The Truth About PLAs » Kentucky http://thetruthaboutplas.com Educating the public, elected officials, taxpayers and the construction industry about wasteful and inefficient project labor agreements (PLAs). Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:03:39 +0000 en hourly 1 Army Issues Project Labor Agreement Surveys for Alabama, Kentucky and Colorado http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2011/11/03/army-issues-project-labor-agreement-surveys-for-alabama-kentucky-and-colorado/ http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2011/11/03/army-issues-project-labor-agreement-surveys-for-alabama-kentucky-and-colorado/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:19:35 +0000 Ben Brubeck http://thetruthaboutplas.com/?p=6302 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently issued surveys requesting feedback from the construction industry about the potential use of project labor agreements (PLAs) for three federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total costs at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., Ft. Campbell, Ky., and Colorado Springs, Colo.

ABC members and construction professionals are encouraged to respond to the PLA surveys. Tell the USACE that government-mandated PLAs injure competition, increase costs, and will not advance the economy and efficiency in government contracting.

Below is a link to each project’s survey, response deadline, and submission contact information:

The USACE and other federal agencies have issued PLA surveys as a result of President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 and federal regulations implementing the discriminatory and costly order. The order and regulations encourage federal agencies to mandate anti-competitive and costly PLAs on a case-by-case basis on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost.

In compliance with the USACE’s Oct. 15, 2010 policy memo on government-mandated PLAs, USACE district offices across the country have issued dozens of similar surveys requesting information about the potential use of PLAs on large USACE construction projects. ABC National has taken the opportunity to respond to surveys as they are issued and is encouraging ABC members and the merit shop contracting community to do the same.

It is important to express your opposition to government-mandated PLAs today before they are mandated or encouraged on future USACE projects, as well as non-federal state and local projects in your community by other government officials once anti-competitive and costly PLA mandates take root in your community.

The survey results are an important source of information used to determine whether a PLA is appropriate for federal projects.

During the Obama Administration, the USACE has issued dozens of similar surveys requesting information about the potential use of PLAs on construction projects in USACE districts nationwide. ABC National has responded to surveys as they are issued by the USACE and encourage ABC members to do the same.

Here are ABC National’s responses to the USACE’s recent PLA surveys:

For contractors, taxpayers and construction professionals unfamiliar with the problems with federal PLAs and regulations implementing President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502, please review the previous letters sent by ABC National to the USACE, which may be helpful information for contractors to review before responding to the USACE PLA survey.  If you need help responding, please contact us and we can provide you with some helpful tools and information.

Responding with accurate and timely information is critical and effective. In 2010, the USACE removed government-mandated PLAs from the Army Reserve Center in Los Alamitos, Calif. and the Patrick Air Force Base in Brevard County, Fla. after a strong grassroots response and survey participation from the contracting community. The USACE removed a PLA mandate on the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Camden, N.J. following a legal challenge and robust grassroots response from the construction stakeholders.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to these surveys. Your responses will help maintain an open and competitive environment that will allow all qualified contractors to fairly compete for contracts to build the best possible construction projects at the best possible price.

Additional helpful links:

]]> http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2011/11/03/army-issues-project-labor-agreement-surveys-for-alabama-kentucky-and-colorado/feed/ 0 USACE Evaluates Project Labor Agreements on Four Federal Projects in Kentucky http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2011/10/26/usace-evaluates-plas-on-four-federal-projects-in-kentucky/ http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2011/10/26/usace-evaluates-plas-on-four-federal-projects-in-kentucky/#comments Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:08:21 +0000 Ben Brubeck http://thetruthaboutplas.com/?p=6227 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently issued surveys requesting feedback from the construction industry about the potential use of project labor agreements (PLAs) for four federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total costs at Ft Campbell, Ky.

ABC members and construction professionals are encouraged to respond to the PLA surveys. Tell the USACE that government-mandated PLAs injure competition, increase costs, and will not advance the economy and efficiency in government contracting.

Below is a link to each project’s survey, response deadline, and submission contact information:

The USACE and other federal agencies have issued PLA surveys as a result of President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 and federal regulations implementing the discriminatory and costly order. The order and regulations encourage federal agencies to mandate anti-competitive and costly PLAs on a case-by-case basis on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost.

In compliance with the USACE’s Oct. 15, 2010 policy memo on government-mandated PLAs, USACE district offices across the country have issued dozens of similar surveys requesting information about the potential use of PLAs on large USACE construction projects. ABC National has taken the opportunity to respond to surveys as they are issued and is encouraging ABC members and the merit shop contracting community to do the same.

