Despite the gutting and amending of this bill immediately before Labor Day weekend, numerous construction trade associations, business groups, taxpayer organizations, local government associations, and local government officials went on record in opposition to the bill, starting with a hastily-scheduled Assembly Business and Professions Committee hearing on Tuesday, September 6.

State Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield), who plans to run for Congress, appeared before the committee to cheerlead for this sloppy last-minute creation of the State Building and Construction Trades Council and its affiliate construction unions. Senate Bill 922 passed this committee and then passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on September 7 on party-line votes. (All Democrats supported the bill; all Republicans opposed it).

Meanwhile, faxes began pouring into legislators’ offices from contractors, business owners, and ordinary California taxpayers objecting to Senate Bill 922 and its union-backed partners, Assembly Bill 436 (gutted and amended on Wednesday, August 30) and Senate Bill 790.

Assembly Bill 436 requires certain local governments to pay fees to the state for labor compliance, unless these governments require their construction contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements, in which case they don’t have to pay the fees to the state. The state leaves those contractors (and the unions) to do whatever they do when no one with official authority is watching. It passed on the Senate floor on a party-line vote (Democrats in support, Republicans opposed) on September 7.

Senate Bill 790 includes an unrelated tack-on provision that allows utilities to pass through to ratepayers the costs of mandatory payments in Project Labor Agreements to Labor-Management Cooperative Committees, mysterious and unaccountable slush funds authorized by an obscure federal law from 1978. The bill (about community choice aggregation programs for electric consumers) was uncontroversial and headed toward unanimous approval until this provision (inserted at the request of union lobbyists) tainted the bill. It passed the Assembly floor on September 8, after the presiding chairman of the Assembly denied the request of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) to show physical evidence of such payments and then cut off her oral statement. See the video here: Assemblywoman Grove tries to discuss a controversial provision of SB 790 and is shut down by opposing leadership before being able to speak.

Then the news media became aware of these bills. Here are articles and editorials about at least one of these bills (and in some cases, all three bills):

1. Editorial: Gut-and-amend bill needs to be stopped – Sacramento Bee – September 7, 2011

2. Legislature moves to overturn bans on local labor friendly agreements – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 7, 2011

3. Kevin Dayton: Construction Unions Set Up State Legislature to Crush Fair and Open Competition Policies at Local Governments – www.FlashReport.org (op-ed) – September 7, 2011

4. Union Bias – Riverside Press-Enterprise (editorial) – September 8, 2011

5. Legislature’s Rhetoric on Jobs is Empty – San Diego Union-Tribune (editorial) – September 8, 2011

6. Labor bills introduced as session nears end – Orange County Register (editorial) – September 8, 2011

7. Banning Project Labor Agreement Bans in California – www.PublicSectorInc.com – September 7, 2011

8. Opinion: SB 922 Undermines Basis of State/Local Government Relationship – www.PublicCEO.com – September 8, 2011

9. Unions attempt to push through Senate Bills by going to puppet legislators – San Diego Daily Transcript (op-ed) – September 6, 2011

10. Dan Walters: Fun, games mark California Legislature’s final week – Sacramento Bee (columnist, run in numerous state newspapers) – September 8, 2011

11. Legislation Boosts Union Trust Fund – www.CalWatchdog.com – September 8, 2011

12. Dan Walters: New legislative bills grow in the dark – Sacramento Bee (columnist, run in numerous state newspapers) – September 9, 2011

13. Union ‘Gut and Amend’ Bills Slice Open California – www.FoxandHoundsDaily.com – September 9, 2011

14. A Bad Bill Sneaks through Legislature – Modesto Bee (editorial) – September 8, 2011

15. Bill OK’d that could expedite stadium (also reports on SB 922 moving through legislature) – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 10, 2011

 16. Senate approve bill boosting NFL stadium in L.A. (also reports on SB 922 moving through legislature)  – Orange County Register – September 10, 2011

UPDATE: All three bills passed the California legislature and wait for Gov. Brown’s approval.

