Not surprisingly, the article mentions how construction unions use CEQA to block permits for projects until the developers agree to force their contractors to sign project labor agreements (PLAs): “It also has become a weapon in battles between rival developers or builders and labor unions… One coalition of labor groups that advocates for environmental improvements in projects has drawn criticism because it also seeks agreements that developers employ union members.”

That “coalition of labor groups” is California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), which is notorious for blocking permits at the California Energy Commission for power plants and other energy infrastructure projects until the developer agrees to require its construction contractors to sign a project labor agreement.

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) has introduced a bill (Assembly Bill 598) that would limit standing to file and maintain an action or proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exclusively to the state’s elected Attorney General, thus giving accountability and authority to the executive branch to implement the law for its original intent of legitimate environmental protection.

Here is the controversial language, tacked on to the very end of the 22-page bill:

Nothing in this division prohibits payments pursuant to an agreement authorized by the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.), or payments permitted by the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Secs. 173, 175a, and 186). Nothing in this division restricts any use permitted by federal law of money paid pursuant to these acts.

Several newspapers have published editorials urging Governor Brown to veto SB 790 because of the sneaky provision. But other than TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, few news outlets have attempted to dig deep with an investigation into the implications of the language in Senate Bill 790. One exception is a September 8 exposé entitled Legislation Boosts Union Trust Fund by Katy Grimes of CalWatchdog.com. Excerpts from that article appeared in the September 11 San Francisco Examiner: ‘Gut and amend’ bills help fill union coffers.‘

In response, State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) had an opinion piece in the September 16, 2011 San Francisco Examiner (Claims Against CCA Bill Unfounded) claiming that criticism of Senate Bill 790 is based on “falsehoods and innuendo” and a “fanciful theory, a fantasy.” In another opinion piece in the September 21 Oakland Tribune and associated Bay Area News Group newspapers (Bill Was Not Hijacked and Deserves to be Signed), two local elected officials in the San Francisco Bay Area and a lobbyist for the Sierra Club declare that “The Tribune has wrongly charged that SB790 ‘was hijacked’ and that it ‘authorizes payments in PLAs (project labor agreements) covering utility infrastructure projects to slush funds managed by construction union officials.’”

This morning (September 22, 2011), the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction released the most comprehensive analysis yet of “a genuine union conspiracy” involving Senate Bill 790, Project Labor Agreements, and Labor Management Cooperation Committees. Peppered with links to documentary evidence, the “Investigative Report” examines step-by-step how unions exploit the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to browbeat power plant developers into signing a Project Labor Agreement, which requires the developer or its contractors to make payments to trust funds authorized by the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978, which in turn these union-affiliated trust funds use to finance political activity for unions.

See the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction’s “Investigative Report: A Genuine Union Conspiracy” here.

Considering that San Diego County voters approved a Fair and Open Competition charter amendment with 76 percent of the vote in November 2010, it was no surprise that signature collection for this ballot measure was easy. Project labor agreements have been a familiar issue of concern to citizens in San Diego County since the notorious union extortion of Gaylord Entertainment in 2007 and 2008 for a project labor agreement using the threat of objections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the end, Gaylord abandoned its proposal to build a $1.2 billion hotel and conference center on the bayfront of the City of Chula Vista, and unions solidified a reputation in San Diego for underhanded tactics in pursuit of monopoly control of work.

In June 2010, 56 percent of voters in the City of Chula Vista approved a Fair and Open Competition ordinance, and 54 percent of voters in the City of Oceanside approved a charter containing a Fair and Open Competition provision.

Ban on Labor-Friendly Contracts Will Be on 2012 Ballot – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 21, 2011 (breaking news)

New Initiative Sets Stage for Latest Labor, Business Battle – www.voiceofSanDiego.org – September 21, 2001

‘Fair and Open Competition’ initiative qualifies for San Diego ballot – San Diego Daily Transcript – September 22, 2011 (Article notes that the Fair and Open Competition measure is the first qualified by San Diego citizens for the city ballot since 1998 – thirteen years ago.)

Now there is a simple proposal in California to rein in the rampant practice of union “greenmail,” or environmental permit extortion. Assembly Bill 598, introduced by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), states that only the Attorney General of the state, as the duly elected representative of the people, can challenge a government decision under CEQA.

In other words, the elected Attorney General becomes the check and balance to protect the people from their government when their government approves projects or activities without properly assessing environmental impact. Assemblywoman Grove explained her bill to her constituents through this April 10, 2011 opinion piece (“Bill Addresses Abuses of Environmental Law”) in the Bakersfield Californian newspaper.

