This is an important step toward ensuring that taxpayers get the best construction at the best price for their hard earned tax dollars.  This will also help guarantee that merit, not union affiliation, will determine how construction contracts are awarded in Westmoreland County.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

The Western Pennsylvania Chapter of Associated Builder and Contractors issued the following press release, in which they thank commissioners for standing up for taxpayers and the 73.5 percent of Pennsylvania’s private construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union.

Tax Payers in Westmoreland County Win as Project Labor Agreements Are Banned

Pittsburgh, PA – The Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Pennsylvania (ABC) praises Westmoreland County Board of Commissioners Chuck Anderson (R) and Tyler Courtney (R), who today passed a resolution banning project labor agreements (PLAs) in Westmoreland County.

This resolution follows a PLA that former County Commissioners Tom Balya (D) and Tom Ceraso (D) passed in 2009. The resolution benefits the tax payers of Westmoreland County, relieving them of the higher costs, unmet deadlines and reduced competition that PLAs are notorious for.

Keith Impink, Chairman of ABC and President of Westmoreland Electric commented, “With the economy struggling, it is illogical to support PLAs that drive up costs 25-30%.” Impink continued, “The mission of the Westmoreland County Board of Commissioners is to represent the residents with prudence and fairness; they accomplished that mission today.”

The County Commissioners asserted that all work should be awarded and performed on the basis of merit, regardless of labor affiliation, echoing ABC’s pro-competition beliefs. Eileen Watt, President of ABC stated, “PLAs not only cut out competition, but discriminate against women and minority workers as well. That is unacceptable for the tax payers of Westmoreland County.”

Watt continued “We cannot praise the efforts of County Commissioners Chuck Anderson and Tyler Courtney enough; they have the interests of Westmoreland County residents in mind.”

###

This is a huge win for taxpayers, particularly considering that the Westmoreland County Board of Commissioners approved PLA mandates as recently as 2009.  This policy is likely to result in real cost savings for local taxpayers, and that is a good thing.

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

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

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

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

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

On Sept. 7, a federal District Court judge in Iowa dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Central Iowa and and Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Building and Construction Trades Divisions of the AFL-CIO.  Their suit claimed that Gov. Terry Branstad’s Executive Order 69, which prohibited PLA mandates on state and state funded construction, was preempted by federal labor law.

While the 1993 Boston Harbor Supreme Court decision may have affirmed that government entities can require PLAs on public construction through their interest as a market participant – not a regulator of labor policy, this decision in Iowa is further evidence that government entities can also decide to prohibit themselves and even their subdivisions from requiring contractors to enter into a PLA as a condition of performing public work.

The key point is that the Iowa order does not prohibit a contractor from voluntarily entering into a PLA (which is authorized by the National Labor Relations Act), it simply ensures that government entities are neutral when it comes to PLA policy.  This gets government out of the business of picking winners and losers via politically motivated crony contracting.  By removing PLA favoritism towards Big Labor, taxpayers can get the best construction at the best price.

Here are the highlights from Gov. Branstad’s press release hailing the decision:

Judge Jarvey found “EO #69 establishes funding conditions that serve the State’s proprietary interest in projects. In prohibiting PLAs, the State of Iowa has made a decision that PLAs detract from a competitive bidding environment and that state funds and state projects will benefit from eliminating coercive union tactics. The State, as the proprietor of its construction projects, can make the decision not to pay union wages or operate under union conditions.”

“Dick Sapp, Frank Harty and Ryan Koopmans of the Nyemaster law firm worked tirelessly to get the case dismissed at the earliest point in time before going to trial, saving the state of Iowa tens of thousands of dollars in litigation costs that the state would have incurred due to the lawsuit brought by the unions,” said Jeff Boeyink, Gov. Branstad’s chief of staff.

Mr. Sapp and Mr. Koopmans are also lead counsel on the case brought by AFSCME and Democratic leadership challenging the governor’s line item veto authority.

With virtually no legislative review or public scrutiny, these bills will sail through the so-called legislative process in a few chaotic days and go to Governor Jerry Brown for quick action. Surely there were guffaws and snickers among top union officials at Labor Day picnics throughout the state as they gloated over their anti-democratic abuse of the California Kangaroo Court that operates nowadays at the state capitol.

What Are the Three Bills to Undermine Fair and Open Competition in California?

