This support comes despite union claims that if Proposition A is adopted, the city risks losing future state construction funding due to a new state law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last week.

Here are the highlights from the Union-Tribune‘s editorial announcing the paper’s support for Proposition A:

We acknowledge that Proposition A puts state construction funding at risk. Former Councilwoman Donna Frye points out that Mayor Jerry Sanders’ administration considered the funding threat significant enough that it was mentioned in a disclosure document for an upcoming bond offering.

But this bullying of local governments and taxpayers should not be accepted as a legitimate tactic, especially when the law used to execute the bullying is so susceptible to a court challenge.

Beyond that, the concern that Proposition A addresses – that union-allied elected city officials could began mandating PLAs – is real. Such a local union power play would be nothing new.

For four years, union-allied City Council members helped stall the implementation of a 2006 voter initiative meant to downsize city government by creating “managed competition” between private companies and government workers to provide city services. Union-allied members of the San Diego school board pushed through a version of a PLA for projects built with the $2.1 billion Proposition S bond approved in 2008 – after never mentioning their intentions during the campaign for the measure.

If we can pre-emptively block such power plays, let’s do so. The U-T San Diego Editorial Board urges a yes vote on Proposition A. Don’t let the bullies win.

Proposition A will help guarantee San Diego taxpayers the best construction at the best price.

To learn more, visit their website www.fairandopencompetition.com or their Facebook page.

Here are the highlights from The LA Times, with my emphasis added:

Gov. Jerry Brown announced on Saturday that the state’s deficit has ballooned to $16 billion, a huge increase over his $9.2-billion estimate in January.

<snip>

“This means we will have to go much further, and make cuts far greater, than I asked for at the beginning of the year,” Brown said in the video.

Lawmakers and others were hoping that a rebounding economy would help the state avoid steep cuts to social services. But revenue in April, the most important month of the year for income taxes, fell far short of expectations, leading to a shortfall of at least $3 billion in the current fiscal year.

The state has also spent $2.1 billion more than expected, according to the controller, further worsening California’s financial health.

Advocates involved in budget discussions say they expect deeper cuts to social services than Brown originally proposed in January. Union officials are also in negotiations with administration officials about ways to reduce state payroll costs, an issue that wasn’t on the table earlier this year.

Brown has said there will be even deeper cuts, mostly to public education, if voters do not improve tax hikes in November. He is seeking a quarter-cent increase in the state sales tax for four years and a seven-year hike on incomes of $250,000 or more that will range from 1 to 3 percentage points. He says the measure would raise $9 billion in the upcoming budget year.

What does this have to do with wasteful and discriminatory project labor agreements (PLAs)?

Regular readers of this blog know that many California leaders at the state and local levels go out of their way to mandate the use of PLAs on public construction.  Recently, Gov. Brown signed bills that attempt to overturn the will of local voters and elected officials in 12 California communities by nullifying PLA mandate bans in general law localities, and attempting to deprive charter cities of state funding for construction.

California has the most dire state budget situation in America, at a time when most states have already turned the corner.  This should not be a surprise to anyone.  Governing has consequences.  If government officials are comfortable spending nearly 20 percent more for public construction projects just to help out construction union bosses, it is obviously that getting value for the taxpayers’ money is not a priority.

And that is how you end up with a $16 billion budget deficit.

Eric Christen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) recently debated former San Diego City Council Member Donna Frye on the merits of Proposition A, which would ban government-mandated project labor agreements on city funded projects.

To learn more, visit their website www.fairandopencompetition.com or their Facebook page.

From 2000 to 2011, the merit shop construction community helped local leaders and voters across the state understand that government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) deprive taxpayers of the opportunity to get the best construction at the best price. Eight local communities enacted bans on PLA mandates, including three that did so through citizen initiatives.

Union bosses could feel the ground shifting under them, but were not going to take an assault on their monopoly lying down. As a major political contributor to most of the Democrats in the legislature’s majorities, Big Labor used its leverage to get state legislators to approve S.B. 922 in the closing days of the 2011 legislative session.

This bill was a clear special interest handout. From a policy standpoint, it nullified PLA mandate bans in localities controlled by the state government and was designed to deprive charter cities (i.e., cities where voters opted for local control by adopting a city charter) of state funding for future construction projects unless city leaders could consider the use of a PLA mandate.