It is important to express your opposition to government-mandated PLAs today before they are mandated or encouraged on future USACE projects, as well as non-federal state and local projects in your community by other government officials once anti-competitive and costly PLA mandates take root in your community.

The survey results are an important source of information used to determine whether a PLA is appropriate for federal projects.

During the Obama Administration, the USACE has issued dozens of similar surveys requesting information about the potential use of PLAs on construction projects in USACE districts nationwide. ABC National has responded to surveys as they are issued by the USACE and encourage ABC members to do the same.

Here are ABC National’s responses to the USACE’s recent PLA surveys:

For contractors, taxpayers and construction professionals unfamiliar with the problems with federal PLAs and regulations implementing President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502, please review the previous letters sent by ABC National to the USACE, which may be helpful information for contractors to review before responding to the USACE PLA survey.

Responding with accurate and timely information is critical and effective. In 2010, the USACE removed government-mandated PLAs from the Army Reserve Center in Los Alamitos, Calif. and the Patrick Air Force Base in Brevard County, Fla. after a strong grassroots response and survey participation from the contracting community. The USACE removed a PLA mandate on the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Camden, N.J. following a legal challenge and robust grassroots response from the construction stakeholders.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to these surveys. Your responses will help maintain an open and competitive environment that will allow all qualified contractors to fairly compete for contracts to build the best possible construction projects at the best possible price.

Additional helpful links:

]]> http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2011/10/26/usace-evaluates-plas-on-four-federal-projects-in-kentucky/feed/ 0 United States Army Corps of Engineers Requests Information on Project Labor Agreements http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2010/10/25/united-states-army-corps-of-engineers-requests-information-on-project-labor-agreements/ http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2010/10/25/united-states-army-corps-of-engineers-requests-information-on-project-labor-agreements/#comments Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:58:08 +0000 Ben Brubeck http://www.thetruthaboutplas.com/?p=4517 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently issued three surveys requesting information about the potential use of controversial government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on construction projects in the Savannah, Georgia district; at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; and at the Newtown/Bridgeport Armed Forces Reserve Center in Danbury, Connecticut.

All ABC members, employees and construction community stakeholders are encouraged to respond to the requests for information and tell the USACE that government-mandated PLAs injure competition, increase costs, and will not advance economy and efficiency in government contracting.

Stakeholders that participate on projects in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama may want to respond to the Savannah request for information by the Oct. 29 deadline.  Contractors in Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan may want to respond to the Fort Campbell survey, which is due Nov. 1 by 1:00 p.m. (EST), and contractors in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island may want to respond to the Newtown/Bridgeport Armed Forces Reserve Center survey, which is due Nov. 4 by 1:00 p.m. (EST).

The USACE recently removed government-mandated PLAs from the Army Reserve Center in Los Alamitos, Calif. and the Patrick Air Force Base in Brevard County, Fla. after a strong grassroots response and survey participation from the contracting community. The USACE removed a PLA mandate on the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Camden, N.J. following a legal challenge and robust grassroots response from the construction stakeholders.

In response to the USACE Honolulu District’s Sept. 24 request for information about PLAs on large scale construction projects (exceeding $25 million) within the State of Hawaii (Sources Sought Notice W9128A-PLA-INFO), ABC National sent an Oct. 18 letter in opposition to government-mandated PLAs on USACE projects in Hawaii.

The USACE and other federal agencies have issued PLA surveys as a result of President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 and federal regulations implementing the discriminatory and illegal order. The order and regulations encourage federal agencies to mandate anti-competitive and costly PLAs on a case-by-case basis on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million. The survey results are an important source of information used to determine whether a PLA is appropriate for a federal project.

Construction stakeholders interested in responding to these surveys should review the Oct. 18 letter to the USACE Honolulu District office as well as additional resources linked after the jump.

UPDATE: Here are ABC National’s responses to the USACE’s RFI on PLAs in various markets:

For contractors, taxpayers and construction professionals unfamiliar with the problems with federal PLAs and regulations implementing President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502, below are links to ABC National comments, which may be helpful information for contractors to review before responding to the USACE PLA survey.

The blog post, “PLA Final Rule Takes Effect Today: Let the Waste, Cronyism and Discrimination Begin,” provides a helpful overview about the current state of federal PLAs and the Obama order.

