Get the Truth
Anti-competitive government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) are special interest kickback schemes that end open, fair and competitive bidding on construction projects.
PLAs discourage or eliminate merit shop contractors from competing for and winning contracts on construction projects. Construction contracts subject to PLAs are almost always awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces. Less competition and archaic and inefficient union rules increase the cost of construction projects subject to PLAs.
According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 13.2 percent of the 2012 U.S. private construction workforce belongs to a union. This means PLAs discriminate against more than eight out of 10 construction workers who would otherwise work on construction projects if not for a PLA.
PLAs typically include the following provisions that discourage merit shop contractors from working on PLA projects:
- Despite the fact that contractors have their own benefit plans, PLAs require merit shop contractors to pay their workers’ health and retirement benefits to union trust funds. Thus, companies have to pay benefits twice: once to the union and once to the company plan. Nonunion employees never see any of the benefit contributions sent to union plans unless they decide to join a union and remain with the union until vested in plans.
- Paying into underfunded and mismanaged union pension plans can also expose merit shop contractors to significant pension withdrawal liabilities. Signing a PLA and exposing a company to pension liabilities could bankrupt a contractor or prohibit contractors from qualifying for construction bonds needed to build future projects.
- PLAs require merit shop companies to obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs. Participants in federal and state-approved nonunion apprenticeship programs cannot work on a job covered by a PLA. This means craft professionals enrolled in all apprenticeship programs other than those offered by the union are excluded from work in their hometowns.
- PLAs require merit shop companies to obtain their workers from union hiring halls. This means a merit shop company has to exclude their hard working employees from specific jobsites and exclusively use unfamiliar union workers. In rare instances, merit shop employers can use a limited number of their own employees, but employers must send their nonunion employees to the union hiring hall and hope the union sends the same employees back to that specific PLA jobsite.
- Nonunion employees may have to pay union dues and fees or join a union in order to work on a PLA project.
Learn more about the provisions in typical PLAs and how they harm nonunion contractors and employees at “Project Labor Agreement Basics: What is a PLA?” (4/24/09).
PLAs drive up the cost of construction projects. By unnecessarily limiting bidders and following outdated and inefficient union work rules, PLAs consistently and unnecessarily drive up costs on projects. Analysis of numerous academic studies of public construction projects subject to prevailing wage laws indicate PLAs increase the cost of construction between 12 percent and 18 percent when compared to similar projects not subject to union-only PLAs.
PLAs discriminate against merit shop contractors and disadvantaged businesses. This discrimination is particularly harmful to women- and minority-owned construction businesses – whose workers traditionally have been under-represented in unions, mainly due to artificial and societal barriers in union membership and union apprenticeship and training programs. Get the facts about the impact of union-only PLAs on women- and minority-owned construction businesses and workers here and here.
PLAs harm local workers. Proponents of PLAs claim PLAs ensure the use of local workers. But the truth is that PLAs fail at real local hire and job creation (learn more here). PLA supporters fail to mention the term “local workers” excludes local nonunion workers. This rhetoric is particularly misleading since only 13.2 percent of U.S. construction workers belong to a union. In construction markets where the demand for union labor is greater than the supply, union workers from outside the local area are given preference over qualified local nonunion workers on PLA projects. These union workers are called travelers or boomers, and they take jobs away from local and qualified nonunion craft employees.
PLAs take away employee’s rights. Employees normally are permitted to choose whether to join a union through a card check process or a federally supervised private ballot election. PLAs require unions to be the exclusive bargaining representative for workers during the life of the project. The decision to elect union representation is made by the employer – when agreeing to participate in a PLA – rather than the employees. PLAs are called pre-hire agreements because they can be negotiated before the contractor hires any employees or employees vote on union representation. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally prohibits pre-hire agreements, but an exception in the act allows for these agreements only in the construction industry. In short, government mandated PLAs strip away the right of construction workers to a federally supervised private-ballot election or a card check election when deciding whether or not to unionize their workplace.
PLAs are not necessary to, and are not successful at, ensuring labor peace or keeping a project safe, on-time, on budget, or in compliance with labor laws. Unions use the threat of labor strikes and unrest to leverage construction users into requiring PLAs on construction projects. This is a particularly disingenuous argument that flirts with blackmail, because unions cause many project delays through illegal organizing and jurisdictional disputes on jobsites. In addition, unions have struck on PLA projects, calling into question the value of the agreements (learn more here). In contrast, merit shop workers do not strike, yet they are typically discouraged from working on PLA projects.
As documented in the following linked blog posts, government-mandated PLAs do not guarantee a safe jobsite, nor do PLA mandates ensure compliance with labor laws.
A 2011 report by ABC general counsel Maury Baskin, Government-Mandated Project Labor Agreements: The Public Record of Poor Performance (2011 Edition), documents the numerous broken promises and mishaps on government mandated PLA construction projects such as the infamous Big Dig in Boston, MA. Additional research is available here.
To learn more about PLAs, please contact Ben Brubeck at Associated Builders and Contractors or get more information from ABC’s Informational PLA website and facebook page at www.facebook.com/TheTruthAboutPLAs.
Print 
PDF
47 Responses to Get the Truth
[...] delays through illegal organizing and jurisdictional disputes on jobsites,” according to an analysis posted on the ABC website. “Merit shop workers do not strike, yet they are excluded from working [...]
[...] Globe column by Scot Lehigh criticizes Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s support of project labor agreements (PLAs) on future construction projects in exchange for political support from construction trade [...]
[...] an April 14 Wall Street Journal editorial blasts President Obama’s Feb. 6, 2009 pro-project labor agreement (PLA) Executive Order 13502 that was implemented into federal procurement regulations via a final [...]