(1) Senate Bill 922 (a bill formerly about immunizations and tuberculosis screening) was gutted and amended on September 2 to become a bill that effectively terminates Fair and Open Competition laws and Project Labor Agreement bans enacted by local elected officials and local voters.

This heavy-handed, authoritarian bill shows how unions compel the state government to suppress the rights and powers of local governments and their hapless citizens. It will nullify Project Labor Agreement bans at most local governments and cut off state funding on projects for charter cities that ban Project Labor Agreements. This bill is authored by the top Democrats in the Assembly and Senate. The bill is here: SB 922 as amended 9/2.

(2) Assembly Bill 436 (a bill formerly defining private energy generation facilities as public works) was gutted and amended on August 30 to require certain local governments to pay Labor Compliance Program fees to the state, unless they require their contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions. (Unions claim contractors under PLAs don’t violate laws, despite evidence to the contrary – see here for the City of Milpitas and here for the Los Angeles Unified School District.)

Soon California construction union officials will claim that Project Labor Agreements save money for taxpayers because local governments won’t have to pay labor compliance fees to the state – fees lobbied for by those same union officials! At the new bill’s first hearing on Thursday, the Democrat committee chairman reportedly said he didn’t understand why labor unions wanted less labor compliance, but “if the unions wanted it, he would vote for it.” The 76-page bill is here: AB 436 as amended 8/30.

(3) Senate Bill 790 had been a bill with bipartisan support about community choice electric load aggregation programs. Apparently the unions saw this popular bill as an excellent vehicle to hijack for their own nefarious purposes, because it now includes an obscure and unrelated amendment that authorizes payments in Project Labor Agreements covering utility infrastructure construction to mysterious union slush funds managed by top construction union officials. See Part 5, Section 11 of the bill on pages 27-28 here: SB 790 as amended 8/30. The most prominent of these trust funds, the California Construction Industry Labor-Management Cooperative Trust, had $3 million in the bank last year and mailed letters dated August 5 to elected officials throughout the state promoting Project Labor Agreements.

Here’s the scheme protected by Senate Bill 790: hold up the permit for a power plant by exploiting environmental laws until the developer or public utility surrenders and signs a Project Labor Agreement. Include a provision in the PLA requiring payments to a mysterious union slush fund. Use the slush fund to fund pet projects, contribute to election campaigns, and support other political activities. When the scheme is exposed, get the state legislature to declare it legal in the Public Utilities Code! For more details about this racket, go here.

Without the Support of the People, the Unions Revert to the California Legislature

The state legislature is the last refuge of scoundrels and special interests in California who want to change the world into their desired image at the expense of everyone else. This is where unions can circumvent the will of the people and local government decisions with ease.

The Assembly and the Senate are each almost two-thirds controlled by Democrats, almost all of whom won their primary elections (and thus their politically uncompetitive districts) through toadying up to unions and promising to vote for their latest political agenda. In addition, the strange operations of the state legislature allow bills to be completely changed at the last minute (a process called “gut-and-amend”) so that special interests can sling controversial and divisive proposals through the legislature before opposition effectively activates. In practice, the legislature also allows provisions that are not germane to be added to existing bills.

As a result, California union lobbyists and top officials will be crowing this week throughout the state and across the country about Senate Bill 922, Assembly Bill 436, and Senate Bill 790 and how these bills will preserve Project Labor Agreements, now their primary political means of cutting bid competition and raising construction costs by 15 percent for California taxpayers.

The editorial board at The Wall Street Journal has again come out against wasteful and discriminatory government-mandated PLAs.  Here are the highlights from the editorial (“Project Labor Revolt: The states ban union political bid-rigging. Obama demurs,” 7/19/11):

One benefit of the squeeze on state and local budgets is that politicians are finally having to confront their sweetheart deals with labor unions. The latest reform movement is moving against project labor agreements, or PLAs, that limit bids on construction projects to contractors that agree to union representation.

Only about 13% of construction workers belong to unions, and PLAs are a union invention to use their political muscle to organize more companies. Proponents argue that PLAs ensure the speed and quality of construction plans. But PLAs are one of the reasons that Boston’s Big Dig was estimated at $2.8 billion but eventually cost $22 billion. Studies show that projects under PLA contracts on average cost 12% to 18% more than projects awarded by open, competitive bidding. Taxpayers pick up much of this tab.

