There is so much buzz about this common-sense ballot initiative, The New York Times ran a story about Proposition A (“Taking a Vote on Union Construction,” 10/14/10).

The article is thorough and fair, as it visits common arguments for and against PLAs and Prop A. It also explains why PLAs increase costs, decrease competition and harm skilled non-union employees and their qualified employers. Give it a read.

Today, Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto invited Associated Builders and Contractors of San Diego President Scott Crosby on the program to discuss Proposition A and PLAs.  Check it out. 

Cavuto and Crosby refer to union giveaways on federal projects via government-mandated project labor agreement schemes.  Few Americans know that the Obama administration is encouraging federal agencies to use union-favoring PLAs on a case-by-case basis when agencies build federal construction projects costing more than $25 million.

It’s a controversial White House gift to Big Labor that is likely to increase federal construction costs, reduce competition from quality nonunion contractors and their skilled employees, and deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve from government.

Executive Order 13502: Obama’s Gift to Big Labor. Image by Elaine Natario courtesy of The Boston Globe, “Obama kowtows to labor unions,” 10/07/09.

On April 13, 2010, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council issued a final rule, effective May 13, implementing President Obama’s Feb. 6, 2009, pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 into federal procurement regulations. While not a mandate (that would be illegal and impractical), the regulation pushes federal agencies to use PLAs on federal projects.

An April 14 Wall Street Journal editorial blasted the final rule and government-mandated PLAs (“Crony Contracts. Want federal business? Better be a union shop.”):

“Only 15% of the nation’s construction workers are unionized, so from now on the other 85% will have to forgo federal work for having exercised their right to not join a union. This is a raw display of political favoritism, and at the expense of an industry experiencing 27% unemployment … It’s also a rotten deal for taxpayers.”

PLA Discrimination: Coming to a Town Near You! 
The final rule did not address Section 7 of Executive Order 13502, which could expand PLAs onto federally assisted construction projects in your state and community (projects funded by local, state or private sources that receive some form of federal government loan, grant, tax break etc.). Here is language from Section 7 of Executive Order 13502:

The Director of the OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and with other officials as appropriate, shall provide the President within 180 days of this order, recommendations about whether broader use of PLAs, with respect to both construction projects undertaken under Federal contracts and construction projects receiving Federal financial assistance, would help to promote the economical, efficient, and timely completion of such projects.

Learn more about Section 7 here.

If you are concerned about PLA strings attached to federal construction dollars via Section 7 of Executive Order 13502, ask your local elected officials to pass legislation or organize a ballot measure similar to San Diego County’s Prop A. You can also write your governor and ask for a fair and open competition executive order or write your state elected officials to support legislation that ensures construction projects are procured without discriminatory and costly government-mandated PLAs. All of these options could provide a measure of protection against federal PLA mandates as well as encourage robust competition on construction projects exclusively funded by state or local tax dollars.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com has published stories about Prop A debates and newspaper endorsements, but readers interested in learning more should visit the Yes on Proposition A web site at www.fairandopencompetition.com.

Visit the Proposition A Facebook: Yes on A: The Fair and Open Competition Initiative for San Diego County Facebook Page 

View a video in support of Proposition A: YouTube – Fair and Open Competition – Yes on A

If you are concerned about federal government-mandated PLAs on federal projects, call or write your senators and representative and ask them to co-sponsor the Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (S. 90/H.R. 983).

Please visit TheTruthAboutPLAs.com as we continue to provide analysis, commentary and links to media reports about private, local, state and federal PLAs and educate the public about the status of Executive Order 13502 and special interest handouts in public contracting via government-mandated PLAs.

 There is so much buzz about this common-sense ballot initiative, The New York Times ran a story about Proposition A (“Taking a Vote on Union Construction,” 10/14/10).

The article is thorough and fair, as it visits common arguments for and against PLAs and Prop A. It also explains why PLAs increase costs, decrease competition and harm skilled non-union employees and their qualified employers. Give it a read.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com has published stories about Prop A debates and newspaper endorsements, but readers interested in learning more should visit the Yes on Proposition A web site at www.fairandopencompetition.com.