Fax Gov. Brown TODAY and urge him to VETO all three bills.

(See previous blog posts from TheTruthAboutPLAs.com on this project and MWAA’s resolution here).

A letter from MWAA President and Chief Executive Officer Lynn Hampton also provides some interesting economic data, shared publicly for perhaps the first time, pertaining to construction contracts awarded to regional businesses for Phase 1 of the Silver Line.

In response to a Washington Post editorial that urged MWAA to abandon the Phase 2 PLA mandate in order to trim “skyrocketing price projections” that threaten to derail the project (“Containing Costs on the Silver Line,” 6/23), MWAA chairman Charles D. Snelling wrote (“A labor pact that would help Dulles Metro construction,” 7/2):

The editorial misrepresented our planned PLA by expressing concern that such an agreement could increase the project’s costs partly because it would impose “cumbersome union rules.” For the record, a PLA will most likely set wages based on rates established by the Labor Department under the Davis-Bacon law. But construction will be done at Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates regardless of whether there is a PLA, because federal law requires such rates for construction projects that receive federal assistance.

Snelling argues a Phase 2 PLA will have no impact on labor or construction costs because the payment of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage and benefit rates to construction workers is already required on the project, regardless of whether a PLA is mandated on the project.

Clearly, Snelling is either confused or misrepresenting the facts to Washington Post readers.

While Snelling is correct that Phase 2 bid documents can require payment of Davis-Bacon wage and benefit rates to craft professionals with or without a PLA (assuming MWAA voluntarily includes this rule or the project receives federal dollars), the inclusion of such government-determined rates is not why a Phase 2 PLA mandate will increase costs.

PLA opponents have never argued that the applicability of Davis-Bacon rates is the source of anticipated cost increases resulting from the Silver Line’s Phase 2 PLA mandate.

Rather, the “cumbersome union rules” contained in PLAs – such as requirements that contractors hire most or all employees from a union hiring hall, follow archaic and inefficient union work rules, pay into union-controlled slush funds, and pay benefits to union trust funds their employees will never benefit from unless they join a union and become vested in these plans – are the key reasons why PLAs increase costs and discourage competition from qualified nonunion contractors and their skilled local workforce.

The ABC Virginia Chapter sent an April 21 letter (pdf) to Snelling and MWAA highlighting specific provisions in the Phase 2 PLA Heavy Highway Agreement/PLA circulated to the public by MWAA staff that will reduce competition, increase costs, harm Virginia’s construction industry and result in out-of-state union members receiving what amounts to a discriminatory monopoly supplying labor to build the Phase 2 project. The letter never listed Davis-Bacon wage and benefit rates as an area of concern.

Finally, the Beacon Hill Institute studies, often cited as the basis of the estimate that a Phase 2 PLA mandate will increase construction costs between 12 percent and 18 percent ($300 million to $450 million of $2.5 billion in Phase 2 construction costs), sampled construction projects built with government-mandated PLAs and without PLAs in three states subject to state prevailing wage laws (Mass., Conn. and NY). This demonstrates that the added costs resulting from a government-mandated PLA occur on projects subject to prevailing wage laws.

In short, Davis-Bacon rates are a non-issue, so why is Snelling suddenly raising this argument?

Is it because Snelling is intentionally deflecting legitimate criticism of the Phase 2 PLA mandate by fusing these two issues because the special interest contracting scheme cannot be defended?

Or, do Snelling and the MWAA board members need additional education about how a PLA will increase costs and discourage competition from the experienced employers of 94 percent of Virginia’s construction workforce (those who choose not to belong to a construction union)?

MWAA needs to either shoot straight with the public or learn the facts about PLAs before executing another poor and costly decision that has the potential to derail the Silver Line and harm Virginia taxpayers, job creators and stakeholders.

