During the 112th Congress, these groups have sent numerous coalition letters to the House and Senate in support of legislation that will ensure free and open competition on federal and federally assisted construction projects and restrict favoritism, waste and discrimination in federal contracting.

Such legislative solutions, like the Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (H.R. 735/S.119) has broad support from this industry coalition. 

In addition, during the 112th Congress, correspondence to the House on three amendents and House floor votes addressing government mandated PLAs, such as this June 2011 letter to the House, demonstrate their support of amendments to appropriations legislation ending anti-competitive PLA schemes in federal contracting.

Finally, these groups have also provided statements and witnesses to testify at two House Committee hearings against government-mandated PLAs in 2011.

The Following Construction Industry and Employer Groups Support Government Neutrality in Federal Contracting and Oppose Government-Mandated Project Labor Agreements:

American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)
Associated General Contractors (AGC)
Construction Industry Roundtable (CIRT)
Independent Electrical Contractors Association (IEC)
Electronic Security Association (ESA)
Merit Elevator Contractors Association of America (MECAA)
National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC) – Philadelphia Chapter
National Association of Government Contractors (NAGC)
National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC)
National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC)
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMA)
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA)
NUCA Representing Utility and Excavation Contractors
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBEC)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Women Construction Owners and Executives, USA (WCOE)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

On March 1, 2011, Small Business United (SBU), described as “a coalition of small business groups and professional associations representing a diverse set of constituencies from throughout Los Angeles County,” held a press conference in front of Los Angeles County’s Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration to urge the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to reject a proposed project labor agreement for the county’s Martin Luther King Jr. Medical Center Replacement Project – Multi-Service Ambulatory Care Center, as well as the Exposition Construction Authority’s Light Rail project.

Members of Small Business United include AB Consulting; AG Consultants; American GI Forum of California; Arab American Association of Engineers & Architects, Golden State Chapter; Associated Builders and Contractors Los Angeles-Ventura and Southern California Chapters; Eastern Group Publication, Inc.; California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Chinese American Construction Professionals; Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, Inc.; Santa Cruz Builders; the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction; South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce; Hernandez, Kroone & Associates; Hispanic Contractors Association; Hispanic Engineers Business Corporation; Praad Geotechnical, Inc.; and Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction.

A press release from Small Business United dated March 1 declared it “stands opposed to PLAs due to their adverse effects on small, minority, and women owned businesses, as well as the negative economic and educational impact they have on the region’s communities.” The press release included this statement:

“We are unable to sustain our livelihood under the parameters found in PLAs already in existence at other L.A. entities such as LAX, LAUSD, and the L.A. Department of Public Works. The PLAs under consideration for the County and Expo projects are just more of the same: union rules written solely by union leaders. Our community of engineers and students will be negatively affected unless the PLA is removed or substantially modified to accommodate small, minority, and women owned business enterprises.” said Robert Guzman, one of the group’s leaders and President of the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers. “Many of our students have expressed concern over their futures as business leaders because PLAs will not allow them to grow by getting work on projects paid for with their tax dollars, unless they of course happen to be union, which most are not.”

Also at the press conference were 200 union activists who were intent on disrupting the press conference. See video footage here and here and photos here. The head of the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council then used a megaphone at a union counter-rally to issue a diatribe against Associated Builders and Contractors and call for projects to be “as union as possible” under Project Labor Agreements. The opposing positions are clear: fair and open bid competition and responsible use of taxpayer funds OR costly union monopolies.

OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY

On February 28, 2011, five contractors and three association representatives spoke at the meeting of the Board of Commissioners for the Oakland Housing Authority in opposition to a proposed project labor agreement for future construction. Speakers included the president of the Bay Area Black Builders organization.

Speakers asked for a public forum on project labor agreements, formal involvement in the project labor agreement negotiations, and the public release of a feasibility study produced for the Oakland Housing Authority by an Oakland consulting firm, Davillier-Sloan. This report was subsequently released. It included a recommendation that the project labor agreement should include a provision that allows Merit Shop contractors to make benefit payments to company benefit plans if these plans are deemed to be equivalent or “parallel” to the union plans.

Four local contractors and a representative of Associated Builders and Contractors had spoken previously at the Board of Commissioners meeting held on January 24, 2011 as part of an Alameda County Contractor Coalition.

The Oakland Housing Authority intends to issue a Request for Proposal for a firm to negotiate a project labor agreement with the Building Trades Council of Alameda County. Much of the construction for the Oakland Housing Authority is renovation work for multi-family residential housing.