The Proposition A Facebook page is here: Yes on A: The Fair and Open Competition Initiative for San Diego County | Facebook

A video in support of Proposition A is here: YouTube – Fair and Open Competition – Yes on A

On October 9, the San Diego Union-Tribune noted that Proposition A “might be the easiest decision on the November 2 ballot.”  Its explanation of support for Proposition A is concise and definitive:

Anti-PLA proposition deserves support

By Union-Tribune Editorial Board
Saturday, October 9, 2010

Project labor agreements (PLAs) are a dismaying example of political power being used to influence government decisions in ways that benefit a special interest and harm the public interest. They typically require governments to shape contracting rules for big projects in ways that give decisive advantages to higher-cost unionized companies.

Union supporters insist the deals save money and lead to better workmanship. If this were true, then just about all elected officials would eagerly embrace PLAs. Instead, they are only imposed through power plays executed by union-beholden politicians.

For these reasons, Proposition A offers what might be the easiest decision on the Nov. 2 ballot. It would insert into the San Diego County Charter a ban on the county government using PLAs in contracting or for construction projects unless the agreements were required by state or federal law or their use was required as a condition of receipt of state or federal funds.

Critics say the county already has an ordinance banning PLAs and that this is overkill meant to tie the hands of future supervisors. We see it as locking in protections for fairness in contracting and blocking future power plays. County voters should say yes to Proposition A.

On September 27, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce announced its endorsement of Proposition A.  Ruben Barrales, president and executive director of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, said “Proposition A will protect the right of every qualified construction worker, whether union or non-union, to work on every County of San Diego construction project and increase job opportunities for all San Diego County residents.”

On September 24, the North County Times announced its endorsement of Proposition A.  The editorial noted that “Proponents point to the additional $2 million costs that such an agreement added to recent construction contract for San Diego Unified School District – county taxpayers don’t need to wake up someday to find a similar bill levied against them.” 

The North County Times also published an opinion piece on September 26 by the President and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association in support of Proposition A: “Voting ‘yes’ on A this November sends a message that politicians won’t be able to ignore: San Diego taxpayers demand more fiscal accountability when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars.”

10/14/10 UPDATE: There is so much buzz about Prop A, The NY Times covered it today (“Taking a Vote on Union Construction,” 10/14/10).

The New School is planning to build a $215 million classroom and dormitory building on the corner of 14th Street and Fifth Avenue, but the Painters Union DC 9 is blocking the construction manager’s effort to apply for a market recovery program unique to NYC labor unions that would allow the developer to implement an anti-competitive and costly project labor agreement (PLA).  In NYC, Big Labor has convinced private developers and public officials that PLAs will result in union concessions that will save money.

The cost savings resulting from PLAs have been disputed and questioned, but the real reason PLAs are being promoted by Big Labor is to cut competition from nonunion contractors encroaching on union marketshare in Manhattan and the surrounding burroughs.

For example, here is a quote from a union source on the NYC market recovery program in ”NYC Firms and Unions Will Cut Costs To Boost Work,” (McGraw Hill Construction August 2009).

“We have two problems in New York: the financial crisis and creeping nonunionism. This will help both,” said John A. Cavanagh, a former building contractor executive and chairman emeritus of the Contractors’ Association of Greater New York, a BTEA member group.

Also, Building and Construction Trades Council of New York President Edward Malloy (“PLAs are Essential to Growth Opportunities for Union Sector,” Subcontracting News, March 2008) wrote the following:

“To create growth opportunities in the union sector, PLAs are the most valuable tool we have…

…These PLAs, which typically involve modest adjustments on issues other than wages and supplements, can reap huge rewards for the union sector of the industry by assuring that all work from start to finish — including tenant build-outs — will be done union.

We must address our shrinking share of the residential market, particularly in the affordable and low-rise segments, but quite frankly, in the market rate and high-rise segments as well…

In the affordable and low-rise segments, however, we must acknowledge that there are very few projects where union labor, contractors and subcontractors are competitive.  We can, and therefore must, adopt a more aggressive package of wages and supplements to address this sector of work…”

While noteworthy, a Big Labor Boss’ admission that unions are not competitive without the help of special interest schemes that discourage nonunion competitors is not why this story is so salacious.