In a June 8 letter responding to objections to the Phase 2 Silver Line PLA mandate from Congressman Andrew Harris (R-Md.), Hampton issued a similar defense of the Phase 2 PLA as Snelling:

Your concern that a PLA will cause a substantial increase in Phase 2 costs appears to be based on the view that wages paid by Phase 2 contractors operating under a PLA will be significantly higher than the wages contractors would pay absent a PLA, and that these higher wages will cause a significant increase in Phase 2 labor costs. I want to respond to these concerns.

A PLA on Phase 2 will likely provide for wages to be based upon either the prevailing wage rates established by the U.S. Department of Labor pursuant to Public Law 107-217 Davis-Bacon) or, like the Phase 1 PLA, comparable wage rates established pursuant to local Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA). However, Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates will be applied to Phase 2 even without a PLA. As you know, federal law requires that construction projects receiving federal financial assistance must apply Davis-Bacon wage rates. Along with our funding partners, the Airports Authority has been actively pursuing federal assistance for Phase 2. In particular, we are working to obtain federal credit assistance under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). The receipt of a TIFIA loan, or any other federal assistance on Phase 2, would require utilization of Davis-Bacon wage rates. It is the Airports Authority’s intent to require the use of such rates by Phase 2 contractors, irrespective of a PLA.

As a result, the use of a PLA in Phase 2 is not expected to have any significant impact on wage rates, labor costs or overall Phase 2 costs.  It is possible that a Phase 2 PLA, were it to utilize local CBA rates, (as does the Phase 1 PLA), might add a slight premium to comparable Davis-Bacon wage rates. If so, that premium would not cause an appreciable increase in overall Phase 2 costs. Morever, the benefits associated with a PLA i.e., by ensuring the ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce, access to well-established training programs, and providing a mechanism for resolving all workplace disputes and eliminating workplace disruptions and work stoppages that may occur — are, viewed as outweighing any such marginal increase in labor costs.

Once again, an MWAA official ineptly defends the Phase 2 PLA, as Rep. Harris never identified Davis-Bacon rates as the source of increased costs resulting from a Phase 2 PLA mandate. Hampton doesn’t understand that there is a competitive advantage to using nonunion contractors independent of whether a project requires prevailing wage and benefit rates and a PLA mandate typically discourages participation from qualified nonunion contractors.

In addition, Hampton fails to understand that you don’t need an anti-competitive and costly PLA to achieve the benefits MWAA is hoping to achieve.

Hampton rattles off some interesting economic data about first-tier contracts awarded to nonunion contractors under the voluntary Phase 1 PLA Dulles Transit Partners signed, but completely ignores the fact that nonunion/merit shop subcontractors did not have to sign the Phase 1 PLA. (See paragraph 8 of Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Labor Agreement Final Addendum, Heavy and Highway Construction Project Agreement, Construction of Phase 1 – Fairfax County, Virginia. “Subcontracting:…It is further understood that in the event any covered work is awarded to a merit shop contractor the contractor shall not be required to sign this agreement or sign any other agreement as a condition of performing work on this project.”):

Second, the Project’s experience to date in Phase 1 with the Dulles Transit Partners, LLC, (DTP), the firm under contract with the Airports Authority to design and construct Phase 1, has demonstrated that, notwithstanding the existence of a PLA, non-union local contractors have achieved a high level of participation in Phase 1 contracts.  For example, of the first-tier contracts executed to date by DTP – contracts with a value of $460 million – 58 percent of the contract’s value, or $266 million, has been awarded to non-union contractors, while 42 percent of the value, or $194 million, has been awarded to union contractors.

Further, of the first-tier contractors executed to date by DTP with contractors and suppliers of equipment and materials, including contracts in the area of utility relocations – contracts with a value of $880 million – 60 percent of the contracts’ value, or $528 million, has been awarded to contractors and businesses based in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the State of Maryland (VA/DC/MD), with the remaining 40 percent of the contracts’ value, or $352 million, awarded to contractors and businesses based outside of VA/DC/MD.  This Phase 1 experience shows that the Phase 1 PLA has not had any significant negative effect on the ability of non-union local contractors to successfully bid on and obtain Phase 1 work.