If the policy wasn’t bad enough, this language was amended into an unrelated bill during the twilight of the legislative session, depriving taxpayers of the time to learn what the Democrats were really trying to pull, and then passed on party-line votes.

It turns out that Democrats in the legislature and their Big Labor allies moved the 2011 bill so quickly that the statute was not as air-tight as they wanted. Luckily for them, that is an easy fix for a state in which Big Labor calls the shots. On April 25, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed S.B. 829, which is designed to strip charter cities of state construction funds if the city cannot institute a government-mandated PLA.

Here are more details from a press release issued by Associated Builders and Contractors’ (ABC) Golden Gate Chapter:

Gut and Amend Bill interferes with local control for California Charter

Livermore, CA– Today, the Governor signed Senate Bill 829 (Rubio-Fresno), which intends to cut off all state funds from charter cities that ban Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). This is a follow-up bill to the original Union-Backed Senate Bill 922 signed by the Governor in 2011, intended to End Local Project Labor Agreement Bans or Fair and Open Competition ordinances for taxpayers at local governments.

SB 829 is the latest attempt by labor-backed lawmakers in Sacramento to limit state funds paid to any charter city that enacts restrictions on costly PLAs – including initiatives approved by voters. After heavy lobbying by labor unions and with minimal public debate, a maneuver called “gut and amend” was used to pass this bill in the State Senate last Thursday. The bill was passed on a straight party line vote.

“The bill has serious constitutional defects. However, that has not stopped some in the Legislature from backing what should be a non-starter. SB829 is a power grab by Sacramento politicians that will certainly be overturned by the courts,” said Nicole Goehring, Government Affairs Director, Associated Builders and Contractors Golden Gate Chapter.

SB829 is an attempt to undercut Proposition A in San Diego and similar Fair and Open Competition reforms gaining traction across the state. The bill was backed by the State Building & Construction Trades Unions in an attempt to gain state control of local construction money and block savings for local taxpayers.

Proposition A – the Fair and Open Competition Initiative – is on the June ballot in San Diego. It will prevent the City Council from imposing mandatory project labor agreements (PLAs) on city-funded construction projects and requires the Mayor to post construction contracts on-line for public review.

Senator Doug La Malfa and Assemblymembers Bill Berryhill, Connie Conway, Linda Halderman, Shannon Grove and Jim Nielsen among others in the State Legislature are to be applauded for opposing SB 829 and defending the rights of charter cities to exercise local control.

“We owe our duty to the constitution, not the unions,” said Assemblymember Shannon Grove, who spoke against the bill on the floor of the state Assembly. Grove represents part of the Central Valley where fair and open competition in construction is considered the best value for taxpayers.

###

The Problem with Project Labor Agreements

All construction work done under a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) must be performed by union-only signatory construction workers. The PLA will force non-union contractors and their workers to pay union dues, pay into union benefit programs, require all employees to be hired through a union-hiring hall to get work, and would allow for union-only apprentices on the project. By unnecessarily limiting bidders and following outdated and inefficient union work rules, union-only PLAs consistently drive up costs to the taxpayers. Several academic studies indicate PLAs increase the cost of construction between 10 percent and 20 percent when compared to similar projects not subject to union-only PLAs.

ABC of California also issued a statement.

Here is some great video of Sens. Anderson and Wyland, both Republicans from the San Diego area, speaking out against this bill:

There is also good video of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R) correctly characterizing the bill as unconstitutional.

This is just another example of how California is broken. When you put special interest groups in the driver’s seat, taxpayers get left behind.

Let’s just hope San Diego voters can see through the smokescreen on June 6.

Read more from TheTruthAboutPLAs:

• WSJ Editorial Blasts California SB 922
• California Governor Signs Union-Backed Senate Bill 922, Intended to End Local Project Labor Agreement Bans
• California Governor Jerry Brown Will Decide Fate of Local Voter Rebellions Against Project Labor Agreements
• All California posts

It would have been the first government-mandated project labor agreement within the Central Coast counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties.

