Re: [RE-wrenches] prevailing wages for PV work

2009-10-13 Thread Darryl Thayer
ches] prevailing wages for PV work > To: "RE-wrenches" > Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 5:29 AM > A the brotherhood. > > The good news is that the 2010 code of federal regulations > has pv (and wind maint) as distinct ategories in their CCR > (?) list. They ate st

Re: [RE-wrenches] prevailing wages for PV work

2009-10-13 Thread Geoff Greenfield
A the brotherhood. The good news is that the 2010 code of federal regulations has pv (and wind maint) as distinct ategories in their CCR (?) list. They ate stand alone, not under electrcal (or roofer, or glazier, or sheet metal or any if the othertrades fighting to claim pv). I am out of p

Re: [RE-wrenches] prevailing wages for PV work

2009-10-12 Thread Jeff Irish
New York State has not yet identified PV as a separate category for PV prevailing wage work nor as a workers comp category, but I wish they would. It also requires the journeyman electrician rates be paid for PV installers, and that all workers on the site be paid at the electrician rate even i

Re: [RE-wrenches] prevailing wages for PV work

2009-10-12 Thread Marco
Thanks, Walt. I'd appreciate seeing PA's new wage schedule if you happen to have a copy of know where I can find one. marco All of the work under Pennsylvania's "Sunshine Program" is required to be done under prevailing wages, if the total project costs more than $25,000. The folks out there ch

Re: [RE-wrenches] prevailing wages for PV work

2009-10-12 Thread Marco
All of the work under Pennsylvania's "Sunshine Program" is required to be done under prevailing wages, if the total project costs more than $25,000. The folks out there challenged this ruling and received a letter from the Labor Department just the other day with the complete response - confi

Re: [RE-wrenches] prevailing wages for PV work

2009-10-12 Thread Walt Ratterman
All of the work under Pennsylvania’s “Sunshine Program” is required to be done under prevailing wages, if the total project costs more than $25,000. The folks out there challenged this ruling and received a letter from the Labor Department just the other day with the complete response – confirm