If Assembly Bill 598 became law, it would eliminate outrageous examples of CEQA misuse. For example, in a letter dated March 29, 2011, the City of Sacramento threatened to use CEQA to keep the Sacramento Kings professional basketball team from moving to Anaheim.

Of interest to Associated Builders and Contractors and the merit shop community, Assembly Bill 598 would foil the plots of unions to block construction projects with environmental complaints until the developers agree to require their contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). For example, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union would cease to be the California’s most aggressive opponent of solar energy generation facilities.

CEQA is meant to protect the environment, and the outrageous abuses and exploitation of the law are jeopardizing the purity and credibility of it. People are inspired to laughter and derision when unionized nurses and hospital workers see environmental devastation with a proposed new hospital, or when unionized operators of huge excavators are upset about how a quarry is affecting the environment, or when unionized truck drivers object to fumes that would be emitted if a trucking company built a distribution center, or when unionized grocery workers try to stop the construction of a Wal-Mart.

Assembly Bill 598 is a bold and clear CEQA reform that highlights to the people of California how their environmental protection law is being twisted for ulterior motives.

Accompanied by more than 50 construction workers, the organization unveiled its “Statement of Principles” outlining six expectations for the project, including having county residents comprise 90% of the workforce, not forcing Merit Shop companies to pay employee benefits into union trust funds instead of their own employee benefit programs, and allowing apprentices from any state-approved training program to get on-the-job training on the convention center expansion project.

Allegedly, there are appointees on the Board of Directors for the San Diego Convention Center Corporation who are intent on negotiating a project labor agreement with construction union officials in order to avoid union “greenmail” and exploitation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would hold up permits for the project. Environmental permit extortion by construction unions helped to derail a proposed $1.2 billion hotel and convention center proposed by Gaylord Entertainment at the Chula Vista Bayfront in 2007 and 2008.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the press conference (“Contractors Opposed to Union Labor Mandate on Convention Center Expansion“). Union officials and a convention center corporation board member were coy about their plans to negotiate a project labor agreement. Clearly a PLA is a distinct possibility, and business and community leaders who support free enterprise will need to be diligent about exposing secret negotiations at every turn.

Nationwide, construction unions have long targeted lucrative and high-profile convention centers for costly PLAs. A project labor agreement was imposed on the last expansion of the San Diego Convention Center in 1999.

…we now have another reason to be concerned about the proposed solar and wind projects for the desert: Union groups are attempting to block projects unless they get hiring agreements with the developers. Observers are calling it “greenmail,” as these groups are using the lengthy, complicated environmental regulations that already make any sort of development difficult in order to challenge the approval of energy projects, but apparently only the projects that don’t have labor agreements. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors rejected last week a challenge by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Unions to stop the approval of a solar project in Kramer Junction. Their representatives claimed their concerns were about water use for the project, a claim that nobody with half a brain believes.

The editorial mentions how environmental objections delayed the construction of a Walmart distribution center in Barstow. It concludes by decrying how this union tactic hinders economic growth and job creation:

And so Barstow has to wait for more jobs to come. The irony that the people hurt most by these labor actions are other laborers is lost on these folks. They don’t grasp that if their actions keep causing projects to be canceled or delayed, this ultimately reduces demand for construction workers, pushing labor value down. Their actions result in laborers getting paid less, not more. No wonder private sector unions are on the decline in America, down to less than 9 percent, levels not seen since 1932.

The February 9, 2011 Barstow Desert Dispatch and Victorville Daily Press (Kramer Junction Solar Project Approved by Board of Supervisors / Supervisors OK Kramer Junction Solar Project – same article text) reported on the controversy at the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors over the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) greenmail against the 40-megawatt solar photovoltaic generating facility in the Mojave Desert. Remarks by ABC of California are in the article, along with remarks from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction:

Members of two organizations that are opposing labor unions that attempt to stop or delay solar projects say that the labor unions are essentially using elements of the California Environmental Quality Act to “greenmail” project developers into signing project labor agreements. Once a developer signs a labor agreement, the opposition to the project disappears, said Kevin Dayton, state government affairs director for Associated Builders and Contractors of California.

Dayton said that labor unions are the biggest obstacle to solar projects in California because of their attempts to get project developers to sign labor agreements. He said that he hoped that Gov. Jerry Brown would amend CEQA in order to keep labor unions from blocking solar projects throughout California.

A representative of another organization opposing the “greenmail” tactics used by labor unions said that he believes that the lawsuits and environmental injunctions filed on the behalf of labor unions are going to become increasingly common in Southern California. Eric Christen, a representative of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, said that the project developers normally win such disputes, but pointed out that such delays cost money and can cause a developer to cancel the project.

