NEWSLETTER

 
Enter your email:

Construction Topics

GENERAL TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE

SITE WORK

CONCRETE

MASONRY

METAL

CARPENTRY & WOOD

THERMAL & MOISTURE

DOORS & WINDOWS

FINISHES

SPECIALTIES

EQUIPMENT

FURNISHINGS

SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

CONVEYING SYSTEMS

MECHANICAL

ELECTRICAL

PEOPLE SKILLS

JOBSITE MANAGEMENT

ADS

Become a FB fan


Construction Network


Trades Hub

CONSTRUCTION KNOWLEDGE BLOG

July 3, 2012

Finally, A Bill the Unions and Tea Party can Agree On
Filed under: Industry outlook — Tags: — nedpelger

ENR noted that Pennsylvania just passed a bill that requires contractors on all public projects prove their workers are in the country legally. Senate Bill 637, by Sen. Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland, passed Senate by a vote of 42 to 7. Most of the no votes were Philadelphia Democrats, citing discrimination. The article states:

Ms. Ward denied there is any discrimination involved. “It makes sense that construction projects funded by public tax dollars employ workers who are taxpayers and that legal construction workers who need jobs can get them,” she said.

There is also a public safety side to the issue, she added. Making sure workers are who they say they are, and are in the country legally, helps ensure that workers are qualified to do complicated, sometimes dangerous construction work and that they aren’t foreign terrorists who could make buildings unsafe, she said.

The first part of Sen Ward’s rationale above is logical and you may agree or disagree based on your politics. The public safety issue, though, seems ludicrous. Workers are more qualified because they are Americans or have a visa? The idea of foreign terrorists as construction workers seems especially unlikely.

Blowing things up or making them fail is fairly easy. Building things, on the other hand, takes huge amounts of skill and effort. Then to build them slightly wrong, so the items will pass inspection, work through all the testing but fail at some special time would take amazing amounts of skill and effort. Frankly, it’s a silly argument.

Comments are closed.