Special report

Low productivity even more than high wage rates, is pushing the cost of construction in many cases beyond the reach of individuals, industry and the government itself.

According to a survey by ENGI NEERING NEWS-RECORD among union and nonunion contractors, low productivity wastes from 15% to 40% of every construction payroll dollar. Since construction now has an annual volume of about $115 billion and the labor factor is about 40% of the total in place cost, Americans this year are spending from $12 billion to $16 billion for something they aren't getting.

Although labor shortages and hiring halls are admittedly critical ele

ments, contractors blame low productivity in construction mainly on restrictive labor union practices. The result of these practices is that labor does not give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

Low productivity is not restricted to union labor but it is considerably greater on jobs where men have the protection of unions.

In extent, it ranges from overly long coffee breaks to outright falsification of payroll records. In its lesser ranges it is accepted by contractors as a way of life. In its extremes it is foisted on them by strikes, slow-downs, threats of violence and outright sabotage.

Some extremes are very extreme. On a project in the East last year, Joe W., a union-selected master mechanic who never uses a wrench, had earnings above $94,000. Because Joe's wage rate ranges from under $10 to over $11 per hour for a 35-hour week, it appears that Joe received about $18,000 in base salary-and $76,000 in overtime.

What does Joe do to earn this much? He spends some of his working time directing a staff of largely nonworking assistants whose pay rate is almost as big as his own. He spends the rest of his time on the telephone arranging for outside service men to repair machines on his job.

The total amount of his pay stems from a union requirement that he be paid for every hour that any man-either one of his mechanics or an outside service man-is working on the job. And when the total time spent in maintenance exceeds the basic 35 hours in any week he receives double time even though he may be home sleeping.

While there is no proof that he is paid for sleeping, analysis of his wages shows that he had to spend a total of 5,620 hours on the job-108 hours a week, every week for the full year. At best Joe W. could have had only 60 hours a week away from the job.

Because of similar union contract requirements, Harrisburg, Pa., area assistant master mechanics gross $20,000 a year. In Anchorage, despite a short construction season, mechanics and operating engineers pull in $25,000 to $30,000

a year.

Contractors in the Chicago and Philadelphia areas have

paid cement finishers as much as $1,000 a week and one claims to have paid $1,200. Wages for this work, which has a basic hourly rate of about $9, reach these top execu tive levels, because the men spend many straight time hours doing nothing while waiting for pours and then they finish the concrete during premium rate hours.

The tragedy of some high salaries is not so much their size as the fact that they usually have no correlation with value received or with time and energy expended.

A major complaint of many contractors is that value received is often in inverse proportion to the salary The compressor engineer who begins

a half hour early by pushing a starter button and then does nothing until it is time to turn his machine off at night of ten makes more money than men who work hard all day

Records of many construction companies verify that as wages have risen productivity has fallen, often greatly.

An excessive, but certainly common example is found in a study of pay and production records of a Chicago-based general contractor that has been in business for 75 years and currently does about $50 million a year in building and heavy work.

Reverse progress. In 1926, when masons were getting $1.50 an hour (and no fringes) one mason could lay 600 blocks a day. Today, with masons getting about $9-and two masons are required to handle the block-the same contractor says it's lucky to get 100 blocks a day from the men.

This same contractor says that in many construction ac tivities the advantages of labor-saving equipment (when allowed by unions) are more than offset by slowdowns. In 1926, when concrete was finished by hand, the contractor figured on getting 2,000 sq ft of finished concrete per man per day. Today, with the help of vibrators, mechanical screeds and power trowels, the company gets 600 sq ft per man per day. The reason for the decline in productivity, the contractor says, is that men just don't want to work today

But it isn't necessary to go back 40 years to observe the effects of the various restrictions on productivity. The records of an eastern Pennsylvania builder of high-rise structures show that in 1966 it could finish a 5,000-sq-ft, 6-in.-thick floor with a direct payroll of $711.85. Today, because of increased pay rates and fringe benefits with no more, and usually less, productivity, the finishing of that same floor by the same crew, costs $1,187.73. Furthermore, if there is any steel in the floor, the contractor is now required by its union contract to hire an ironworker to watch the pour to completion at $65.60 per seven-hour day. As recently as 1966, the ironworker could be laid off or switched to productive work as soon as the steel had been