Before the vote, county supervisors heard a lengthy presentation from county public works staff and county counsel about hundreds of hours of work on negotiations with various stakeholder groups – in particular the Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council and the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters – to come to an agreement on provisions concerning core workforce limitations, jurisdictional dispute resolution, and mandatory union initiation fees and dues paid by all workers under the PLA. The county was not able to resolve differences between the Building Trades and the Carpenters concerning jurisdictional dispute resolution.

Supervisor Peter Foy pointed out that the county had spent more than $1 million trying to develop a PLA and made a motion to move forward in bidding the hospital without a PLA, which he regarded as unnecessary and wasteful. He even dared to refer to “the free market” and “the taxpayers” in his statement. That motion failed to get a second.

Supervisor Linda Parks complained that she was being forced to vote on a 33-page contract she hadn’t been able to read because it was provided by staff after 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 12. Parks asked if anyone on the board had read it, and Supervisors Kathy Long, John Zaragoza, and Steve Bennett said they had read it. Supervisor Steve Bennett said there were no compelling new things in the PLA and it was time to move forward.

Supervisor Kathy Long then made a motion for the board to vote on the staff recommendation to adopt a PLA with a “safe harbor” provision on core workforce and jurisdictional dispute resolution for the Carpenters union, provided all parties sign the PLA by Friday, March 16. Board chairman John Zaragoza instead moved for adoption of the version of the PLA supported by the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. That motion failed 2-2-1.

There are three prequalified design-build entities for bidding on the project: Hensel-Phelps Construction, McCarthy Construction, and Clark Construction.

Staff reported that Clark did not object to a PLA because union contractors would perform all of its major trade work and at least 90% of the total work. Staff also reported that Hensel-Phelps noted that it employs its own workers under the jurisdiction of the Carpenters trade (which a Carpenters union official claimed to comprise 30% of the work).

McCarthy was planning to use a large Merit Shop electrical contractor that has Ventura County employees. A McCarthy representative declared that if the county approved a PLA as proposed, it would drop its plan to bid unless the county provided time to prequalify unionized electrical subcontractors. According to Public Works staff, prequalifying more electrical contractors would delay the project for up to 4-6 months at a cost of $400,000 per month. Showing a low priority for open competition and fiscal responsibility, the board chairman John Zaragoza declared that the county would still have two bidders if McCarthy dropped out.

See material provided by staff to the board here.

News Reports:

Board can’t pass labor agreement for county hospital – Ventura County Star – March 14, 2012

…and lastly, (uh) to direct staff to evaluate and consider options for a Project Labor Agreement and Community Benefit Agreement and discuss those options with the (uh) Entertainment Sports Complex development and operation partners for potential inclusion in the subsequent definitive agreements.

Associated Builders and Contractors of California suspects a violation of the state’s Ralph M. Brown Act (a 60-year old law making California governments accountable to the people when they do the public’s business) when the Sacramento City Council inserted this unannounced directive concerning a Project Labor Agreement (and for a Community Benefit Agreement) into the motion to approve the new Kings arena. (The full motion was approved 7-2, with the debate and votes primarily revolving around funding sources for the arena.)

Nothing about a Project Labor Agreement or a Community Benefit Agreement was included in the agenda or staff report. (See Item 16-Entertainment & Sports Complex (PDF-2279 KB) [Updated 3-1-12 @ 6:30 pm]). Interested members of the public were NOT informed through public notice that the subject matter would include a direction to staff to evaluate requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions to build the arena, or to require all parties to sign a Community Benefit Agreement.

The city manager and the assistant city manager did not mention a Project Labor Agreement or a Community Benefit Agreement in their opening presentations. They did not indicate having any meetings with labor unions during their public outreach.

While the Project Labor Agreement directive had long been expected, the Community Benefit Agreement was an interesting addition, opening numerous opportunities for mischief from local activist organizations. The Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO would presumably want a Community Benefit Agreement to include a “displaced workers” provision requiring the arena developers to retain the employees (such as concession and parking employees) from the current arena. The agreement would likely include “union neutrality agreements” that allow unions to campaign to organize arena employees without allowing the employers to argue against it. It could also include all sorts of costly provisions not even publicly discussed to date. Examples could include (1) a requirement to use steel manufactured in the United States; (2) a requirement not to use contractors that engage in certain business activities or do business with certain corporations or countries; (3) bird-friendly non-reflective windows; (4) large one-time payments to specific community organizations and/or programs; (5) restrictions on building materials; (6) solar panels, waterless urinals, and other energy and water requirements.