On April 21, 2010, ABC National released, “The Final Rule Implementing the PLA Executive Order: Why it Should Be Challenged” by ABC general council Maurice Baskin, Esp., Venable LLP.  This document argues that the Obama Administration’s actions and the FAR Council’s final rule violate federal procurement laws; discriminate against 85 percent of the construction industry workforce and many small businesses; and hurt taxpayers.

Here is a blog post about this document.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to these surveys. Your responses will help maintain an open and competitive environment that will allow all qualified contractors to fairly compete for contracts to build the best possible construction projects at the best possible price.

]]> http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2010/10/25/united-states-army-corps-of-engineers-requests-information-on-project-labor-agreements/feed/ 1 Think Tank Attacks Project Labor Agreement Discrimination http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2010/09/29/think-tank-attacks-project-labor-agreement-discrimination/ http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2010/09/29/think-tank-attacks-project-labor-agreement-discrimination/#comments Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:09:39 +0000 Ben Brubeck http://www.thetruthaboutplas.com/?p=4433 Jim Waters, vice president of policy and communications for the Bluegrass Institute, Kentucky’s free-market think tank, penned an interesting column about the discriminatory nature of government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs).

Here is an excerpt from “Local PLAs bite the hand feeding the beast,” 9/24:

Prejudice at the lunch counter may have disappeared, but other types of discrimination remain alive and well in America – and have surprising supporters.

For example, President Barack Obama signed an executive order last year creating Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on large public-construction projects.

Labor unions love PLAs. They impede non-union contractors by forcing them to change their entire approach to business – no matter how successful their operations – if they want to compete for PLA jobs.

PLA agreements often require non-union workers to join unions, be hired through union halls, pay union dues and they or their companies must donate to union pension funds — even though they will never benefit from such “contributions.”

“These are blatantly discriminatory rules against non-union shops,” wrote Michael Thompson, president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

The discrimination is widespread, since – according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics – 85 percent of construction workers don’t belong to a union.

Shouldn’t America’s first black president be especially sensitive about such unfairness?

The most famous PLA racket to date — uncoincidentally the most expensive highway project in America’s history — was Boston’s “Big Dig” project. It replaced Boston’s six-lane elevated Interstate 93 and included a tunnel under the harbor. The project, initially estimated at $2.2 billion, ended up costing more than $14 billion.

Kentucky’s local Big Labor lackeys, uh, I mean, “politicians” salivate at the chance to reduce competition for big ticket, local school-construction projects and steer the work toward their union pals.

Associated General Contractors of Kentucky filed suit after the Carter County school district signed a PLA with a union group for construction of a new $10 million Tygart Elementary School.

The association is defending its hundreds of member companies, which would get shut out of contracts before any bids were even accepted. It also sees as unfair the fact that some school-board members who voted to approve the deal with the Tri-State Building and Construction Trades Council are members of the 14 unions that form the council.

Can anyone say “conflict of interest?”

Perhaps the worst discrimination involves local companies.

When the Tygart project was first bid, JMK Electric Co. LLC in Grayson – which has worked on Carter County school projects for a quarter-century – offered a bid “more than $200,000 lower than the lowest bid,” said Kelly Newland, who along with brother Bob Newland, owns JMK.

“We are Carter County residents,” said Kelly Newland. “We are property owners. Me and my family pay our taxes here.”

Yet if this PLA stands, his company gets shut out — unless it agrees to union scales.

The school board’s PLA vote “just knocked us off our feet,” Newland said. “I was so intimidated by the 50 or 60 union members that showed up with their (union agents).”

The civil rights movement was as much about eliminating such intimidation as it was ending discrimination. The two go hand in hand – in both the civil rights and the “labor rights” movements.

Do we really want policies that discriminate against local companies whose owners and employees pay taxes that support the school district that bids out the project?

Do we really want labor agreements that add millions to new school buildings just because a minority of the construction industry doesn’t want to compete?

Martin Luther King Jr. once dreamed his children would “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

We’ve gotten rid of prejudice at the lunch counter. Now, let’s do the same in the workplace by judging workers based on their skills rather than their union status.

[Note: Links added by TheTruthAboutPLAs.com.]

[Update: Here is a great resource on the case and lawsuit and a Journal-Times (Grayson, KY) article about the PLA being rejected "School board rescinds PLA after latest Tygart bids rejected," 10/8/10.]

While it is true that union membership (or lack of union membership) isn’t a status covered under the same legal protections as someone’s sex, race, religion etc., the issue of PLAs needlessly harming and discriminating against a group of people is a sad reality.

In addition, the link between government-mandated PLAs and actual racial discrimination is very real. 

