Home » Uncategorized

Construction companies lightly represented in Fortune’s Top 100 Companies to Work For

Written By: John Poole on January 21, 2010 768 Comments

I’ve always been rather suspicious of rankings that were put out by magazines like Fortune or the Princeton Review for companies or schools or whatever, however they always make for some interesting reading and in the very least some lively conversatidpr_construction__bctwfons.  Fortune magazine came out with their 100 Best Companies to Work For today and while the construction industry is represented, we certainly didn’t top the list.

Denver based PCL Construction Enterprises led the construction industry field at number 31.  I worked for a competitor of PCL in Colorado for a few years, and while our nickname for them was “Pour now Chip Later”, I think this derogatory reference was just a result of resentment for their strong presence throughout Colorado.  Fortune describes their reasoning for PCL making the list as follows:

General contractor offers unique benefits: unlimited paid sick time (for employees or their ill children and spouses), a $200 reimbursement for employee enrollment in an exercise plan or health club membership, company-paid life insurance up to four times salary, and stock ownership for all salaried employees.

I’ve known a few people people who have worked for PCL and from what I hear, I can’t argue too much with the ranking, I’ve heard that they give three weeks vacation to start, which is utterly unheard of in the construction industry.  I would venture a guess that working for PCL is a pretty good bet.

At number 57 is California based DPR Construction.  DPR also ranked just above Goldman Sachs at 20 in the Big Pay list with an average pay for superintendents of $122,600.  Fortune had this to say about DPR:

This Bay Area-based general contractor really likes to toast special occasions like new projects, company awards, anniversaries (the firm marks its 20th birthday this year) — it has wine bars installed in all of its 17 offices.

Employees of the firm, which builds facilities for companies such as Google, Qualcomm and Herman Miller, are in a celebratory mood, despite the lousy construction market. “In these economic times, they pay some employee salaries even though there is no project for them,” says one. “This is unheard of in the construction industry.” On a scale of 1 to 10, the toughest rating any employee gave DPR in a recent staff survey was 9.5.

Another reason for staffers to cheer: On top of the firm’s solid pay and benefits package, nearly a third receive so-called “phantom stock.” Last year, as 2003 shares vested, 362 employees were paid out $3.4 million, or about $9,400 each.

Also making the list was Balfour Beatty Construction at number 76 and Gilbane at number 92.

It’s always hard to make lists like this because individuals are very different and all may excel in different situations.  However, it is very pleasant for our minds to be provided with rankings and such in an effort to make some sense of our world.  Plus, it’s quite fun.

I’m personally a fan of smaller growing companies where more responsibility and flexibility would be given to employees, so I doubt I’m going to be sending my resume to PCL or DPR anytime soon.  Plus, I highly doubt they’re hiring.

Tags: , ,

Digg this!Add to del.icio.us!Stumble this!Add to Techorati!Share on Facebook!Seed Newsvine!Reddit!

768 Responses to “Construction companies lightly represented in Fortune’s Top 100 Companies to Work For”

  1. Ned Pelger says on: 23 January 2010 at 5:29 am

    I’m always a bit suspicious of those top 100’s as well, but it is interesting reading what some of the firms are doing for their employees. There really are some great construction companies out there, both big and small. You just have to navigate around the snakes to find them.

  2. John Poole says on: 24 January 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Ned,

    I think you a correct. Really good construction companies to work for are few and far between. However, the good one’s can be as good as any.

Leave a Reply:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  Copyright ©2009 Constructonomics, All rights reserved.| Powered by WordPress| Simple Indy theme by India Fascinates