Oblique remarks from a few city council members during their statements betrayed their knowledge that this provision was going to be added.

What special interest group provided this provision to add to the final motion? Well, since the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California is now bragging that the Sacramento City Council approved a PLA for the new Kings Arena (see SBCTC – City Council Endorses PLA for Sacramento Arena Project) and provides the exact wording of the motion in its victory announcement, one can guess that the Sacramento-Sierra Building and Construction Trades Council was behind it, probably in coordination with the Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO.

In its notice about the motion, the State Building and Construction Trades Council mocks Associated Builders and Contractors for failing to qualify a ballot measure in the City of Sacramento that would have prohibited a Project Labor Agreement requirement on city contracts, including the new Kings arena. The notice describes the vote as “a stinging defeat for ABC, which tried to avert this outcome…”

Now unions are gunning for their first government-mandated project labor agreement in the Central Coast region (Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties), and the target is again a county hospital.

Ventura County (on the coast between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles) will build a $250 million Ventura County Medical Center Hospital Replacement Wing. Associated Builders and Contractors of California was tipped off in the summer of 2011 that unions were plotting through two members of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to force contractors on this project to sign a project labor agreement under the guise of “local hire.” Confirmation came from this seemingly innocuous item on the August 2, 2011 board agenda:

27. Recommendation of Supervisors Bennett and Long to Direct the County Executive Office and County Counsel to Report Back to the Board Regarding Incorporating Local Hire Components in the Construction of the Ventura County Medical Center Replacement Hospital Project. (Supervisors Bennett and Long)

We’ve seen this exact same strategy used at other California local governments (such as the City of San Diego) to “innocently” sneak project labor agreements into the discussion. When Supervisor Steve Bennett subsequently announced he was running for the Democrat nomination for the 26th Congressional District seat being vacated by Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), we knew that once again this axiom was fulfilled: behind every push for a project labor agreement is an elected official with ambition for higher office! Shortly afterward, the cat was out of the bag as union officials acknowledged publicly that they were scheming for a project labor agreement.

The controversy reached a feverish pitch on January 24, when the Board of Supervisors held a five-hour meeting with 29 public speakers and more than 200 attendees to discuss the proposed project labor agreement. The meeting concluded with a 4-1 vote to try to negotiate some sort of fair PLA. (Supervisor Peter Foy of Simi Valley was opposed to the whole charade and voted against the directive – thank him at supervisor.foy@ventura.org.)

On February 17, more than 40,000 Ventura County households received a mailer from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) warning them that Big Labor Bosses from Los Angeles were expanding their quest for government-mandated union monopolies to Ventura County.

(See: CFEC’s mailer)

On February 28, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors spent three more hours listening to 34 public speakers and discussing the proposed project labor agreement. They also learned from staff that each month’s delay of the hospital project to negotiate the PLA costs the county $400,000. But if you’re gunning for a policy that will increase the cost of the hospital by as much as $50 million, who cares about a silly $400,000 per month from the taxpayers?

The Board of Supervisors is expected to make a final decision at its March 13 meeting.

A question needs to be asked here: why does consideration of what unions claim is a mere “construction management tool” attract so many speakers and take so many hours of public deliberation? Could it be that project labor agreements are actually about UNION MONOPOLIES paid for by the TAXPAYERS?

The Ventura County Star newspaper has thoroughly reported on the PLA controversy for its readers over the past several months:

County board looks for ways to boost employment with hospital project – Ventura County Star – August 2, 2011

Local hiring for VCMC project looks promising despite dispute – Ventura County Star – November 28, 2011

Christen: Unions going for monopoly on new medical center – Ventura County Star – December 3, 2011 – op-ed

County to explore labor agreement to push local hiring for hospital work – Ventura County Star – January 24, 2012

Editorial: County’s push for local hiring requires caution – Ventura County Star – January 28, 2012 – editorial

Leonard: Weighing the options in trying to ensure local hiring – Ventura County Star – February 11, 2012 – columnist

VCMC Expansion – Ventura County Star – February 20, 2012 – letter to the editor against the proposed PLA

Morales: Diverse support for local hiring – Ventura County Star – February 25, 2011 – op-ed by Maricela P. Morales, acting executive director of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, also writing on behalf of the Black American Political Association of California (BAPAC) of Ventura County, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the Multicultural Consortium.