“Is the delay and the cost of the delay worth the win?” asked Christen.

Neither the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) nor the representative of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo was available to the reporter for comment.

Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction appeared on the Rick Amato Show on KCBQ AM 1170 in San Diego during its February 9 evening broadcast to discuss this incident. Amato declared his excitement about a group actually being immersed in the fray to stand up to the unions and support the taxpayers.

Meanwhile, Kevin Dayton, Government Affairs Director for Associated Builders and Contractors of California, appeared on the “Top Story @ 6” / Chris Reed Show on KOGO AM 600 in San Diego during its February 14 evening broadcast to discuss union exploitation of the California Environmental Quality Act to squeeze costly Project Labor Agreements out of solar energy developers. Dayton suggested that Governor Jerry Brown work with legitimate environmental groups to reform CEQA so that unions can no longer exploit the law for purposes unrelated to environmental protection.

The San Bernardino County Planning Commission had approved the permit for the solar plant at its October 7, 2010 meeting. The Planning Commission had originally planned to approve the project at its June 3, 2010 meeting, but at the last minute the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo swooped in on behalf of the IBEW with environmental objections based on water supply for dust control during construction and for cleaning of the solar panels. This union action delayed the project for four months while the county performed a water supply assessment. Three days after the project was finally approved by the county Planning Commission, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo filed an appeal of the decision to the Board of Supervisors.

The controversy over the IBEW greenmail and the vote was reported in the February 9, 2011 Barstow Desert Dispatch and Victorville Daily Press (Kramer Junction Solar Project Approved by Board of Supervisors/Supervisors OK Kramer Junction Solar Project – same article text in both stories).

Remarks by ABC of California are in the article, along with remarks from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction:

Members of two organizations that are opposing labor unions that attempt to stop or delay solar projects say that the labor unions are essentially using elements of the California Environmental Quality Act to “greenmail” project developers into signing project labor agreements. Once a developer signs a labor agreement, the opposition to the project disappears, said Kevin Dayton, state government affairs director for Associated Builders and Contractors of California.

Dayton said that labor unions are the biggest obstacle to solar projects in California because of their attempts to get project developers to sign labor agreements. He said that he hoped that Gov. Jerry Brown would amend CEQA in order to keep labor unions from blocking solar projects throughout California.

A representative of another organization opposing the “greenmail” tactics used by labor unions said that he believes that the lawsuits and environmental injunctions filed on the behalf of labor unions are going to become increasingly common in Southern California. Eric Christen, a representative of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, said that the project developers normally win such disputes, but pointed out that such delays cost money and can cause a developer to cancel the project.

“Is the delay and the cost of the delay worth the win?” asked Christen.

Neither the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) nor the representative of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo was available to the reporter for comment.

A Senior Vice President of the solar facility developer, LightSource Renewables, stated “we believe our project was decided correctly by the [Planning] Commission based on its merits” and explained its efforts to minimize the environmental impact of the project. An assistant director for the county’s Land Use Services Department concurred.

During public comment concerning the agenda item, Jackie Nutting of the Southern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors and Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction blasted Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo for “standard rhetoric” acting as a front for an “extortion racket.” They pointed out that the environmental objections were a scam for unions to pressure the developer to sign a Project Labor Agreement or other union-only labor agreement and cited a February 5, 2011 Los Angeles Times article exposing the tactic against renewable energy generation facilities.

Christen declared that “this nonsense and abuse of CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] needs to end” and called for a county ban on Project Labor Agreements as a way to send a message about this reprehensible tactic. Such a ban has been enacted in Orange County (Orange County, California PLA Ban – Code of Ordinances §1-8-3) and San Diego County (San Diego County Administrative Code Article XXIII, §428).

Neither the San Bernardino Planning Commission nor the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department has identified any legitimate reasons why this solar project might harm the environment. Obviously the IBEW is exploiting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to block this project until the developer and/or its construction contractors succumb to the extortion and sign a Project Labor Agreement or some other union-only agreement with the IBEW.

An article in the February 1, 2011 Barstow Desert-Dispatch newspaper (in San Bernardino County) aptly describes what is going on:

Union Group Protests Kramer Junction Solar Project – Barstow Desert-Dispatch – February 1, 2011.

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors will consider the IBEW appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Solar Photovoltaic Energy Facility at its February 8, 2001 meeting, which starts at 10:00 a.m. at the San Bernardino County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, in San Bernardino, California. Here is the agenda item:

62) CONTINUED FROM TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011, Item #76 -

Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 40-megawatt commercial Solar Photovoltaic Energy Facility on a 350-acre portion of a 401.6-acre vacant property, located on State Route 58, approximately one mile west of U.S. Highway 395 in unincorporated San Bernardino County.