However, the data supplied by Hampton confirms that nonunion contractors played an integral role in building Phase 1 of the Silver Line. Yet Hampton does not promise an exemption for nonunion subcontractors in the Phase 2 PLA, nor acknowledge the truth that nonunion/merit shop contractors did not have to sign the Phase 1 PLA.

While the terms and conditions of the Phase 2 PLA have not been finalized, evidence suggests that MWAA board members oppose a provision similar to the language in Phase 1 exempting nonunion subcontractors from signing the Phase 2 PLA.

For example, the Washington Examiner quoted Laborers union (LiUNA) senior official and MWAA board member Dennis Martire insulting the workforce of PLA opponents and nonunion contractors (“Airport agency’s pro-union pact angers Va. Officials,” 4/14):

“All this does is establish worker rules and where you get your workers from,” said Martire, vice president of Laborers’ International Union of North America. “They’d rather get a guy off of a bar stool and give him a tool and a lower wage. I don’t know how productive that is.”

MWAA’s April 6 resolution mandating a Phase 2 PLA directs the Dulles Corridor and Business Administration committees, to approve and implement the final Phase 2 PLA with the assistance of MWAA staff. Michael Curto, who introduced the resolution, and Martire sit on these committees. The employers of Martire and Curto have a strong and existing financial relationship and both would directly and/or indirectly financially benefit from a Phase 2 PLA mandated by MWAA.

Curto’s employer, Patton Boggs, has received between $1.25 milion and $1.44 million per year since 2005 from Martire’s employer, LiUNA, according to union financial disclorure reports filed with the U.S. Department of Labor.

Snelling’s Washington Post letter to the editor said this:

The benefits associated with a PLA include the ability to attract and retain skilled workers, access to training programs and a mechanism for resolving workplace disputes to avoid disruptive work stoppages.

Both quotes from Martire and Snelling insinuate that it is difficult to have a plentiful supply of skilled workers building projects without a PLA. This is offensive to nonunion tradespeople in Virginia and the greater metropolitan area, and undermines the long and rich history of local, state, federal and private construction projects built without special interest government-mandated PLAs.

These statements are just as illogical as they are factually inaccurate, as subcontractors that performed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction work on Phase 1 of the Silver Line did not have to sign the PLA. The arguments used by MWAA officials to defend a Phase 2 PLA have no merit.

The PLA mandated by MWAA on Phase 2 must be removed and MWAA members should devise a plan to encourage full and open competition that will help all qualified contractors deliver to taxpayers the best possible construction project at the best possible price.

Update: This Aug. 22, 2011 correspondence between MWAA and the Purcellville Business and Professional Association again indicates that nonunion contractors built a significant potion of Phase 1. It also indicates that MWAA incorrectly argues (again) that PLA opponents have attributed the predicted additional costs resulting from the Phase 2 PLA to the application of federal prevailing wage and benefit rates (determined by the U.S. Department of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act) on Phase 2. Of course, these rates would be used regardless of whether a PLA is used. In reality, PLA opponents oppose the Phase 2 PLA because it will increase costs due to reduced competition, archaic and inefficient union work rules, and fees imposed on nonunion firms and employees they must swallow to work on a PLA project.

As readers of TheTruthAboutPLAs.com are aware, the Ohio Inspector General’s (IG) office released a scathing report on August 5 that brought OSFC E.D. and former Laborers official Richard Murray’s efforts to promote Big Labor’s agenda to light.  The IG’s report outlines Murray’s advocacy for union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) and repeated displays of misfeasance in carrying out his duties.