Union Monopoly – Ventura County Star – February 27, 2012 – letter to the editor against the PLA from Kevin Korenthal, former official with ABC

Board sets deadline for deal in hospital project – Ventura County Star – February 28, 2012

Construction Jobs – Ventura County Star – February 29, 2012 – letter to the editor in support of the PLA from Bob Balgenorth, head of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

Editorial: Ventura County labor agreement an elusive goal – Ventura County Star – March 3, 2011 – editorial

PLA is Good for Us – Ventura County Star – March 5, 2012 – letter to the editor in support of the PLA

But this case is noteworthy from the perspective of TheTruthaboutPLAs.com because the elected official voted for Project Labor Agreements ten years apart on two different local government boards in two completely different geographic regions.

In 1998, Nadia Lockyer (then named Nadia Davis) was elected to the board of trustees of the Santa Ana Unified School District in Orange County. In March 2000, she was part of the 4-1 board majority that voted to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement for $145 million in school construction funded by the district’s Measure C. As reported in the March 15, 2000 Los Angeles Times:

The bricks and mortar for the largest school building project in Orange County history will be laid exclusively by union hands, Santa Ana Unified board members decided Tuesday night. In a controversial decision that continues a spate of victories for labor interests, all but one of the five board members voted to support a Project Labor Agreement, which would open bids to the $145 million in school-building plans only to union companies or nonunion contractors who hire through union hiring halls.

Despite this accomplishment for union special interests, Ms. Davis lost her re-election campaign in 2002 as the district was caught up in numerous controversies, including mismanagement of the district’s construction program. Eventually she ended up in the San Francisco Bay Area, and in 2010 she was elected as Nadia Lockyer to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

Different place, different year, but same contempt for the taxpayer and the merit shop contracting community. Her accomplishments to date on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors were described on February 17 by a San Francisco Chronicle columnist:

… largely an unknown, even after her election. Since her arrival on the Board of Supervisors, Lockyer has worked on general assistance policy issues and helped craft a project labor agreement for the construction of a new Superior Court building.

Remember the axiom: behind every push for a Project Labor Agreement is an elected official dreaming of higher office.

With her second victory in using a local government to force contractors to sign union Project Labor Agreements for taxpayer-funded construction, Supervisor Nadia Davis Lockyer is again locking in future labor union endorsements and preparing for a fine career in the California State Legislature, or maybe even U.S. Congress or statewide office.

Her climb to the top will simply happen in Alameda County rather than in Orange County.

Here are the highlights:

Project Labor Agreements Build Nothing but Unions

OPED By ERIC CHRISTEN

January 16, 2012

Los Angeles is ground zero in a war raging over exclusionary and monopolistic project labor agreements, commonly called PLAs. Since these “agreements” started popping up 15 years ago, Los Angeles has had more implemented than any other city in America. The almost canine affection elected officials in this region have for doing the bidding of those who put them into power (Big Labor special interests) is quite striking and unmatched anywhere we have been fighting PLAs.

<snip>

Project labor agreements are associated with fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, internal corruption and lack of accountability to the people who pay taxes for the government to provide services. Citizens in Los Angeles have abdicated their responsibility to oversee their local governments. As a result, unions fill the resulting political vacuum and attract ambitious people who see unions as a vehicle to attain personal power and position.

Arguments based on reason and common sense have no power in this kind of environment, where only scandals earn public attention. The problem with Los Angeles is that fidelity to Big Labor is so pervasive that the resulting corruption is hard to keep up with. From the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted under the Los Angeles Unified School District and Los Angeles International Airport PLAs to the broken promises of the Port of Los Angeles and the city of Long Beach PLAs, where does one even begin?

Let’s just pick two.

The city of San Fernando was the first municipality in California to require a PLA for all public works projects. On Sept. 19, 2005, the San Fernando City Council voted 5-0 to require all construction contractors to sign a PLA Agreement with unions for prime contracts worth $150,000 or more, and specialty contracts worth $25,000 or more. These project cost thresholds are unusually low, indicating that representatives of the city made little effort to engage in credible negotiations with union leaders to develop the project labor agreement.