[...] discussed the problems with the April 13 final rule implementing President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 with David Asman of FOX Business Network’s “America’s Nightly [...]
[...] project delays through illegal organizing and jurisdictional disputes on jobsites," according to an analysis posted on the ABC website. "Merit shop workers do not strike, yet they are excluded from working on [...]
[...] unemployment. But it is good news for Big Labor.The schemes are called government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) and the Obama administration is encouraging federal agencies to use them on a [...]
[...] agreements (PLAs). PLAs are a complete sop for unions. They insist on using union workers, which increases the cost of construction projects on average by 10 to 20 [...]
[...] normal workforce of non–union members or choose not to bid on the project. Considering only 14.5 percent of construction workers are unionized, there is no other reason for PLAs other than as a sop to Democrats’ key [...]
[...] in the City of Palmdale, in Los Angeles County) from requiring its contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with [...]
[...] prohibit those states from entering into contracts that require construction contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions. See the map above, courtesy of [...]
[...] their local governments from entering into contracts that require construction companies to sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with construction trade [...]
[...] that prohibit those cities from entering into contracts that require construction companies to sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with unions. On April 26, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 829 into law - only a [...]
[...] their local governments from entering into contracts that require construction companies to sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with construction trade [...]
[...] project in California, assume that the government or the developer required contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement to build [...]
[...] in the City of Palmdale, in Los Angeles County) from requiring its contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with [...]
[...] certainly the silent #1 issue in the race for Placer County Board of Supervisors, 4th District is Project Labor Agreements, also known as [...]
[...] ordinance would prohibit the City of San Diego from requiring construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with unions as a condition of working on a taxpayer-funded project. It also contains language [...]
[...] in ”membership dues” (paid by power plant owners and contractors as a condition of Project Labor Agreements extracted by California Unions for Reliable Energy), and $450,000 in net investment returns. A [...]
[...] the proposed ordinance is unnecessary because the city has never required contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions for a taxpayer-funded project. Apparently the No on A campaign thinks the illogical [...]
[...] Open Competition ordinance prohibiting the city from requiring construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement to work on taxpayer-funded construction. I also reported already on the 57% victory in the City of [...]
[...] Board of Harbor Commissioners for the Port of Long Beach held a special study session to discuss Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on specific projects and a proposed Project Labor Agreement that construction contractors would [...]
[...] Don’t worry about the unions; they have a good deal with their union monopolies through Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) at dozens of local governments – you know, all the fiscally responsible and [...]
[...] will be a requirement for the design-build entities and their subcontractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions for some or all of the construction work. I provided extensive background information [...]
[...] labor law compliance activity on these projects because contractors working on them have to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. (See the special SDUSD “Project Stabilization Agreement” web page here for [...]
[...] lawyers exploit California’s environmental protection laws to squeeze union-only Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) out of private developers. Not surprisingly, the public reaction is overwhelmingly [...]
[...] of parents and students will see their construction program compromised by a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement that cuts bid competition and increases costs for the benefit of construction [...]
[...] Whatever happens, union officials will probably allign with whichever side serves their own interest of gaining full control of construction for this development with a Project Labor Agreement. [...]
[...] et seq.) so that unions can’t exploit it to block proposed projects until the owner signs a Project Labor Agreement giving unions monopoly control of the construction [...]
[...] power generation, although some people speculate that their CURE client is more interested in Project Labor Agreements for these projects. Category: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Lawsuit Abuse, [...]
[...] owners of proposed power plants (and their construction contractors) fund it when they sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) that require payments to [...]
[...] the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors directed county staff on September 18, 2012 to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with unions and with the input of contractors for the planned $84 million expansion of the [...]
[...] the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors directed county staff on September 18, 2012 to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with unions and with the input of contractors for the planned $54 million expansion of the [...]
Nice post. Very good info.
[...] is to coerce developers to hand over monopoly control of the construction to unions through a Project Labor Agreement. The CEQA abuse racket is called “greenmail,” and it is rampant throughout [...]
[...] is to coerce developers to hand over monopoly control of the construction to unions through a Project Labor Agreement. The CEQA abuse racket is called “greenmail,” and it is rampant throughout [...]
[...] week the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) confirmed the elimination of a controversial project labor agreement (PLA) mandate on its estimated $20 million to $50 million Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H., when [...]
[...] California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to block proposed projects until the developer signs a Project Labor Agreement for construction and a neutrality agreement leading to a collective bargaining agreement for the [...]
[...] of Education of the San Diego Unified School District requires construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions in order to work on certain projects funded by school district bond sales. Coalition [...]
[...] have succumbed to the union political agenda and require their construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with trade unions as a condition of working on taxpayer-funded [...]
[...] succumbed to the union political agenda and now require their construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with trade unions as a condition of working on taxpayer-funded projects. And unions are busy [...]
[...] getting a Project Labor Agreement and other labor concessions as part of a deal to withdraw their environmental complaints about the [...]
[...] getting a Project Labor Agreement and other labor concessions as part of a deal to withdraw their environmental complaints about the [...]
[...] Community Benefit Agreements usually include a requirement for developers or contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with construction unions or adopt some other program (often a “First Source Hiring” [...]
[...] from multiple sources that top construction union officials in Sacramento were anticipating a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) if Sacramento County voters approved a proposed $1.2 billion sales tax increase in the November [...]
[...] has documented why government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) are opposed by some union contractors and union members for a variety of [...]
[...] government officials and taxpayers there is a public benefit to anti-competitive and costly government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs), which create jobs exclusively for unionized construction workers and steer huge public [...]
[...] government officials and taxpayers there is a public benefit to anti-competitive and costly government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs), which create jobs exclusively for unionized construction workers and steer huge public [...]