[snip]

In response to this evidence, states have been pulling away from PLAs. Louisiana passed a law this month that prohibits state entities from mandating the use of PLAs. Tennessee, Arizona and Idaho passed similar legislation earlier this year, and Iowa’s Governor Terry Branstad, in one of his first acts after inauguration, signed an executive order ending a state PLA requirement. Legislatures in Maine and Michigan recently passed bills along these lines that governors are expected to sign. These states are joining Utah, Montana, Missouri and Arkansas, which enacted bans in recent years.

The new wave of Republican state officials is leading this reform, but the public seems to support the effort even in Democratic-leaning areas. Seven localities in California have passed ballot initiatives to end mandated PLAs in the last decade, including five since 2009. This includes places like Chula Vista, where President Obama received 61% of the vote. As Andy Conlin of Associated Business and Contractors notes, wherever PLAs are subject to popular referendum, they’re rejected.

You may not be surprised to learn that the Obama Administration is not part of this reform trend. In February 2009 Mr. Obama issued Executive Order 13502, which lifted President Bush’s ban on PLAs and explicitly “encourages” them in federal construction projects worth more than $25 million. As the 2012 election nears, the Administration will be tempted to extend the order to include projects that receive any federal funds.

That would raise construction costs across the country, and at all levels of government, because so many public works projects are jointly funded by states and the feds. It would also mean fewer construction jobs overall, though higher pay for those unionized workers lucky enough to get one.

PLAs are a form of political bid-rigging that robs taxpayers even in good economic times. Amid today’s limited fiscal resources, PLAs steal money from the likes of education and law enforcement to reward politically-connected companies and their unions. They deserve to be outlawed.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we couldn’t agree more.

This editorial touches on a couple of key points. In addition to detailing how PLAs increase construction costs and discriminate against the 87 percent of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization, it outlines what has become a national trend in the last 12 months. In state after state and community after community, Americans are standing up to demand the best construction at the best price for their hard-earned tax dollars. These demands are showing up at the ballot box in places like Chula Vista and San Diego County in California, where voters overwhelmingly approved ballot initiatives banning government-mandated PLAs on local projects. In places like Iowa, Maine and soon Michigan, taxpayers’ desire for fair and open competition is being expressed through their governors and state legislators. Regardless of the method, sensible taxpayers are taking important steps to guarantee value on public construction projects.

The Wall Street Journal also reminds us that the threat of Section 7 of Executive Order 13502 looms large as the 2012 presidential election approaches. Regular readers remember that Section 7 of the order requires: “The Director of 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 project labor agreements, with respect to both construction projects undertaken under Federal contracts and construction projects receiving Federal financial assistance.”

While we have clearly passed the 180-day deadline set by the order, there is still reason to believe that the Obama administration could take action on Section 7 in the next 18 months. It is clear that bid protests, other legal impediments and public pressure have kept the Obama administration from implementing as many government-mandated PLAs as they expected and section 7 of Executive Order 13502 allows the administration to provide a tasty handout just in time for Big Labor to support President Obama’s re-election campaign. We saw this same cycle occur at the state level where embattled incumbent governors in Iowa, Illinois and Massachusetts either issued executive orders encouraging state agencies to require PLAs or used other methods to encourage the use of government-mandated PLAs on high profile construction projects with the obvious intent of currying favor with the construction union bosses.

Corruption: This is how Big Labor Leverages Government-Mandated Project Labor Agreements

Back to the editorial, this is an outstanding read and really breaks down how government-mandated PLAs are bad for taxpayers and the construction industry workforce still struggling to come back from more than 15 percent unemployment.

Lawmakers at all levels of government are starting to see the negative impact of these Big Labor handouts and are voting to ensure value on taxpayer-funded construction. The people of Stanislaus County deserve the best construction at the best price and their local elected officials seem to be doing everything they can to make this a reality.

Stanislaus is the eighth local jurisdiction in California to ban government-mandated PLAs and joins the nine states (soon to be 11) to do so overall. This list includes the cities of Chula Vista and Oceanside and San Diego County, where voters overwhelmingly approved ballot initiatives banning government-mandated PLAs.

A list of all of the state and local jurisdictions to ban government-mandated PLAs is available here.

Back to Stanislaus County. We also think it is important to bring some attention to interesting facts that came to light in The Modesto Bee’s reporting on June 29 after the first of two votes necessary to enact the ordinance.