This investigation and subsequent report was triggered by accusations from several local school officials that Murray not only used his position to pressure school districts into requiring PLAs on school projects, but also allowed union goons to berate local school officials until they agreed to Big Labor’s demands.

More information on the IG’s report and the numerous editorial boards that have called for Murray’s resignation are available in our earlier posts.

Last week, there were two interesting items of note in the Columbus Dispatch.

First, the Dispatch reported that the OSFC approved a policy that expressly prohibits Executive Director Murray’s behavior in support of Big Labor and PLAs in the future.

Here is an excerpt from the Columbus Dispatch’s coverage (“Facilities Panel: Chief Can’t Coerce Schools,” 8/27/10):

The Ohio School Facilities Commission unanimously approved a policy yesterday clarifying that it would be inappropriate for its executive director “to coerce or threaten retribution” to get school districts to use union construction firms.

[snip]

Murray said after the meeting that he didn’t consider the resolution an indictment of how he has run the commission since being picked by Gov. Ted Strickland last fall. Rather, the commission was responding to the inspector general’s recommendation that it take action to ensure neutrality, Murray said.

“That’s nonsense,” said Bryan Williams, a lobbyist with the nonunion Associated Builders and Contractors of Ohio. “Today’s resolution, which was rushed and premature, was absolutely a repudiation of the way Richard Murray has conducted himself on this job.”

[snip]

The inspector general accused Murray of pressuring local school officials to use union construction firms. In one instance, Murray sat silently while a union official with whom he’d arrived at the meeting used profanity and racial slurs to describe the work force that the district was using, according to the report.

Murray’s “reputation has been stained,” said state Sen. Gary Cates, a Republican from West Chester who is a nonvoting member of the commission.

“We have had those conversations with the executive director about how his performance could improve,” said voting member Hugh Quill.

If Executive Director Murray is looking for ways to improve his job performance, we humbly recommend that he start by putting the interests of taxpayers ahead of those of his buddies back at the union hall.

The item of note from last week’s Dispatch came in the form of a letter to the editor from a local resident that is fed up with the kind of political handouts that are plaguing the construction of the Ohio Schools for the Blind and Deaf.  As a direct result of PLA requirements on these projects, bids came in over $11 million (or almost 50 percent) higher than anticipated.

Here is an excerpt from the August 26 letter (“Do the Right Thing for Blind, Deaf Kids,” 8/26/10):

While reading about the Ohio School Facilities Commission, I never cease to be amazed at the politics and mudslinging involved, especially in building the schools for the blind and deaf children (“Blind, deaf schools project to be cut back,” Dispatch article, Aug. 14).

Whatever happened to doing the right thing? Are we too entrenched in Democrats vs. Republicans, unions vs. nonunion contractors and greed vs. a normal profit margin? It’s a sad day when “prime contractors probably withheld their best quotes” and “contractors did not want to tip their hand in this round,” as paraphrased from commission Executive Director Richard Murray.

Well, now the projects are being drastically scaled back while the campuses of both schools lie in ruins. The grounds have been torn up and will remain so while the powers that be take their sides. Do people not have consciences anymore?

There is no shortage of people who should be hanging their heads in shame over this fiasco. Is it still possible for decent people to step up and build school facilities that serve our blind and deaf children from throughout Ohio?

This letter’s sentiment is very important.  The writer simply wants to get the best construction product for the best price.

It is important for the citizens of Ohio to understand that the tactics described in the second paragraph of this letter are a direct result of the PLA requirements that Murray worked to put into place as a condition of winning these projects.

It is nearly impossible for prime contractors to accurately anticipate construction costs in a marketplace where the vast majority of subcontractors are essentially barred from bidding competitively.

Additionally, the number of subcontractors that actually bid on the project may be lower than those that say they would do so when the prime contractor begins to solicit bids as a result of a PLA mandate.  As any freshman economics student call tell you, a decrease in supply leads to an increase in price.  The result is higher construction costs.