A number of minority and women construction contracting groups oppose PLA schemes and argue that government-mandated PLAs result in de facto discrimination against the construction industry’s Minority/Woman Owned Business Enterprises (MWDBEs) and their employees.  See related blog posts here.

Harry Alford, President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce has long maintained that there is a discriminatory element (along racial lines) to government-mandated PLAs:

“PLAs amount to de facto segregation … African-American workers are significantly underrepresented in all crafts of construction union shops … this problem has been persistent during past decades and there appears to be no type of improvement coming … PLAs are anti-free-market, non-competitive, and, most of all, discriminatory.”

- National Black Chamber of Commerce

“Show me a PLA and I will show you Jim Crow employment plus a locking out of most Black-owned firms that happen to be nonunion most of the time. A Project Labor Agreement is a license to discriminate against Black workers.

Anywhere a PLA pops up, the National Black Chamber of Commerce will be there to scrutinize, challenge and call out any discrimination. Eventually our leaders and the unions will realize that it is 2009 and doing the right thing is the only thing they can do.”

- Harry Alford, “A Great Opportunity to Integrate the Construction Unions”

“PLAs greatly reduce the number of minorities, women and minority businesses working on a project.”

- Harry Alford, “Economic Apartheid, Construction Unions and the City of Philadelphia”

“It is the policy of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc. to oppose Project Labor Agreements. This opposition is based on the fact that African American workers are significantly underrepresented in all crafts of construction union shops. This problem has been persistent during the past decades and there appears to be no type of improvement coming within the next ten years.

There have been rouses of diversity pre-apprenticeship training programs during the past twenty years but no increase in diversity at the apprenticeship to journeymen levels. The higher incidence of union labor in the construction industry, the lower African American employment will be realized. This is constant throughout the nation.

Also, and equally important, the higher use of union shops brings a correlated decrease in the amount of Black owned businesses being involved on a worksite.”

- NBCC Policy Statement on Project Labor Agreements

“The National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc. is firmly against union-only Project Labor Agreements. Such agreements result in anti-small business activity which is predatory to Black owned businesses and curtail the potential for employment opportunities within urban areas. No company or individual should be forced to sign a union agreement before given the opportunity to participate in our capitalistic system. PLAs are anti-free market, non-competitive and, most of all, discriminatory.”

- NBCC Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business for “How Union-Only Labor Agreements are Harming Women- and Minority-Owned Businesses” hearing, August 6, 1998

Some PLAs acknowledge the inherent discrimination against MWDBEs in typical PLAs - because most MWDBE construction businesses are not signatory to unions – by exempting MWDBEs from being covered by a PLA or specific provisions that would injure participation from MWDBE businesses. Often, these unique “carve outs” fail to entice MWDBE participation for a variety of reasons.

When deciding whether to support or oppose a government-mandated PLA on a construction project, it is important for the construction community and public officials to understand the discriminatory impact of PLAs on MWDBEs and their employees as well as the non-protected group of nonunion contractors and their employees. It is the first step of getting rid of discrimination in the workplace and judging construction industry professionals on their skills and not their union status.

]]> http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2010/09/29/think-tank-attacks-project-labor-agreement-discrimination/feed/ 1 Update: PLAs Are About Politics: the California Experience http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2009/07/28/plas-are-about-politics-the-california-experience/ http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2009/07/28/plas-are-about-politics-the-california-experience/#comments Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:49:17 +0000 Kevin Dayton http://www.thetruthaboutplas.com/?p=799 After twelve years of fighting Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) at local governments in California, I’ve developed a set of axioms based on my experiences.  One of these axioms is that PLAs are about politics, not logic.  After all, what kind of logic would lead an elected official to establish work conditions that would discourage perfectly qualified, experienced local contractors from bidding on a taxpayer-funded job?

PLAs are about giving politically powerful unions a present, courtesy of clueless or apathetic taxpayers living in urban areas where there is a lack of community cohesion and unions fill the resulting political vacuum.  A corollary to this axiom is that behind every push for a PLA is an elected official dreaming of higher office.

Local elected officials often place items on their board agendas to require contractors to sign a PLA right around the time they announce their plans to run for state legislature or county board of supervisors.  That’s because in California a candidate usually needs financial and grassroots support from construction unions in order to win a Democratic Party primary or to defeat other Democrats in non-partisan local races.

In the California State Legislature, where districts are gerrymandered to preserve the status quo in party status, a win in the Democrat primary insures a general election victory in almost two-thirds of the districts.  In county supervisor races in major metropolitan areas of the state, unions have great influence because they are often the top campaign contributors in competitive races.