Rules for Labor Ignite a Debate with Stanislaus Supervisors

The strong objections of union officials clearly indicate their interest in pressuring the county to require contractors to sign PLAs. In fact, the head of the local building trades council claimed to already have been involved in 10 negotiations for project labor agreements. The supervisors’ decision to ban government-mandated PLAs on county-funded construction will have an immediate impact for taxpayers.

Here is the Associated Builders and Contractors Golden Gate Chapter’s press release:

Stanislaus County Protects Fair and Open Competition for Local Taxpayers

Today, Stanislaus County became the 8^th local government in California to prohibit the use of union-exclusive Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on public projects funded by taxpayers. The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to enact a Fair and Open Competition ordinance that will maximize its taxpayer dollars by using the most qualified contractors at the best price. Stanislaus County is the 4^th county in California to enact a Fair and Open Competition ordinance following the 2^nd and 3^rd largest counties of Orange and San Diego and also Placer County.

“Today is a great day for Stanislaus County. No longer will Project Labor Agreements stifle the opportunity for local contractors to bid work. I encourage all local governments in Stanislaus County and the Central Valley to join the 8 local governments in California and 9 states in enacting a Fair and Open Competition ordinance,” said Gary Amerine, longtime President of Amerine Systems, Inc. located in Oakdale.

For more information about how to enact a Fair and Open Competition ordinance, contact Nicole@abc-ggc.org.

###

Nicole Goehring is the Government Affairs Director of Associated Builders and Contractors Golden Gate Chapter. Visit www.thetruthaboutplas.com for the latest news, facts, studies and current information about PLAs before you make any decisions to limit competition for public contracts.

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is a national association with 75 chapters representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and construction-related firms with nearly two million employees. Visit us at www.abcggc.org or www.thetruthaboutplas.org

Merit Shop is a way of doing business in which companies reward employees based on performance and encourage them to reach their highest level of achievement, and in which contracts are awarded based on safety, quality, and value, regardless of labor affiliation.

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

Originally estimated to cost $2.5 billion, Phase 2’s price tag has ballooned to more than $3.5 billion and the project has not even broken ground yet. Financial support from Virginia stakeholders (Loudoun County, Fairfax County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and Dulles Toll Road users) footing the bill for this project is unraveling because MWAA has not done enough to control escalating project costs.

The controversy has grabbed headlines and forced local, state and federal officials to develop cost-cutting solutions and investigate the questionable decision-making and planning of MWAA.

On Saturday, a Washington Post editorial suggested MWAA should abandon the Phase 2 PLA mandate as a solution to trim “skyrocketing price projections” that threaten to derail this project (“Containing Costs on the Silver Line,” 6/23):

One focus should be the airport board’s insistence that any general contractor bidding on the project be bound by a pro-union labor agreement. Already, Ken Cuccinelli II, Virginia’s attorney general, has threatened to sue if the deal turns out to violate the state’s labor laws.

The airports board was pushed to adopt the “project labor agreement” by board member Dennis Martire, who, in his day job, is a senior official in the Laborers’ International Union of North America, which represents hundreds of thousands of construction workers. Mr. Martire had an obvious conflict of interest, as his union would be a direct and major beneficiary from a labor deal. He should have had the common sense to recuse himself from the decision, even if his vote did not technically violate the board’s narrowly drawn ethics policy.

There is serious debate about whether a labor pact would drive up expenses. The airports authority says a similar pact for the project’s first phase, under construction from Falls Church to Reston, has helped contain costs and enhance efficiency by ensuring a steady supply of workers and avoiding labor trouble. But that agreement was adopted voluntarily by the contractor. There are concerns that a mandatory labor agreement for the second phase could dampen competition and drive up costs by discouraging bids from some large contractors, and by imposing cumbersome union rules. In an era of belt-tightening, the airports authority must go the extra mile to ensure that the Silver Line’s construction is managed as frugally as possible.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s expressed opposition to the Phase 2 PLA during this June 3 radio interview on WMAL 630 (listen to discussion of the Phase 2 Silver Line PLA at 2:49 of the clip) when he said the Phase 2 PLA mandate may be subject to a legal challenge if it violates Virginia’s Right to Work law.

