Today the House Labor and Industry Finance and Policy Committee heard more about:

• HF4626 (Tabke) Federal pipeline inspection rules modified for individuals performing construction or maintenance work, prevailing wage exemption for broadband workers repealed, and technical corrections made.
• HF4659 (Berg) Broadband industry installer safety standards required, and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program implemented.

HF4626 was laid over for possible inclusion. HF4659 was laid over for possible inclusion.

HF4626 (Tabke) Federal pipeline inspection rules modified for individuals performing construction or maintenance work, prevailing wage exemption for broadband workers repealed, and technical corrections made.

Pros:

• Protects MN workers by ensuring prevailing wages for broadband installers paid with state or federal money
• Protects residents by having better qualified installers – like we have for gas pipe installers

Cons:

Testifier Union leader: we see disturbing things on non-union broadband job sites. They have no benefits and make less than $20. They are not from MN. More regulation would help the money benefit Minnesota workers. We want trained (certified) workers and drug screening. We want prevailing wages. We are concerned that some projects have been labeled as “last mile” to skirt prevailing wage issues. We don’t think this would increase costs as much as opposition says. Labor is usually 25 percent of a broadband budget. We are having conversations with the industry.

Testifier from MTA: We still oppose the language but we are in conversations. MTA is proud of their safety record. We want to incentivize participation in state and federal programs. We need a prevailing wage specifically for broadband installers.

Testifier from Arrowhead Cooperative: We were first electric coop to serve broadband. We’re a nonprofit. We are in an extremely high cost area. This bill would pose a huge burden to areas like Cook County. The exemption on last mile broadband installers was originally added because of the prohibitive high cost of building broadband in some areas. This will deter providers from building broadband. We support increased safety components of the bill – but not prevailing wage.

Testifier from MCCA (cable association): Lots of money is coming into the state through BEAD. This bill would hinder use of those funds or make network building more expensive. The Davis Bacon Act was not used by feds when distributing the funds; we shouldn’t add them here. Broadband installers don’t need to know about gas installation. We don’t need drug testing.

Testifier from Contractors and Builders: Opposes the bill. Concerned that prevailing wage will increase the cost of projections and may not lead to hiring more Minnesotans. Absence of prevailing wage does not mean folks are underpaid or that the work isn’t as good. That’s insulting.

Questions:

Do we have data on workers on jobsite for less than $20/hr?
The data isn’t being tracked.
Prevailing wage isn’t being followed. We should make sure that folks in the field make a family-supporting wage.

What is prevailing wage?
There are 8 classification – but it’s generally $30-40/hr.

Ther are building broadband in my area – but there aren’t any cranes only little machines. Are those people getting paid that much?
Yes.

I talked to ISP in my area – they are all paying $20+. It seems like paying people more will mean less broadband built. I couldn’t get broadband so now I have satellite.

What would be a prevailing wage for broadband installers?
Not all broadband installers have specific classifications.

Sounds like prevailing wage is too expensive for small providers and nonprofits. Shouldn’t free market set wages?
Equipment operators are probably getting paid a good wage. We’re afraid that folks outside of Minnesota will take less money to work here.

HF4626 was laid over for possible inclusion.

---

HF4659 (Berg) Broadband industry installer safety standards required, and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program implemented.

Pros:

• Focused on worker safety
• Focused on utilities safety

Testifier from AFLCIO: supports the bill. It raises standards for broadband deployment. It protects the infrastructure. The grants lack meaningful protections.

Testifier from Blue Green Alliance: support the bill. It will help expand broadband and improve energy efficiency. In the past, broadband projects have used low-paid subcontractors. It impacts consumer and the public. The bill also requires employers to seek job seeker of color and women.

Testifier Union Leader: supports the bill. There are many workers earning less than $20/hr. We have been talking to broadband installers do not have training or make the same sort of money as others in similar industries. (Some employers do pay; others don’t.) We find these jobs (without benefits) are going to Latinos earning less than $20, with no health benefits and limited training. Employers are taking advantage of undocumented workers.

Testifier from Mexico: I was a broadband installer. We are treated poorly. We aren’t paid well, and we don’t have health benefits. We tried to unionize. We were fired. That has scared others workers.

Testifier from MTA: They oppose the bill but want to work with the authors. We want to incentivize, not put up roadblocks. We are afraid that we won’t take advantage of BEAD funding because with this addition, providers won’t apply for funding.

Testifier from Cook County: We understand the challenge. When we applied for grants, we were ranked worst county for broadband in the state. Broadband will be more expensive to customers if it costs more to build it. These regulations make the grant money less attractive to broadband providers. This would make OBD less nonpartisan and the Broadband Task Force less effective. We should trust OBD.

Testifier from MCCA: this bill would stop progress toward ubiquitous broadband. We don’t really know the impact of prevailing wage on cost of broadband deployment budgets. Broadband construction workers are qualified and adequately regulated.

Testifier from Assn of Builders: we are concerned with allocation of grants based on management qualifications. We are concerned that contractors could pay prevailing wage and not provide training.  Opposed to the bill.

Questions:

Why is this an either/or with fair wages versus trained workers?
There’s a training component for everyone and incentives to do more training.
You can probably never train enough. Are there any laborers here?

This seems to conflict with the last bill. Does it?
Not in conflict but we’re likely to try to combine them.

How many people are broadband installers? And in the union?
Hard to tell because several jobs are classified the same despite different industries.

How does this impact last mile of broadband?
It doesn’t. Providers can choose Workforce best practice or Prevailing Wage.

New language directs Dep of Labor and Industry. Is there a fiscal note for this bill?
No

Is there someone from Dep of Labor and Industry to answer questions? What is required to set up standards?
Roughly .25FTE to develop training. Then we’d vet outside providers. It’s a minor lift.

Does the Department like this bill?
Our stance is neutral.

Do the federal grants have workforce requirements?
It’s more complicated. There are different state and federal requirements. We will administer BEAD funds. BEAD details have not been finalized yet. This bill may impact the process. We are committed to working with everyone.

HF4659 was laid over for possible inclusion.