The op-ed also notes both the U.S. Department of Labor’s recent decision to go ahead with a PLA on the upcoming Manchester, N.H. Job Corps Center project despite the lack of federal regulations on how to implement Executive Order 13502 and a bid protest filed by New Hampshire based North Branch Construction with the General Accountability Office.  If executed, this would be the first federal government-mandated PLA since President Obama issued Executive Order 13502.

Here is an excerpt:

PLAs restrict nonunion contractors from competing because their employees are forced to pay union dues and obey Big Labor’s inefficient union work rules while on a PLA job site. Nonunion contractors would have to pay benefits twice – once to their own company’s plan and once to the local union – just to be able to work on these federal construction projects, created with their own tax dollars. And employees will never see any of those benefit contributions made by their employer unless they decide to leave their nonunion employer and remain with the union until vested.

But according to a recently released study by the Beacon Hill Institute, taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. If Obama’s order had been in effect in 2008, the cost to federal taxpayers would have increased by $1.6 to $2.6 billion.

PLAs do nothing to ensure a construction project’s quality, cost, timeliness or results. Just look at the “Big Dig” in Boston, which became a federally funded boondoggle plagued with multibillion-dollar cost overruns, shoddy workmanship and safety problems.

Regulations implementing Obama’s executive order are currently under review by the federal government, and a final rule is expected any time.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Labor went ahead and issued a PLA requirement on its forthcoming Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H., and a bid protest filed with the General Accountability Office by a New Hampshire contractor may determine the legality of government-mandated PLAs on federal construction projects.

At a time when businesses are already fighting to stay afloat, PLAs drive up costs for contractors, workers and taxpayers.

Anti-competitive PLAs reek of corruption and only punish taxpayers who deserve accountability from their government. PLAs serve as a barrier to jobs for hardworking nonunion construction employees in our community who deserve the same opportunity to compete for work as union members. Taxpayer-funded federal government construction contracts should be about the best work at the best price. Favoring one group over another restricts competition and will cause costs to increase.

Read the full op-ed after the jump.

Favoring unions hurts taxpayers

By STEVE P. CONA JR.

Special To The Tampa Tribune
With all the talk about the stimulus creating jobs, one might be tempted to think things are getting better.

The reality, especially in the Florida construction industry, isn’t so rosy. Florida lost 78,900 construction jobs in one year (July 2008-July 2009). And new data shows that 49 out of the 50 states have lost jobs overall, despite the “successful” stimulus.

Soon, a little-known executive order issued by President Obama will cause more job losses – unless workers are already in a union or are willing to pay union dues. In a clear payback to Big Labor, Obama’s Executive Order 13502 encourages federal construction projects exceeding $25 million to use union labor through project labor agreements (PLAs), which discriminate against 85.6 percent of U.S. construction workers who are not in a union. In Florida, only 3.7 percent of the private construction workforce is represented by a union.

PLAs restrict nonunion contractors from competing because their employees are forced to pay union dues and obey Big Labor’s inefficient union work rules while on a PLA job site. Nonunion contractors would have to pay benefits twice – once to their own company’s plan and once to the local union – just to be able to work on these federal construction projects, created with their own tax dollars. And employees will never see any of those benefit contributions made by their employer unless they decide to leave their nonunion employer and remain with the union until vested.

But according to a recently released study by the Beacon Hill Institute, taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. If Obama’s order had been in effect in 2008, the cost to federal taxpayers would have increased by $1.6 to $2.6 billion.

PLAs do nothing to ensure a construction project’s quality, cost, timeliness or results. Just look at the “Big Dig” in Boston, which became a federally funded boondoggle plagued with multibillion-dollar cost overruns, shoddy workmanship and safety problems.

Regulations implementing Obama’s executive order are currently under review by the federal government, and a final rule is expected any time.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Labor went ahead and issued a PLA requirement on its forthcoming Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H., and a bid protest filed with the General Accountability Office by a New Hampshire contractor may determine the legality of government-mandated PLAs on federal construction projects.

At a time when businesses are already fighting to stay afloat, PLAs drive up costs for contractors, workers and taxpayers.

Anti-competitive PLAs reek of corruption and only punish taxpayers who deserve accountability from their government. PLAs serve as a barrier to jobs for hardworking nonunion construction employees in our community who deserve the same opportunity to compete for work as union members. Taxpayer-funded federal government construction contracts should be about the best work at the best price. Favoring one group over another restricts competition and will cause costs to increase.

Big Labor is trying to drive Pennsylvania’s nonunion construction workforce into extinction. But the merit shop construction industry and 80 percent of Pennsylvania’s private construction workforce locked out of public construction work by discriminatory and costly government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) are fighting back!

