Review of the report was presented by Roger W. Loveless, P.E., for the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers. A copy of the report was forwarded to Secretary Goldberg on May 25, 1962 prior to the conference. The following points were made during the presentation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The opinion was handed down originally by Acting Solicitor Our basic contention and disagreement with the interpre- We voiced our objection to the procedure which lead up to the interpretation: (a) The interpretation was made after individuals from (b) No notice was given to persons in other states of (c) No opportunity was given to other states in the U.S., That our report of May 29, 1962 shows pictures and detailed step-by-step descriptions of the technical nature of the duties performed by these survey crew members. That their work was professional, sub-professional or technical in nature, not that of laborers and mechanics. That the opinion issued by the Labor Department erroneously described the duties performed by these men as predominately physical in nature, by emphasizing the sharpening of stakes, the cutting of brush and other items of this type. We referred to the description of their duties presented in our report to demonstrate that the work was technical in nature and part of an "engineering process. 7. That the definitions for these positions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles of U.S. Department of Labor demonstrated that the duties of these men were not those of mechanics and laborers. 8. That there is a shortage of technical and sub-professional persons today; but not laborers and mechanics, and this interpretation downgraded these persons from a more critical category. 9. 10. That many of our engineering students and young college graduates get their early training and experience as rodmen and chainmen and then work on up to instrument men, party chief and surveyor or engineer. That many of these young engineering students and graduates resist employment when they are classified as laborers and mechanics and this deters young men from seeking this type of work. 11. That the survey crew experience is a stepping stone on the career ladder to the engineering profession. 12. That many Chief Engineers of State Highway Departments and other professional engineers obtained their start in the early experience stage by serving as a member of a survey crew 13. 14. That dividing a survey crew and calling the party chief a professional and the remainder of the crew laborers and mechanics would split the team and not permit it to function best as a technical unit. That extreme accuracy was required by all members of the crew. 15. That it was unfair to make an interpretation that applied to 16. That Ohio Civil Service lists these survey crew members as "Engineering Aides." 17. That the Ohio Attorney General ruled on this same issue 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. That all the Federal Departments we have been able to check That Ohio has both registered engineers and surveyors and That survey work including "Construction layout and control" That the complexity of the modern highway with complicated interchanges requires skilled professional and technical persons to do the survey work. A photograph and geometric layout in this report demonstrates these requirements. That a thorough and complete study of the attached report was Secretary Goldberg asked about the economic aspects. We advised that this was purely a question of classification and whether these persons were mechanics and laborers, and that downgrading them in classification certainly would not work to their economic good. We stated we were in favor of wages commensurate with their technical skill. That the Secretary of Labor re-investigate the interpretation, and that the interpretation be changed so that these survey crew members would not be classified as laborers and mechanics. Secretary Goldberg was friendly throughout the conference This report is a restatement and amplification of the preliminary report submitted to you at the White House Regional Conference in Cleveland on November 14, 1961, giving reasons why Instrument Men, Rodmen, and Chainmen of survey crews on Federal Interstate System highway contracts should not be covered by the requirements of the Davis -Bacon Act and Section 113 of Title 23 of the United States Code for listing prevailing wages of laborers and mechanics. Such listing has been required in letting contracts for building highways for which Federal Interstate funds are used because an opinion of Acting Solicitor Nystrom of the United States Department of Labor construed the term "laborers and mechanics" to include those members of survey crews. This opinion was transmitted to regional and division engineers of the Bureau of Public Roads, U. S. Department of Commerce, by circular memorandum of July 10, 1961, from David S. Black, general counsel of the Bureau. A followup circular memorandum dated September 25, 1961, from General Counsel Black states that "the matter of coverage of survey crews and the determination of the prevailing wages in various localities for survey crews are presenting problems which are being given further consideration in the Department of Labor." Copies of Mr. Black's circular memoranda of July 10 and September 25, 1961, are included with the exhibits attached to this report. In your letter of November 29, 1961, in reply to our preliminary report, you stated that, "because conditions do vary so widely and because undoubtedly there are many instances when workers on survey crews perform their work in a professional or sub-professional manner, or may even qualify as bona fide professionals within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, it is our purpose to proceed slowly and carefully under the Davis -Bacon Act. " The Ohio Society of Professional Engineers is pleased with this statement of your attitude and glad to learn that this matter is being given further consideration. We feel that an understanding of the technical nature of the duties and responsibilities of Instrument Men, Rodmen, and Chainmen on survey crews will lead to the conclusion that their work is part of an engineering process and, therefore, they should not be classified as "laborers and mechanics." Our interest in this matter comes from our concern for recognition of the professional and technical nature of engineering and surveying, including surveys made in connection with construction contracts. The membership of the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers consist of about six thousand professional engineers, engineers-in-training, surveyors, and surveyors-in-training out of a total registration in the State of approximately twenty-two thousand professional engineers and surveyors. (The "in-training" status is that of a person who has qualified by examination and is in the process of accumulating the acceptable experience required for full professional registration.) Ours is one of fifty-three state societies of the National Society of Professional Engineers whose membership totals about sixty thousand registrants under the laws of the various states and territories and the District of Columbia. A survey crew consists of Chief of Party, Instrument Man, and one or more Chainmen and Rodmen. The definitions of these positions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles of the United States Department of Labor are as follows: PARTY CHIEF SURVEYOR (Chief of party; party chief). |