The Washington Examiner reported that Virginia delegates Tim Hugo, Barbara Comstock and Thomas Greason sent a letter requesting that Cuccinelli investigate the Phase 2 PLA mandate and the possible ethics violation of the MWAA board member and Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) official Dennis Martire because he advocated for the Phase 2 PLA mandate that financially benefits his employer (“Virginia lawmaker calls for probe of Dulles Rail labor pact,” 5/28).

Martire’s possible MWAA ethics violations have drawn interest from other sources, including the Chantilly and Oakton Patch and the Bacon’s Rebellion Blog. (Check out the nice piece at Bacon’s Rebellion on the Silver Line PLA controversy (pdf).

The Washington Post reported that Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has been called in to mediate the dispute between Virginia’s key financial stakeholders and MWAA (“Transportation Secretary LaHood to try to mend rift over Dulles Metro station,” 5/31) where he has already delivered some reality checks to MWAA board members, according to this WaPo editorial (“Reality check for Dulles rail,” 6/1):

FOR THE PAST couple of months, the handful of unelected officials in charge of building Metro’s $6 billion Silver Line extension to Dulles International Airport and beyond have pushed the idea that federal loans — not serious cost-cutting — will make the project’s numbers work. On Wednesday they got a harsh reality check.

It came in a meeting called by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who convened project stakeholders, including members of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is in charge of building the 23-mile extension. In response to suggestions from the airports board that the feds could shore up the Silver Line’s shaky finances with a huge loan, Mr. LaHood delivered an unusually blunt message, according to several people who attended the meeting. The federal government “is not a cash cow,” he said; it’s not going to ride to the project’s rescue.

The Fairfax Times reported that the U.S. Department of Transportation announced it will audit MWAA (“Inspector General will audit MWAA,” 6/24):

U.S. Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation Calvin L. Scovel III announced Tuesday that his office will audit the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

The audit, according to a letter to MWAA from Scovel, will determine if the authority’s policies and procedures comply with the law and whether its board of directors has been transparent and accountable in its decisions related to the now controversial Dulles Rail Project.

U.S. Reps. Frank Wolf (R-Dist. 10) and Tom Latham (R-Iowa) asked for the investigation earlier this year.

MWAA was the subject of a 2002 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that investigated MWAA’s controversial contracting policies.

Virginia Delegates Tim Hugo, Barbara Comstock and Jim Lemunyon sent a letter June 11 to MWAA Chairman Charles Snelling objecting to the $330 million in additional costs resulting from MWAA’s decision to build an above ground metro stop at Dulles Airport. The letter also strongly opposed the Phase 2 PLA:

We also find it fiscally reckless for MWAA to adopt the unnecessary resolution directing MWAA staff to include a PLA in the procurement documents for Phase 2 of the project. As you know, we raised the issue of PLAs in a hearing of the House Transportation Committee, held by Chairman May, in March.  We never received satisfactory answers about the added costs from PLAs.  Instead, this decision was made hastily with little discussion.  If MWAA mandates a PLA in the specifications of Phase 2 bidding documents, it will harm local and Commonwealth taxpayers, increase costs for Dulles Toll Road users, and discourage competition from Virginia’s qualified construction firms.  It will also put the funding path for this project on an unsustainable path that our constituents simply will not accept.

Further, the logic MWAA board members used to mandate a PLA on Phase 2 is based on misinformation provided by special interests serving on the MWAA board. MWAA member Dennis Martire is the Vice-President of The Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA). A Phase 2 PLA mandate will result in LiUNA, the labor organization employing Mr. Martire, receiving a financial windfall worth tens of millions of dollars resulting from an estimated 10 million man hours of labor supplied by LiUNA members. What are the potential conflicts of interest here?  The public needs to know more about this situation.  MWAA board members and staff cannot ignore such an appearance of conflict.

What’s worse, is the potential economic consequences for Commonwealth taxpayers. Studies estimate PLA mandates increase the cost of construction by 12 percent and 18 percent compared to similar non-PLA projects, and these could very well be low estimates.  MWAA’s financial stakeholders can’t afford the $300 million to $450 million in crony contracting costs added to the $2.5 billion construction budget.