The “Save the Endangered Species” campaign is in full swing.  We encourage everyone to visit their website (www.theendangeredspecies.org).  Additionally, visit their “Take Action” page for more information on what you can do to oppose wasteful and discriminatory PLAs in Pennsylvania.

They have also produced an outstanding web video, which is available below.   Share it with anyone else who cares about value and accountability on public construction projects.

Letter: Project Labor Agreement Wrong for Aurora

By BOB ROTH

A disturbing thing is happening right under our noses, and I am willing to bet that most Aurora residents have never heard about it. It’s disturbing because it will affect the blue collar workforce in negative ways in an economic climate that has already seen way too much negativity.

Presidential Executive Order 13502 urges that all projects where the cost to the Federal Government exceeds $25 million implement a Project Labor Agreement, or PLA. A little background is in order.

A project that implements a PLA requires all contractors who want to work on that project, whether they have chosen to be represented by organized labor or not, be subject to the following:

•  Recognize the union as the representative of their employees on that project.

•  Exclusively use the union hiring hall to obtain workers for the project.

•  Obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs.

•  Pay into the union benefits plan (a double blow for a non-union contractor because they have to pay into a fund they have no control over, while still maintaining their own benefits package)

•  Conform their normal project processes and procedures to union work rules.

At a recent meeting for the Colorado contracting community discussing The Veteran’s Hospital that will be built on the Fitzsimons Campus in our city, the Veteran’s Administration Project Manager told a stunned crowd that this project (valued between $500 and $600 million) will almost certainly be subject to such an agreement because it fits the basic criteria for inclusion under this order.

Before you think this is union bashing, I firmly believe that every employee has the right to choose whether they want to be represented by organized labor or not. The NLRB ensures this, and I support it completely. And through the years, unions have done a lot to help the workforce, especially in the construction and manufacturing industries.

But the fact is that a vast majority of construction workers in this state have chosen not to have union representation.

About 92 percent of construction workers choose to work for merit shops rather than union shops. Local union construction companies will have to supplement their workforce with out-of-state workers or “travelers” if non-signatory construction companies are not willing to sign the PLA.

If you were a part of that 92 percent of the construction industry, how would you feel about being unemployed while a worker drives in from another state to collect a check working on one of the most high profile projects our city has ever been a part of?

If you think a PLA is the wrong choice for this project in these economic times, make your voice heard.

This letter to the editor is available online here.

Here is the “This Week” news brief text:

Project labor pacts boost costs, study finds

A new Obama administration policy encouraging use of union agreements for large federal projects will significantly increase construction costs, a new industry study finds.

Had Obama’s order been in effect in 2008, covering about $60 billion in construction projects awarded that were worth $25 million or more, the additional cost to taxpayers would have been between $1.6 billion and $2.6 billion, according to the study by the conservative Beacon Hill Institute.

Moreover, the institute refuted the administration’s claims that so-called project labor agreements (PLAs) would save money because it would prevent construction firms from going on strike or otherwise slowing down construction projects with lengthy labor disputes. The Office of Management and Budget was unable to provide any examples that federal projects undertaken during the Bush administration, when most PLAs were outlawed, suffered significant delays or cost overruns due to labor issues.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation Council is crafting changes to federal procurement rules to enact Obama’s February executive order, which encourages agencies to require construction firms for large federal projects to enter into PLAs.

This is the second time Federal Times has covered President Obama’s Executive Order 13502.  In a September 7 article titled, “Administration Policy on Labor Agreements Draws Fire,” Federal Times did a great job uncovering the problems PLAs pose for federal procurement.

Here is an excerpt:

The Associated Builders and Contractors, an advocacy group whose members employ 2 million construction tradesmen, says PLAs cut out nonunion companies from federal business because of the additional costs they impose.  All workers must pay union dues whether they belong to a union or not, and the companies must contribute to union pension and benefit funds on behalf of their employees, who won’t receive the benefits unless they join the union.

The agreements also require companies to adhere to union work rules that limit employees from performing multiple tasks, so companies must hire additionally employees to handle individual tasks that could be handled by fewer employees with skills that cut across trades.

Ben Brubeck, director of labor and state government affairs for the organization cites various studies that indicate PLAs increase the cost of construction between 10 percent and 20 percent.  However, other studies show there can be significant cost savings by consolidating multiple collective bargaining agreements into a single PLA.

Brubeck said requiring agencies to use PLAs is a blatant attempt by unions to generate additional members.  Less than 16 percent of the nation’s private construction workforce belongs to a union, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“PLAs are used to discriminate against nonunion contractors,” Brubeck said.

Be sure to visit TheTruthAboutPLAs.com’s earlier posts on Executive Order 13502 for more information on how these special interest handouts deny taxpayers to accountability they deserve from federal government contracts.