2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission action to:

Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and find that the Initial Study has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, that it has been reviewed and considered prior to approving the Project and that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of San Bernardino County.

b. Approve a Conditional Use Permit to establish a solar power generation facility on a 350-acre portion of an 401.6-acre parcel.

c. Adopt the Findings as recommended by the Planning Commission.

iv. File a Notice of Determination.

(Affected Districts: First)

(Presenter: James M. Squire, Assistant Director, 387-4131)

Here are links to the relevant government documents:

Staff Report on IBEW Appeal

All Related Documents (except IBEW appeal, which is on file with the county).

Media inquiries: contact ABC of California

Dayton cites a December 15 announcement that the developers of the planned reconstruction of the Wilshire Grand hotel and office building in downtown Los Angeles agreed to a PLA with the Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. He’s not impressed with the announcement:

Finally, developers need to stop perpetuating the problem by participating in Orwellian press conferences and other media events to celebrate their surrender to union extortion. Instead, they should work openly in the public (or quietly behind the scenes) to reveal the real plot behind the agreements. Even Californians who support a strong union movement are queasy about CEQA abuse, and most Californians are repulsed by it.

Regrettably, developers in Los Angeles have been and are under great pressure to sign PLAs or risk having their projects tangled up in environmental objections and political obstacles. Los Angeles has become perhaps the capital for project labor agreements in the country, with dozens of public and private programs and projects subject to them and few people willing to openly question their cost and purpose. Dayton has said “The best indicator that the City of Los Angeles is headed inevitably toward bankruptcy is its insatiable drive to give unions a monopoly on construction.”

This post – complete with videos and graphs – touches on almost every aspect of these special interest handouts, including that PLAs are designed only to keep the construction unions in business, they discriminate against women and minorities and the construction unions are using state environmental regulations to keep nonunion workers from competing for work.

This blog post is required reading for anyone who wants to learn more about PLAs and Big Labor’s drive to monopolize taxpayer-funded construction work.  Here are several excerpts.

On the Riverside College District PLA requirement adopted in December 2009:

Ten minutes prior to the start of a December 15th, 2009 board meeting of the Riverside Community College District in California, board members are handed a 52-page document filled with millions of dollars in projects to be funded by the district’s taxpayers, who themselves are struggling under the state’s 12.4% unemployment rate.  The document, a draft Project Labor Agreement (PLA), will commit long-term construction and ancillary projects for the next several years to labor unions.

At least twenty-three members of the public, many of them local private business owners who oppose the PLA, have attended [the meeting] to publicly comment on the proposal.  Two of the board members have never even seen the PLA prior to today, and have asked for a special session to review it.  Despite opposition from the public, and the concern voiced by those two board members, the remaining three board members have moved that the Board of Trustees authorize Chancellor Greg Gray to negotiate the final PLA with the Riverside and San Bernardino Building and Construction Trade Councils. Board Trustees Virginia Blumenthal and Janet Green dissented.

So, without adequate time for all to review the draft, without any backup analysis provided to justify the use of up to $350,000,000 in Measure C taxpayer funds, without giving the public reasonable time to voice their opinions, and with an unemployment rate of over 12% when non-union workers are in even greater need of jobs than union workers…why would three of Riverside’s five board members vote to move forward with a final negotiation anyway? Why the rush? Residents and business owners in Riverside are wondering the same thing, and hope to have the chance to weigh in before the PLA’s final draft is signed.

On Greenmail in California:

…federal and state laws have been passed over time to improve conditions for workers in America, leading to the creation of federal agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor (DOL) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to name only a few.  While labor unions once represented a large portion of workers in America prior to the existence of such laws and agencies, workers now have proper outlets and interest in voluntary union membership has declined.  As such, labor unions are turning again to PLAs as a tool in helping them to survive.