Voting for the PLA in 2005 were council members Julie Ruelas, Nury Martinez, Steven Veres, José Hernández, and Maribel De La Torre. So what happened to them?

San Fernando voters recalled Hernández and Ruelas on Jan. 13, 2009.

Martinez was elected in 2009 to the board of the LAUSD, with endorsements from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Veres was elected in 2011 to the board of the Los Angeles Community College District, with endorsements from the construction trades council and the county labor federation.

Only De La Torre remains on the San Fernando City Council. At its Nov. 21 meeting, she was entangled in a spectacle that is bizarre, even by California standards, involving her relationship with the mayor.

Meanwhile, the city continues to require its contractors to sign a PLA to work on taxpayer-funded city construction. Business as usual.

Then we have the Los Angeles Community College District, subject of a multipart series in the Los Angeles Times highlighting the waste, fraud and poor quality of work that took place under the district’s multibillion-dollar PLA.

The latest scandal involves an inquiry that targets two contractors who worked extensively under that PLA. “The D.A.’s probe centers on Los Angeles Community College District allegations that the firms submitted fraudulent billings for Mission College work, part of a $5.7 billion construction program,” reported the Times.

Coincidence? Hardly. These instances are all quite predictable for any entity that purses something as immoral as a PLA. Sadly, it is the taxpayers, school children and the average citizen who continue to pay the price for the status quo in this region that places the interests of union bosses over that of everyone else.

In the end, the voters have no one left to blame but themselves for placing such morally illiterate people into office.

A number of projects in the L.A. area have been constructed with PLA mandates.  Their track record is well documented in the 2011 edition of Government-Mandated PLAs: A Public Record of Poor Performance.  Here are some examples with their page number for citation purposes:

Cost Overruns:

• The Eastside Reservoir project east of Los Angeles, built under a government-mandated PLA, was the nation’s largest earth moving project in the late 1990s. In October 1998, the project reported a $220 million (11 percent) cost overrun. The increase was attributed to payment of overtime wages under circumstances mandated by the PLA. (p. 9)

Project Delays:

• In 2006, four Los Angeles Unified School District campuses built under a PLA were forced to open their schools one month late because contractors could not find enough skilled labor to complete the project on time. (p. 23)

Discrimination Against Women and Minorities in the Construction Industry:

• In 2010, a private audit found violations by 55 contractors working on a $150 million high school under a PLA mandated by the Los Angeles Unified School District. The violations included inadequate supervision of workers and performing work under expired or suspended licenses. (p. 30)
• The biggest contractor on the union-only San Francisco International Airport PLA project was sued by a Los Angeles transit agency alleging that it used bogus minority subcontractors to get millions in unionized subway work.127 Similar allegations were investigated by the FBI in connection with the San Francisco Airport project. The Los Angeles lawsuit and San Francisco investigation both alleged that white-owned unionized firms set up companies that “either were not qualified or in whom the union companies owned an undisclosed interest.” The lawsuit also alleged that the union joint venture joined with its sham minority subcontractors to present false claims on subway work to obtain millions of dollars in additional payments. (p. 31) 

This is a sample, not a comprehensive list, of the various problems associated with PLA mandates on projects in the L.A. area.

In addition to the examples of problems above, government-mandated PLAs discriminate against the 84 percent of the L.A. area construction workforce that chooses not to join a union and are essentially locked out of construction funded by their own tax dollars.

Mandating PLAs on taxpayer funded work is clearly bad public policy.

The latest to do so is Anne Arundel County, MD, where local leaders adopted a ban on government-mandated PLAs on January 17.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

Maryland joins California, Texas and Pennsylvania as states in which local government entities have approved bans on these Big Labor handouts.  An increasing number of local leaders are starting to understand how Big Labor promises of PLA success usually lead to only cost overruns and discrimination against the vast majority of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization.

This ban on PLA mandates was enacted just one county away from the upcoming Cheltenham Youth Facility project in Prince George’s County, where Maryland leaders are attempting to become the first state or local government entity to procure a construction project with the Obama administration’s U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) PLA preference policy adopted in April 2010.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we thank Anne Arundel’s leaders for standing up for taxpayers and the local construction workforce.