labor budget: specify the amount set aside in the contract to cover labor costs

[odscjen]

Background

This issue relates to the following CoST IDS elements proposed in the CoST IDS/OC4IDS review:

Labor budget

Labor budget

Module: Social
Indicator: Labor compliance

Disclosure format

Disclose the amount allocated by the main contractor to cover for labour costs (E.g. [value]).

OC4IDS mapping

Contract level: Publish the amount and currency of the labor budget in .summary.social.laborBudget.

Proposal

Add a Value object, laborBudget to the new social object (see #403).

Add the following fields and objects:

Path	Title	Description	Type (format)	Codelist
social.laborBudget	Labor budget	The budget allocated in the contract for labor costs.	Value object	-

Example

{ 
 "contractingProcesses": [ 
   { 
 	"id": "1", 
 	"summary": { 
   	"social": { 
     	"laborBudget": { 
       	"amount": 10000000, 
       	"currency": "USD" 
     	} 
   	} 
 	} 
   } 
 ] 
} 

Discussion

• Assuming that the use case for this data point is to do with making sure that labour costs are appropriate, it’s difficult to see what the value of this data point is without also knowing at least the number of person-hours the amount is supposed to cover. This need can be met through comparison or procurement and contract documents so this data point possibly isn’t needed.
• Answer - Over time this data point will allow a comparison of the contracts where there is no labour budget specified vs. contracts where a labour budget exits. This will be very useful information to be assessed in combination with the following data point (health and safety – workers’ accidents). I see a value here from a policy perspective. From interviews some contractors do specify this in their contracts, labor in general covering e.g. PPE costs, overtime, salaries, accomodation. Not a common thing in the contracts. Want to emphasis where there is money protected for labor issues, not really about checking for if a contractor is paying their laborers well, or comparing across projects.

cc @EvelynDinora

[odscjen]

@jpmckinney any thoughts or objections to this proposal?

[jpmckinney]

Looks good!

[odscjen]

Previously agreed this offline with CoST so moving to Agreed cc @EvelynDinora @mgraca-prado