While PLAs were once largely embraced in a marketplace when unions represented a greater majority of workers in the US, today’s PLAs must claim other benefits to be reasonably received by a general public that is no longer largely unionized.  Today’s PLAs purport to extend jobs to non-union workers, when in reality they place new impositions on both employers and workers, such as mandatory union-hall hiring, forcing non-union workers to pay union dues and make contributions to others’ pension funds. With the advent of the strict standards of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), PLAs now typically promise union sanctioned “environmental expertise”, adding another weapon to big labor’s arsenal.  Since most unions receive public funding for environmental training and mitigation, union bosses use it to assert their perceived authority by challenging projects on environmental grounds. They effectively hold a project hostage until the parties agree to a PLA and allow union shops to take control of the project’s labor requirements.  It’s nothing less than blackmail, which is how a new spin on the old term “greenmail” came to be mainstream, as effectively illustrated in the video below.  (TTAPLAs NOTE: Read more on Greenmail here)

President Obama, California and PLAs:

Lately it’s as though progressives are trying to relive the New Deal days, allowing politics, not need, to drive who gets jobs, money, resources and contracts. The influence of politics on governmental decisions and policies is certainly having its impact on how many opportunities are created for the majority of Americans, versus for just a very small subset that are the union workers.

In February 2009, as one of his first duties in office, President Obama signed an executive order that authorized federal executive agencies to use project labor agreements on federal construction contracts with a total cost of $25 million or more.  The order also revoked President Bush’s prior ban on mandatory PLAs, an action he’d taken after congressional hearings produced evidence that PLAs were discriminatory against open-shops and non-union workers, increased costs on most projects and were too often vehicles for abuse .  When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed only days after Obama’s order, agencies were encouraged to mandate PLAs for all stimulus projects.

Recently, skepticism of PLAs has increased under closer scrutiny of stimulus project awards, and more business journalists have been examining current unemployment numbers, looking at who’s getting jobs from stimulus projects, and at the relation of such issues to unionization statistics, as well as reporting on potential abuses.

California is a prime example of such governing policies that reckon back to the 1930’s, but in a day when the current level of union membership no longer justifies the pro-union policy.  Backed by the State Building and Construction Trades Council (an arm of AFL-CIO), the state is awash in cost-prohibitive union PLAs right now, even in light of its dismal financial situation.  It almost defies logic.

Other PLA spending in California includes:

* The Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project is moving forward with its $35 million PLA, despite its projected $11 million budget deficit, a gasoline tax, parking fee increases, spending cuts and the closure of several fire stations.
* The Northern California Power Agency project’s $432 million PLA will deliver $60 million for labor unions alone
* Under Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a former union organizer himself, Los Angeles has undertaken numerous PLA projects, including the Mass Transit Authority, which has already increased fares and taxes on residents, as it takes on the added cost that a PLA will bring to the project.
* View a complete list of over 400 PLAs implemented in California between 2000 and April 2009

The state faces a $20 billion budget deficit, it issued I.O.U.s in taxpayers’ refunds, and recently Standard & Poor’s lowered its credit rating, following downgrades already made by Moody’s Investors and by Fitch Ratings.

California taxpayers have also been dealt a series of other costs, such as an extra 10% taken from their paycheck withholding, a 5% surcharge on state income taxes, an increased sales tax, and increases in ancillary fees such as vehicle licensing fees.  While they struggle with these cost increases, taxpayers will also foot the bill for the increased costs of PLAs.  Meanwhile, they struggle with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

The Impact of PLAs on minorities:

And before any of our readers start ranting that being against PLAs means being against minorities, check your stats.  While blacks and Hispanics represent 23% of the general population, only an average of 8% of construction union members are minorities.  Labor leaders and progressive groups will often insist that PLAs ensure that minority workers have fair access to construction work, yet this is simply untrue.  Open competition however will ensure fair access.  And it is actually the non-union associations and conservative think tanks that have been working tirelessly to change this.  The CATO Institute published a paper by David Bernstein in 1993 titled The Davis-Bacon Act: Let’s Bring Jim Crow to an End, which details the history of how the 1931 prevailing wages law has intentionally excluded minorities from the construction industry and why it should be repealed.  Popular belief has also often been that unions are largely dominated by members with little or no secondary education, when in fact in California specifically, the majority have a college degree or some college.  While many of those are in public administration and education, the majorities also include those in transportation and construction.

As we await final regulations on President Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging PLAs on federal construction costing over $25 million, the California situation is the proverbial canary in the coal mine.  The decline of construction union membership described in this post is not unique to California; it is occurring throughout the country.

PLAs, like the Employee Free (Forced) Choice Act, represent Big Labor’s hail mary.  Rather than transforming themselves to compete in the 21st century workplace, unions would rather rig the rules to their own advantage at the taxpayers’ expense.

Again, this post is outstanding. Thanks to BigGovernment.com and Liberty Chick for helping to expose the truth about PLAs.

Visit here for our recent rundown of California PLA activity as well.

UPDATE: Ivan Osorio from the Competitive Enterprise Institute also covered this story on their blog www.openmarkets.org in a post titled, “The High Cost of Project Labor Agreements.”