Sometimes it’s amusing seeing candidates for higher office scrambling over each other trying to prove to the construction unions that they are the most committed to PLAs.  In 2005, a board member of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (based in Concord, California) was running for a seat on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and proposed a PLA for future school construction.  Not to be outdone, his chief opponent – a city council member – actually showed up at the school board meeting where the PLA was discussed to submit a letter and speak in support of the PLA.  It was apparently irrelevant that the city council had no authority over the affairs of the school district.

This pattern is fairly routine.  Here are a few of the many examples:

In 2008, an elected member of the board of directors of Foothill-DeAnza Community College District in San José led the charge for a PLA, which was ultimately approved on a 3-2 vote after long controversy.  That occurred as the community college board member was gearing up for a contentious primary for a state legislative seat in a solidly Democratic district.  (He has since been appointed to a position in the Obama Administration.)

A member of the Solano County Board of Supervisors appointed in 2003 by about-to-be-recalled Governor Gray Davis pushed for a PLA on most county construction in early 2004.  Obviously she wanted union support to maintain her politically competitive seat.  In the end her support for PLAs was self-defeating: her anti-PLA opponent made the PLA into one of the issues and defeated her.  

In one strange case in 2003, the unelected superintendent of a school district in San José was the chief proponent of a PLA for future school construction.  I was mystified by this.  Public agency managers are usually opposed to PLAs because the higher costs and reduced bid competition resulting from PLAs have the potential to damage their professional reputations.  But soon afterwards, the superintendent announced his candidacy for state legislature.  And today he sits in the State Assembly voting for union-backed legislation and accelerating the state’s slide into fiscal oblivion.

The latest example of “behind every push for a PLA is an elected official dreaming of higher office” is at the San Diego Unified School District, where board president Shelia Jackson has been pushing since January for a PLA on certain projects funded by the $2.1 billion Proposition S.  On July 16, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that Ms. Jackson is running against an incumbent Republican for a seat on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.  See the story here:

Candidates stepping up to challenge Roberts, Horn

The best solution I can suggest to this problem is to highlight to the news media and local business, community, and political leaders that PLAs are primarily a self-interested gift to politically powerful construction unions.  Especially in the cases of K-12 school districts, people resent how board members use their positions as tools to advance their political careers.

To prove beyond a doubt that PLAs are a test for union political support, obtain a copy of the regional building trades council’s candidate questionnaire, in which candidates often eagerly pledge to support PLAs despite knowing very little about them.  Enterprising reporters looking for the political angle on a PLA story should ask elected officials pushing PLAs if they have indicated their support for PLAs on union candidate questionnaires.

For the rare cases in California in which an anti-PLA candidate was a credible and serious opponent to a candidate supporting PLAs, mailers and other political advertising have exposed the differences between the candidates.  Most voters reject the concept of PLAs once they understand what PLAs contain and what they do.  ABC and other groups that oppose PLAs have highlighted the PLA antics of candidates for state legislature, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and the Santa Ana Unified School District, and in those cases construction union backing failed to propel those candidates to victory.

UPDATE: This axiom doesn’t just apply to PLAs in California.  Politicans all over America push union demands as they dream of seeking higher office.  A textbook example recently surfaced in Louisville, KY. 

In May, Mayor Jerry Abramson (D) vetoed a labor standards ordinance requiring city contractors to pay an articifial prevailing wage to workers on projects receving more than $500,000 of city funds.  Additionally, the ordinance contained apprenticeship requirements and other provisions designed to prevent non-union contractors from working on city-funded projects.  This was only the third veto issued by a Louisville mayor in 20 years.  Mayor Abramson clearly had Louisville taxpayers in mind when he issued the veto, as prevailing wage requirements can increase construction costs by as much as 38 percent.

Two months later, in an interesting reversal, a new version of the labor standards ordinance was introduced with Mayor Abramson’s support.  The newly introduced ordinance still includes prevailing wage requirements, but only for projects costing over $25 million with 25 percent of the funding coming from the city.  While this latest version of the ordinance is watered down compared to what the Metro Council passed in May, it will still unnecessarily increase construction costs on city-funded work.

Why did Mayor Abramson change his positions on the ordinance?  Perhaps it is because he dreamed of being selected to run for Lt. Governor by incumbent Governor Steve Beshear?

It appears the axiom was proven correct once again.

]]> http://thetruthaboutplas.com/2009/07/28/plas-are-about-politics-the-california-experience/feed/ 0