The painters union has a beef with the construction manager for the New School project, Tishman Construction Corp., because they are using nonunion painters on an Upper East Side condominium project called Manhattan House.  Here is more from the WSJ:

Unionized painters aren’t being used on that project, according to Mr. Coletti and an official with the painters union. A spokeswoman for Manhattan House, which is being developed by New York-based O’Connor Capital Partners, declined to comment.

“Painters Union DC 9 will not sign the project labor agreement until the issue at the Manhattan House is resolved,” Mr. Coletti says.

Tishman is planning to use union painters on the New School project if a project labor agreement is reached, a Tishman spokesman said. But for the Manhattan House project, Mr. Coletti notes that Tishman is the owner’s representative and doesn’t have the power to award construction contracts.

A Tishman spokesman said the company only hires subcontractors who employ union members when it is in charge, but declined to discuss specifics of the Manhattan House project.

Jack Kittle, a spokesman for the painters’ union, said business manager Joseph Ramaglia wasn’t available on Friday. “We do have an issue with Tishman,” Mr. Kittle said, but he added that it was “very possible” that the choice of subcontractors at the Manhattan House was outside of Tishman’s control…

[snip]

…Construction on the new building may still be able to proceed without a project labor agreement in place—but, potentially, at a higher cost.

Big Labor’s latest underhanded tactic to regain market share in NYC is shocking. The painters union is threatening not to sign a PLA – which would ensure that the New School is built 100 percent union and create a labor monopoly for Big Labor – if the project manager removes nonunion painters from a totally unrelated project.

This reminds me of a classic scene from Blazing Saddles, where the townspeople draw their weapons on the new sheriff.  Sheriff Bart escapes the hostile and gullible townspeople by holding himself hostage and threatening to shoot himself.

The DC Painters 9 are either too greedy or  too stupid to even attempt to leverage a 100 percent labor monopoly (via a PLA) to eliminate competition and regain lost market share on another project. This nonsensical “I Want It All” behavior has given the labor movement a black eye and crippled local governments with waste and increased costs.

Let’s hope that the NYC public sees Big Labor’s pressure tactics in the same unfavorable light that the rest of the country views wasteful, discriminatory and costly PLA schemes.

The DOL’s Job Corps Center PLA was believed to be the first government-mandated PLA on a federal construction project since President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 was issued Feb. 6, 2009. 

An Associated Press (AP) story appeared in The New York Times, Boston Globe, WBZ38-TV (DE), The News Journal (DE), CBS 4 Denver, Yahoo! News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee, ABC News and other media outlets (“US Labor Dept Reviews NH Job Corps Building Terms, 11/12).

The piece mentions a statement by Republican Senator Judd Gregg, a vocal critic of the discriminatory and costly PLA on this project:

…Thursday, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, who had lobbied for the Job Corps center, called the Labor Department’s recent decision ”just another unnecessary bureaucratic delay to the progress of this critically important project.”

”This setback clearly illustrates that the administration’s decision to discriminate against successful, independent construction firms because Granite State employees choose to work in a union-free environment simply does not hold water in New Hampshire,” he said.

In September, Gregg had urged the department to reconsider its decision, saying that only 8.7 percent of the construction workers in New Hampshire were unionized…

Additional coverage from the Concord Monitor, Job Corps Site Sits in Silence (11/12), explains why this project is so important to qualified New Hampshire contractors who oppose the discriminatory and costly PLA:

Kenneth Holmes, president of North Branch Construction, which filed the protest that lead to the bid delay, said he hoped his firm could qualify for the project. He said that he had laid off about 18 workers in the past couple of years because of the economy but that a big project such as the Job Corps center might require him to call some of them back.

“I’ve got 40 workers, and I’d like to put them to work,” Holmes said.

Additional coverage, besides the stories linked here and here, include:

• (BNA) Construction Labor Report: Labor Department Cancels Bid Solicitation Under Challenge in New Hampshire for PLA,” 11/12 (password required)
• The Nashua Telegraph: Labor Dept Examining Requirement for NH Jobs Corps, 11/12
• OpenMarket.org: Obama Administration Hits Brakes on Project Labor Agreement, 11/12

Let’s hope that the increased media attention will shed some light on Executive Order 13502 and PLAs, which are special interest giveaways to Big Labor and have no place in fair and effective public policy.