Re: [AFMUG] Prevailing Wage

[dmmoffett]

The act itself is quite short and refers to “excavation projects” multiple 
times.  The stated intention of the rule is to maintain road quality by not 
allowing utility companies to get some cut-rate hacks to patch the pavement 
after they’ve dug it up.  The trouble stems from the broad interpretation by 
the Department of Labor.  They’re saying that a “covered excavation project” 
doesn’t require any excavation at all due to the word “use”.  Rather, if you 
have to be on the road in any sense then that’s “use”, and if that locality 
requires a permit for the work you’re doing then it’s prevailing wage.

 

Some jurisdictions require a road work permit any time you’re doing work inside 
the boundaries of the ROW.  I had a conversation with one city’s engineering 
department about road work permits, and their policy is you need a permit any 
time you have “construction equipment” in the ROW, and for that purpose their 
feeling is that our cable placer and splice trucks count but vans and pickups 
don’t.   Some towns explicitly only want a permit if you’re cutting pavement.  
Some rural towns don’t have any permit process at all.  This variability from 
town to town and county to county creates a mish mash of situations where you 
may or may not be required to pay prevailing wage for the same work in 
different places.  That one where vans don’t count could mean you don’t pay 
prevailing wage if you force everybody to work from ladders or hooks, so 
arguably that creates a perverse incentive to compromise safety.  

 

I’m not blaming communism.  I’d love to hear their real rationale for that 
interpretation, but I think most likely someone was worried about potential 
loopholes and doesn’t really understand how their DOL rules will interact with 
the rules of the DOT and countless county and local highway departments.  I.E.: 
Plain old dumb stuff, not commie stuff.

 

-Adam

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:40 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Prevailing Wage

 

Was that a mistake or intentional? With all the taxpayer funded welfare going 
out to the ISPs, I can see a "well meaning bureaucrat" intentionally putting 
the wording in to get some of the welfare back to those workers controlling the 
"means of production" 

 

 

 

well meaning bureaucrat - commie

means of production - commie speak

 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 8:10 AM mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:

There’s a new rule in NY State:
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/a5608

https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/12/enforcement-guidance-roadway-excavation-quality-assurance-act-update-3.pdf

 

'a "Covered excavation project" shall mean construction work for which a permit 
may be issued to a contractor or subcontractor of a utility company by the 
state, a county or a municipality to use, excavate, or open a street. '

 

Intentionally or not, they put the word “use” in that sentence.  The DOL issued 
that enforcement guidance saying it means any time you are working “in, on, or 
under” a street.  Basically, if you’re working as a contractor on a job that 
needs any kind of permit from a state, local, or county to work in their ROW 
then you have to pay prevailing wage.  That’s regardless of whether it’s a 
state job or not.  This does not apply to in-house employees or work outside 
the ROW.  This is going to cause some waves for a lot of us in NY State.

 

If I can get the “prevailing” $54/hour as a lineman on almost every job, then I 
might quit this “Network Engineering” thing and just be a builder.  

 

So where do federal and state labor departments get their data to determine 
“prevailing wage”?  I have never met a tradesman of any sort who made 
prevailing wage outside of when the government mandates it, and I have never 
understood how it was “prevailing” if nobody seems to actually get that wage. 
Is it a selection bias issue like maybe they’re only getting data from large 
union shops?  

 

-Adam

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] IP lease. 4x /22

[D. Bernardi]

Is there a reason you wouldn't just use any of the IP address brokers?

https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/transfers/facilitators/qualifiedfacilitators/

The going rate for a legitimate transfer of a /20 (4 x /22) is over $150k.



At 08:22 AM 12/18/2023, Charles Regan wrote:


Hi ,

I'm an old timer from the Tim Hogdart peek poke days.Â

I'm looking to lease (or buy?) 4x /22.Â

Anyone?

Charles
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] IP lease. 4x /22

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Tim Hogard from Austrailia, right?  Chuck Macenski’s buddy?



From: Charles Regan 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 6:22 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] IP lease. 4x /22


Hi ,

I'm an old timer from the Tim Hogdart peek poke days. 

I'm looking to lease (or buy?) 4x /22. 

Anyone?

Charles



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] IP lease. 4x /22

[Charles Regan]

Hi ,

I'm an old timer from the Tim Hogdart peek poke days.

I'm looking to lease (or buy?) 4x /22.

Anyone?

Charles
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com