In addition, this is unfair to Virginia workers.  Virginia can’t afford the job losses resulting from this PLA, as 96 percent of Virginia’s private construction workforce does not belong to a union, and they deserve a fair shot at these high paying jobs. Pro-PLA Board Members claimed that a PLA provides a steady workforce, implying that there was some type of worker shortages in today’s economy. This has no basis in fact. A PLA mandate will ensure that the majority of construction jobs created by Phase 2 will go to out-of-state businesses and union members, yet Virginia stakeholders are picking up the tab.  Of course it is no small irony that the majority of those voting for this option that puts the tab on Virginia taxpayers don’t live in the area that will be impacted. Such an outcome simply will not stand.

Perhaps MWAA board members have been misled into believing a PLA mandate is needed for Phase 2, as the Phase 1 PLA is credited for positive Phase 1 construction performance. But the fact remains that the PLA on Phase 1 was a voluntary PLA entered into by Dulles Transit Partners after they were awarded the Phase 1 contract, and it specifically exempted merit shop (nonunion) subcontractors. In short, it is fallacious reasoning to assume that the Phase 1 agreement and a PLA mandated on Phase 2 will produce the same results.

On June 23, a coalition of 13 of Northern Virginia’s leading business groups and associations held a press conference highlighting a letter they sent to MWAA that offers solutions to reduce costs and get the Phase 2 project back on track.

The five areas where Northern Virginia business leaders are seeking cost reductions are:

1. Eliminate the requirement that the primary contractor implement a mandatory Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on Phase II.
2. Approve the aboveground station at Washington Dulles International Airport, cutting more than $300 million, with minimal inconvenience to airport passengers.
3. Reduce the scope of the Dulles Airport rail yard and seek ways to finance it separately or in conjunction with WMATA, saving $50 million to $100 million.
4. Ask Fairfax and Loudoun Counties to assume responsibility for funding and construction of the parking structures, similar to the public-private partnership at the Wiehle Avenue station.
5. Seek additional financial help from Virginia and the Federal Government, neither of which has any meaningful financial participation in Phase II.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com reported May 20 that the following Northern Virginia groups and elected officials publicly opposed the government-mandated PLA on Phase 2 of the Silver Line:

Herndon Mayor Steve DeBenedittis
Loudon County Board of Supervisors
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
Fairfax Chamber of Commerce
Dulles Regional Chamber of Commerce
Women Construction Owners and Executives, USA (WCOE)
Washington Examiner

Finally, the Washington Examiner reported that former Postmaster General John E. “Jack” Potter has been named CEO of MWAA (“Former postal chief to oversee airports,” 6/22).

Expect more headlines and controversy this summer.

As ABC Virginia wrote to MWAA in April, TheTruthAboutPLAs agrees that MWAA should abandon the PLA mandated by MWAA for construction of Phase 2 of  the Silver Line. Virginia taxpayers, businesses, employees and metro riders would benefit from fair and open competition.

Check TheTruthAboutPLAs.com for updates and feel free to contact us if you would like additional information.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy covered this issue in Michigan Capital Confidential on June 23.  Here are the highlights:

Big Labor bosses seeking protection from non-union competition on government construction jobs had a two-front fight going on last week in both Washington, D.C., and Lansing. Votes to determine the fate of project labor agreements occurred in both the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and the GOP-dominated Michigan Senate. When it was all over, a total of 34 Republican lawmakers from Michigan had cast votes on these legislative battlefields, and just one voted on the side of the labor unions to protect PLAs: Congressman Thad McCotter, R-Livonia.

“A PLA is little more than a mechanism to put non-union construction companies at an unfair disadvantage, and steer government work to unions,” said Paul Kersey, director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “If a company wants to bid on a contract, it has to have an agreement with the local unions. Obviously that puts non-union companies in a difficult position.”

<snip>

On Thursday, June 16, the Michigan Senate voted 26-12 in favor of Senate Bill 165. According to a news release from the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. John Moolenaar of Midland, the proposal would prohibit PLAs in “all public construction contracts using tax dollars.”

The vote was strictly along party lines, with all 26 members of the GOP Senate supermajority voting for the bill and all 12 Senate Democrats voting against.

“Members of the Senate are sending a clear message that they realize that it’s wrong to pick winners and losers based on status instead of merit,” said ABC of Michigan President Chris Fisher in a news release after the vote. “Anti-competitive, government-mandated PLAs are special interest kickback schemes that prevent open, fair and competitive bidding on construction projects.”

ABC expects that the bill will win quick approval in the Michigan House and move to the governor for his signature. But for federal construction projects, it was a different story last week in the GOP-controlled U.S. House.

