GUILDERLAND — Members of the Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters Local 291 picketed on Sept. 21 in front of the site where Pyramid Management, which owns Crossgates Mall, is building a hotel near the mall on Route 20.

Union representative Peter McAnearney said that private companies are allowed by law to pay less than prevailing wage, but that a company that is receiving over $1 million in tax breaks from the Guilderland Industrial Development Agency should not turn around and undercut local labor standards.

He said that he and the other picketers from Carpenters Local 291 simply wanted to let the public know that the company hired to pour the foundation and do the concrete work at the site does not pay its carpenters prevailing wage.

“This is not a union versus non-union thing,” McAnearney said. “I believe the money should be used for well-paying jobs,” he added, referring to the tax exemptions from the IDA.

McAnearney identified the company as Northwoods Concrete of Brant Lake. Northwoods did not return calls asking for comment.

Pyramid partner Michael Shanley said on Friday, “We look forward to working with anyone and everyone who qualifies to work on our projects and makes the lowest responsible bid. The group out there, working doing all the site work that you see, is a local company, Carver Construction.”

Shanley also said he is not involved in who a contractor hires, and said he was unfamiliar with Northwoods, and unsure whether Pyramid or someone else hired the company.

George McHugh, counsel to Carver Companies, said on Tuesday that Carver was contracted by Pyramid Companies to do the site work; he stressed that Carver doesn’t have carpenters. He said that Northwoods Concrete is not a Carver subcontractor, and that Northwoods was hired directly by Pyramid, not by Carver. “There is no nexus between us and Northwoods,” he said.

McHugh went on to say that the parameters of the bidding process are set by the employer. When Pyramid put out the bid and the specifications, any company bidding on the project would have asked right away, “Is this a prevailing-wage job?” he said. If they had been told yes, they would have factored those rates into the bid. “And if it’s not, you just go by whatever wages you normally pay, so it just depends on whatever the customer put out as the bid document.” He said he presumed Carver wasn’t paying prevailing wage on the Pyramid job.

Shanley was asked if there was any “lowest” bid that would be too low, or whether sheer economic competition drove the bidding process. Would it be all right, for instance, to pay a carpenter minimum wage? He said, “That’s not really something we get into. We’re not just looking for the lowest qualified bidder, and that includes the economics of the transaction, but we look very carefully to make sure that people can perform, and can do the work, complete the job, and pay their people that are working for them.” He then stressed, by repeating, “Working for them.”

According to the New York State Department of Labor’s website, prevailing wage for a carpenter is $30.68. McAnearney said that this climbs to $51 per hour when benefits are factored in.

He said that Northwoods has a range between $14 and $22, and that, to the best of his knowledge, it does not pay benefits.

Asked how he knows this, McAnearney said that the union has as members some former Northwoods workers who have told them what their wages were. He said that the union also sends out a survey to local employers engaged in construction to ask them about their wages, and said that the union assumes that those who do not respond to the survey pay less than prevailing wage.

In May, the Guilderland IDA granted Pyramid just over $1 million in tax breaks for the hotel project.

New York State’s Constitution states that any laborers, workers, or mechanics employed by a contractor or subcontractor engaged in the performance of public work must be paid prevailing wage.

William Young, chairman of Guilderland’s IDA, told The Enterprise, “I understand the frustration that those guys are feeling,” but said that private companies that accept IDA support are not required by law to pay prevailing wage; it is not considered public work.

The New York State Department of Labor website states, “Construction performed for the IDA itself is public work and requires the payment of prevailing wage rates. Prevailing wage requirements do not apply to private construction projects which are financed by IDAs through the issuance of tax-exempt industrial revenue bonds.”

A bill that would change that and require these companies to pay prevailing wage has passed in the State Assembly but has not passed in the Senate.

The Assembly bill would amend the Labor Law to expand the definition of “public work” to include any project paid for in whole or in part by support from an industrial development agency, including indirect funding through tax exemptions. As a result, any contractor or subcontractor working on any such project would be entitled to receive prevailing wage.

There would be certain exemptions, including single- or two-family homes that serve as the owner’s primary residence, apartment buildings of four units or less, construction performed by not-for-profit organizations (depending on their income and the amount of funding), and affordable housing.

The bill’s sponsor, Democrat Harry Bronson of the 138th District, in Rochester, writes in the memorandum in support of the legislation that the definition of “public work” needs to be clarified to reflect the State Constitution’s original intent.

Referring to Pyramid, McAnearney said, “They have a lot of work that comes up in that mall, and we’d like to make sure that area contractors have a chance to do that work without undercutting the area standard.”

Asked if he is afraid of a ripple effect through the local area, when employers are known to pay less, McAnearney said, “That’s not a fear; that’s the reality.”

McAnearney said that a private company has the right to hire people at less than prevailing wage, and that workers have the right to accept that as a wage. He said, however, that he also has a right to dispute that a large company accepting public funds for its development projects should cut corners on wages.

“We are trying to make sure,” McAnearney said, “that a carpenter has a living wage that can support a family in dignity.”