trades? DF 
>
Dan Wrote: 
> I know Maine's law is specifically limited to the
> construction trades.  I supect other states are the
> same.  In this case, there is only one company so the
> prevailing wage is $13 per hour anyway.

You may be correct about it being limited to the construction trades but
just for the 
sake of argument (who? me argue??) I would say that if prevailing wage
was
extended to all firms doing business with the state they would have to
pay the prevailing union wage (that's what it means) so even though WW1
is the only broadcast firm providing traffic, it is still a broadcast
firm and I would expect they would have to pay the prevailing AFTRA wage,
probably an average of all the shops since each AFTRA contract is
different.
df