All of this could be avoided if OSFC officials had allowed fair and open competition to flurish, instead of allowing Big Labor to browbeat local school officials.

Read our earlier posts for more information on this controversy.

Here is an excerpt from Ms. Alford’s letter (“Writer Won’t be Intimidated by Pro-Union Threat,” 7/27/10), with our emphasis added:

The presentations [for and against PLAs} given by the trade unions and the Connecticut chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors were informative and well done except for one thing. The trade union presentation never actually explained what a PLA is. We saw pictures of and heard about successful PLA projects and we heard a lot about what unions do but never got the details about PLAs. Thankfully, Lelah Campo from the Connecticut chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors supplied that pertinent information.

At the end of the day, both committees voted overwhelmingly against approving a PLA.

My congratulations to these hardworking volunteers for voting to keep the projects as open as a prevailing-wage project can be and making it possible for both union and merit tradesmen and women to have a chance to work in Bristol for Bristol; for being committed to getting the best possible price when spending the taxpayers’ money; and for saying to everyone that they believe in fairness to all.

But I must relay a not-so-nice incident from last night. As I was walking out of the Forestville School Committee meeting after the vote, and making my way through the crowd of union workers and union leaders near the door, someone — I don’t know who because he made sure I couldn’t turn my head to see him — whispered these words to me: “Just think about how hard the unions are going to work against you in your next campaign.”

To put that comment in perspective so that it makes some sense, some may remember that I ran for mayor last year and, at last night’s meeting, spoke against the PLA before the West Side School Committee.

So, was it a union member? A union leader? Does it matter? I don’t know, but comments like that — some might even say threats — are intended to intimidate, frighten and otherwise make someone think twice about disagreeing with the unions out loud. Whoever it was demonstrated the reputation of unions as a bunch of bullies and thugs, only interested in themselves — and you had better not cross them, by God, or else.

Whether or not I ever choose to run for office again is not the point, and not important. What is important is that somebody is comfortable with using threats and intimidation to silence any and all opposition or as a payback tactic for those who do oppose them.

Funny how much this kind of thing resembles the practices of the bosses of the past who unions are so proud to tell you they fought until workplaces were safe and wages were “fair.”

Not so funny is the fact that this kind of thing reflects back on the entire rank and file, making them “guilty by association.” Call me naïve, but I do not believe, nor will you ever convince me, that the majority of hard-working union members approve of such tactics. They don’t.

To the man who decided it was okay to attempt to intimidate me, politically or otherwise, nice try, buddy. But I don’t scare that easily and I am completely unimpressed by cowards.

Mary Alford

Bristol

Ms. Alford makes two very important points in her letter.  The first is obvious.  Threatening behavior with the intent to intimidate others is unacceptable.  If Ms. Alford’s account is true, and there is no reason to believe it is not, then this is a clear case of union cronies threatening a concerned citizen and past candidate for public office.  There is no place for this type of behavior in public debates.

The other important point is that in this case – as with many others – Big Labor is short on details when it comes to the actual provisions of PLAs.  Labor bosses show up at public meetings like this, say that PLAs will do everything short of guarantee world peace and then expect public officials to accept these claims as fact.

The true intent of these agreements starts to become clear when public officials take the time to examine a typical PLA.  Please visit our earlier post, “Project Labor Agreement Basics: What is a PLA,” to see what we mean.

Here is the letter to the editor:

Project Labor Agreements Hinder Banks Work

May 25th, 2010, 12:20 am

Why do our city and county governments continue to indulge the building trade unions by negotiating for a project labor agreement (PLA) on the Banks construction? So far, the project has been proceeding on time, under budget, and is aligned closely with the project’s goals for minority and women inclusion. I know because we are one of the contractors who have worked on the Banks project. These projects currently fall under the federal, state and local prevailing wage programs ensuring an equal compensation and benefit package.