<snip>

While 202 Republicans did not vote for LaTourette’s amendment, 26 other Republicans did vote with him to reinstate the President’s policy requiring PLAs. With all but one of the Democrats in the chamber voting with Big Labor to support the LaTourette amendment, it succeeded by just a single vote: 204-203. If any of the 27 Republicans voting for the bill had changed their vote or not voted, the amendment would have failed and the president’s PLA requirement would not have applied to this budget bill.

One of the 27 was Congressman McCotter. He did not respond to an email seeking comment regarding his vote.

This is the second time this year that Rep. McCotter has been on the deciding edge of a vote that promoted PLAs on government projects. In February, another amendment to a different budget would have banned the use of PLAs on federal construction projects. That proposal failed on a 210-210 tie vote. Once again, there were 26 Republicans — including McCotter — standing with Democrats to defend the president’s policy of keeping the PLA requirement in place.

In addition to McCotter, fellow Michigan Republican Candice Miller of Harrison Township also voted with Democrats to protect PLAs during the February amendment. However, on this most recent vote in June, Rep. Miller sided with the majority of Republicans and in opposition to PLAs.

Our friends at the Mackinac Center do an outstanding job of dissecting complex public policy issues.  The Labor policy section of Michigan Capital Confidential is available here and is worth a read.

There is one other note from The Mitten.  Brett McMahon of ABC member firm Miller & Long Concrete Construction, and frequent spokesperson on behalf of the Halt the Assault campaign discussed the PLA issue on the Live with Renk program on WBCK in Battle Creek.  Brett did several outstanding segments on the negative impact of these Big Labor handouts on taxpayers.  The clips are available below.

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

First, the Louisiana Legislature approved legislation that would ban government-mandated PLAs on all state and local construction in the state. This bill, S.B. 76, received bi-partisan support and is expected to be signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) in short order. This would make Louisiana the ninth state – and the fifth since Jan 2011 – to ban these Big Labor handouts on taxpayer funded projects. This will ensure that the 98 percent of the state’s construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization has the opportunity to be awarded projects funded by their own tax dollars.

Lawmakers in Maine also took key steps toward ensuring fair and open competition within their borders last week as well. Both chambers of the Maine Legislature passed L.D. 1257, which would also prohibit government-mandated PLAs on taxpayer funded work. This bill needs one more vote in the Senate on a technical amendment and then it should go to Gov. Paul LePage (R) for his signature.

The biggest news from last week is Pure Michigan. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State broke the legislative logjam and S.B. 165 is on the move. Last week, it passed the Senate 26-12 and it is likely to pass the House very shortly. This is a huge development for the people of Michigan, where wasteful and discriminatory PLAs and similar handouts to Big Labor are the norm in some places (Here’s looking at you, Ann Arbor). This bill will ensure that Michiganders get value – not special interest handouts – for their tax dollars.

Legislators in these states are taking historic steps to guarantees that taxpayers get the best construction at the best price.  They are also sending a strong signal to both the Obama administration and Congress.  The American people don’t want to see public construction funneled to Big Labor.  Open competition is good for everyone. Public projects should be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, regardless of their labor affiliation.

A committee has been planning since June 2010 to give voters in Sacramento an opportunity to guarantee fair and open competition on taxpayer-funded construction projects. The campaign intends to raise $1.5 million in voluntary contributions to encourage Sacramento voters to end the unfair and costly project labor agreement racket and encourage economic growth and job creation in the Sacramento region.

Since the mid-1990s, Sacramento construction union officials have cut bid competition and increased project costs by pressuring Sacramento local governments and developers to require contractors to sign project labor agreements. Conditions in these 30-60 page agreements force contractors to get workers from unions and pay employee benefits into union trust funds instead of company benefit plans. Workers must pay union dues and initiation fees.

The Sacramento union strategy to extract project labor agreements from local governments is tied to their local election campaign programs. It also includes hiring a lawyer to block privately-owned projects with legal action authorized under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) until project owners surrender to the extortion (a practice called “greenmail”).

Among the organizations seeking fair and open competition (and represented at the June 9 press conference) are the Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, the Western Electrical Contractors Association, the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of California, the Sacramento County Taxpayers League, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

See the campaign web site, also launched on June 9, at www.FairandOpenCompetitionSacramento.com.

The campaign is the start of the “Summer of Fair and Open Competition” in Northern California.