Las Vegas Sun

February 21, 2017

Currently: 69° — Complete forecast

User profile

March 16, 2009

Contact rslc_john (log-in required)

Recent Comments

Total Comments: 129 (view all)

The idea of protecting the consumer is never found in any legislation or law introduced by any party into this debate in Nevada.

The builders and subcontractors are required, by law to follow construction codes while they are building a home in Nevada. Construction lawsuits claim that the builder, through his work or his subcontractors work failed to follow these codes. That is the base of all lawsuits.

The simple answer is that if a builder or subcontractor fail to follow code they should loose their license, or at the very least, their license should be suspended until they correct their mistakes.

But, this discussion never happens. Why? Because neither party wants to solve the real problem of protecting the consumer in a construction defect case.

The builders and subcontractors know they can build a code deficient home and save more money than they could if they had to build that home by code. Even after they pay out claims for construction defects lawsuits the builders find it more profitable to continue to build code deficient homes. Why else would they continue this same practice for 15 years?

Solving this problem is simple - Deny licenses to those builders or contractors who fail to build code compliant homes.

Seems simple right? So why doesn't either party suggest this idea?

BTW - General liability insurance for home builders is less than 5% of the total cost of building a home. So how devastating our these lawsuits? it's laughable..... all the lies....

(Suggest removal) 3/30/13 at 7:16 p.m.

______To tax or not to tax ____ To cut or not to cut
Are not the questions that will improve the financial picture for most Nevadans.

But the right and the left continue to waste time debating these two ideologies.

The truth is that both ideologies will hurt most Nevadans and that is not acceptable.

So why won't politicians introduce a solution to Nevada's woes that neither raise taxes or cut

They will say "it can't be done"... the truth is it can be done, but not as long as they keep locking horns over the same things they have always locked horns over.

A good days pay 4 all coalition will unveil such a plan on May 27th if the political parties continue to butt heads on party lines instead of trying to solve the states problems.

(Suggest removal) 4/20/11 at 7:44 a.m.

It is confusing why so many posters will make incorrect statements and then spew vile comments in denouncing their own false and fact-less statements.

All non-union contractors can bid on all prevailing wage jobs - And that's the truth folks.

So why are non-union contractors upset over any prevailing wage jobs, since the only thing they have to do is pay their workers wages that have been established by the STATE, not by the unions?


(Suggest removal) 4/19/11 at 8:49 p.m.


I have stated that good contractors fall on both sides of the proverbial fence. I am familiar with the ABC education facilities in Las Vegas, but are you familiar with the union education facilities? They have spent over 30 million dollars on their facilities and you know that the contractors who are members of the ABC association have not spent 4 million on their facilities. That doesn't mean you or any other non-union contractor fail to train your men, it means you guys do not spend as much on education as union contractors. The large amount of money spent for education on the union side is paid 50% by the workers and 50% by the contractors. That is pretty impressive, isn't? So why doesn't non-union workers take some of their wages to support the ABC's facilities?

Now you as a non-union contractor can bid on PLA's on government jobs. I don't know why you say you can't. Not only that, you know that in the right to work state your men can go to the union hall and demand that the unions send them out on union jobs. The union is legally obligated to send these non-union workers out on union jobs. Does that seem fair to you? How would you feel if union members came to your company and demanded that you send them out on your jobs? And legally you had to do it?

I have no problem with that a right to work state. If you Go to www. and see what these unions say about union and and non-union workers and companies working together. I think both sides should work to improve wages and benefits for workers and too improve the conditions to promote and develop more work for the contractors.

If you ask your men if they would like more money they would say of course. I believe workers should have a say in their pay. In Genesis 30 we see the first contract negotiation between an employee and an employer; Jacob employed by Laban negotiates a labor contract. I believe people have that right and I believe they have a right to join together to negotiate. I wish you saw this as a law that forces your competitors to be as honorable as you are.

Last point: you do not help the local economy by paying cheaper wages. The whole idea of the government putting money into the economy through constructions is to boost or ignite local business by setting the wages high enough that workers have spendable income. You want to pay less and therefor you will put less money into the local economy. That does not help anyone... It is that simple.


(Suggest removal) 4/15/11 at 8:15 p.m.


When I read your post I believe you are a man who is proud to be non-union. I was a non-union contractor for twenty five years, and I never signed up to be a union contractor. It was my choice to be union or non-union like it is yours, but truth is truth. And most non-union contractors do NOT spend the same amount of money that union contractors spend to train their men. If I am wrong please list the address of your non-union training facilities and I will go look at this institutions. If you can't list them I would ask you to go to a union training facility to see the difference. I know you know that they do not stand up to union training programs.

If you sent your men to the any Nevada state approved apprenticeship training programs, as you state you did, then you know there is an apprenticeship payment schedule assigned to each stage of qualification or classification. But, since you did not continue to pay prevailing wages I don't think you sent your men to any state approved training program.

So I detect that you are a plumbing or electrical contractor which had to have your men take a state exam for certification. Am I right? I don't think all non-union contractors do poor quality work, or that they are not qualified to work in the industry. What I said is I don't understand why you guys like to pay your workers cheaper than what union contractors pay their workers.

You stated "Why would I want to pay a guy that sucks at his job the same amount of money for a guy that is great at it?"

Are you saying that all of your men get paid the same amount of money? if not then are you saying you hire some men that suck?

Under the prevailing wage agreements you must pay your men according to what the state post as suitable wages. You and I both know that you don't pay union wages to your men, or you wouldn't have a problem with a prevailing wage job. But wouldn't it be nice to pay your workers a little bit more on these jobs? Honorable men would say 'of course'. So tell me why you say "I don't want to allow them to make more money on these jobs?"

You might be proud, but you baffle me.

(Suggest removal) 4/14/11 at 10:59 p.m.

(view all 129)

Items submitted by rslc_john

  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Stories/Blogs

rslc_john has not submitted any photos to Las Vegas Sun

rslc_john has not submitted any videos to Las Vegas Sun

rslc_john has not submitted any stories to Las Vegas Sun