A project labor agreement will accomplish nothing to achieve the goals of the city and county as the project owners. By limiting the work to union contractors only, there will be far fewer bidders, thus increasing costs as a result of less competition. Our company will not bid on this work if there is a project labor agreement. Our co-workers have chosen not to belong to a union. Our efforts in hiring local residents, partnering with minority firms will be eliminated from future projects. The same is true of the other open shop contractors who have had or currently have contracts to work on the Banks.

Project labor agreements are nothing more than a gift to the unions – they are bad public policy and should not be considered for any of the remaining construction on the Banks. It is time for our local elected officials to recognize that and do the right thing to keep taxpayer costs down and to keep the work within our community.

Robert J Strobel

President

Lithko Contracting, Inc.

Well put.  PLAs often have a negative impact on economic development.  Ask our friends from Gaylord Hotels.

Mr. Cote of Leominster writes: 

How can they call it fair play if I pay my taxes the same as they do, but cannot bid on a state project because the Project Labor Agreement has been attached? Also, I don’t see how they can say that an open shop can hire illegal immigrants to work. With the new I-9 laws and E-Verify criteria it’s impossible to do. As to paying lower wages for labor, prevailing wage rates are set by the state, and certified payroll reports to prove that an employee has been paid that rate are required before a contractor gets paid.

I work for an open shop and have nothing against unions. I’m as skilled as they are, and not being in the union has nothing to do with it. I feel that it’s the union that is trying to tip the playing field in their favor by using tactics like PLAs.

The facts are clear: PLAs drive up project costs when you take fair competition out of the bidding process. That’s my money as well as theirs. Give me a chance to be part of the process as well as the unions. That would be the fair way.

It is refreshing to see employees engaged in the PLA fight and challenging Big Labor’s flawed rhetoric used to promote PLAs.

Here are the highlights:

“Greenmail,” the idea of threatening to interfere with the permit process to get favorable contract terms, is an example of an advantage the construction trades have seized upon with a vengeance. In California, unions are capitalizing on the California Environmental Quality Act as they attempt to recover a construction market they’ve been losing for years.

Chula Vista officials, who have been working to turn the city’s bay front from an underutilized industrial area comprised of mud flats into an attractive destination for tourists and local residents, learned about greenmail the hard way. Gaylord Entertainment offered to build a billion dollar destination resort in the area. To do so it needed approvals from a myriad of agencies as well as financial support from the city.

Big labor wanted all the work for itself so it used greenmail. Union officials reportedly demanded a project stabilization agreement, or PSA, that favors union contractors. As part of the deal, they also may have demanded an additional dollar for every construction hour worked. To get the PSA and other considerations, the unions apparently threatened to contest every permit, environmental impact report and approval needed. Some call this extortion. Gaylord abandoned the project.

George’s point is well taken.  As a result of Big Labor’s attempt to pressure Gaylord into requiring a wasteful and discriminatory project stabilization agreement (essentially a PLA with a mustache on it), the Chula Vista bayfront remains undeveloped.  When Gaylord picked up stakes and left Chula Vista for the Phoenix area, thousands of new jobs when with them.

Chula Vista residents are going to get an opportunity to make sure this type of extortion never happens again on locally supported projects.  Ballot Initiative G, which is on the ballot June 8, would prohibit project labor agreements on all city and city funded projects.

For more information, visit Fairness for Chula Vista at www.fairnessforchulavista.com.

For more information on how Big Labor uses greenmail to hold up construction until they get their way, visit here and watch William La Jeunesse’s August 7, 2009 report on Happening Now on FOX News:

Jeffrey J. Zogg, CEO of Associated General Contractors of NYS makes some compelling arguments against Jones:

Of course there is a swift need for construction of this bridge. Nobody wants progress on this project more than we do. Contractors and their employees need the work.

A government-mandated project labor agreement was proposed by the building trades unions. PLAs are a highly controversial subject in the construction industry. Did they expect that wouldn’t be the case here?

Yes, prevailing wages will be paid on this work. They are required on all public work in New York and by law they are the union wage rates. Why then do we need a PLA?…

…Yes, all capable contractors can bid on PLA projects, but those who do not employ union labor usually don’t. The PLA precludes them from using most of their own long-standing employees. The unions argue that all can bid, when they know that most open shop bidders will not, which is really their goal.

Yes, this project should be built by skilled tradespeople from upstate New York and Vermont. But the PLA will deny those very local workers who are not unionized the opportunity. In the project region, there are more open shop workers than union workers. Which public official is going to tell them they can’t work on this project?

The best solution to ensure that all interested contractors can compete for the project, all available local workers can have the opportunity to work on it and the taxpayer can achieve the best price is to bid the project both ways. If the PLA is truly more economical, we will find out.

TheTruthAboutPLAs urges the NYSDOT to reject the special interest PLA on this project. Free and open competition will deliver the best construction product at the best price and create jobs for all construction employees, regardless of labor affiliation.

Richard Piasecki, President of the Castelton, NY Piasecki Steel Construction Corp. says “a PLA would be business suicide” and explains what a PLA would mean to his business and his employees.

“Robert J. Jones’ March 6 letter about the Associated General Contractors’ position on a project labor deal for the Crown Point Bridge is a self-serving half-truth.

My firm is one of many upstate open shop bridge construction companies. All our employees are New York residents. Jones is technically correct that a nonunion firm like ours could bid under a PLA. It is also technically correct that we could shoot ourselves in the foot.

A project labor agreement forbids us from using our own personnel and forces us to hire exclusively union labor, from whom we can expect little loyalty and more than a little militant animosity.

For firms like us to bid on a PLA would be business suicide. My employees as taxpaying state residents deeply resent being precluded from any public work employment opportunity based on union membership.

If this PLA is such an economic benefit, let’s have it as a bidding option. Let’s all see these supposed benefits in black and white when the bids are opened.”

Mr. Piasecki touches on one of the key issues at the heart of the PLA debate. PLA proponents like Big Labor representative Mr. Jones are afraid to compete in the free market, so they invent subjective reasons why a PLA will benefit the community and construction owners in their effort to obtain a virtual monopoly on a PLA construction project’s workforce.  Mr. Piasecki argues that if PLAs are so great and offer cost savings, why not prove it through competitive bidding?

When governments mandate a PLA, discriminatory and costly PLA provisions apply to all contractors, so those contractors that can offer the best possible product at the best possible price without a PLA never have the opportunity to prove it.  There is nothing wrong with contractors voluntarily entering into a PLA, but the government shouldn’t be tinkering with the competitive bidding process to reward special interests.

It’s good government suicide, too.

This most recent letter, titled, “Provide Equal Opportunity,” was published February 2.

Provide Equal Opportunity

Thank you for the Jan. 24 article, “An ailing process?”, concerning the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on construction projects. While the article was fair and accurate, I believe it missed a key point.

It referred several times to J.R. Gaylor’s assertion that PLAs drive up construction costs. While I agree that they do, that is only part of the issue. Taxpayer dollars from publicly funded projects should not be steered to a select group of contractors and tradesmen. Less than a quarter of the construction work force in Indiana is unionized. Yet almost all of the recent high-profile, publicly funded construction projects have been governed by PLAs, steering that work to union contractors and workers. That leaves almost 80 percent of the available construction work force ineligible to benefit from these projects.

The PLA benefits cited (locking in wage rates and work rules in one negotiation, and barring strikes and walkouts) can easily be written into a contract without a PLA, which unnecessarily requires nonunion contractors to make benefit payments to the union for benefits that their nonunion employees never receive.

All qualified contractors and tradesmen should have an equal opportunity to benefit from public works projects.

Paul Neukam

Huntingburg

This is the second letter to the editor that the Indianapolis Star has published in response to their January 24 story.  We covered the other letter here.