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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gut and Amend Bill interferes with local control for California Charter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

The Problem with Project Labor Agreements

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

ABC of California also issued a statement.

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

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

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

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

Read more from TheTruthAboutPLAs:

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

Washington, D.C., spin doctors created the term “community workforce agreement” in an attempt to get around the much-deserved negative stigma associated with project labor agreements.

Santa Fe is the first government entity in New Mexico to adopt a policy to require or encourage PLA mandates on taxpayer-funded construction. The city council adopted this policy despite very little public commentary and virtually no input from the merit shop construction community. Many merit shop construction firms have a long history of building Santa Fe projects on time and on budget, without having to agree to Big Labor’s terms and conditions.

Here is a press release on the new mandate issued by Associated Builders and Contractors’ (ABC) New Mexico Chapter:

SANTA FE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS NEW POLICY THAT WILL INCREASE COSTS AND

DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WORKERS

SANTA FE, N.M. – Associated Builders and Contractors’ (ABC) New Mexico Chapter today calls on the Santa Fe City Council to repeal its newly adopted policy requiring contractors to sign a wasteful and discriminatory community workforce agreement with the construction unions in order to work on Santa Fe city construction projects that cost more than $500,000.

A community workforce agreement is a special interest scheme that discourages competition from nonunion contractors and their workers by requiring a construction project to be awarded only to contractors and subcontractors that agree to recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job; use the union hall to obtain workers; obey the union’s restrictive apprenticeship and work rules; and contribute to union pension plans and other funds in which their nonunion employees will never benefit unless they join a union.

“The Santa Fe City Council adopted this policy after very little consideration and with no input from the merit shop construction community,” said ABC New Mexico Chapter President Roxanne Rivera-Wiest. “These mandates have a long public record of costing taxpayers and hurting the vast majority of the construction workforce in communities from coast to coast.”

“Numerous studies show these types of mandates increase construction costs by as much as 20 percent, which means taxpayers can expect four city buildings for the price of five under this policy,” Rivera-Wiest said. “Additionally, this policy will discriminate against the 97 percent of New Mexico’s construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union. This means thousands of hardworking New Mexicans will be deprived of the opportunity to work on projects in their own backyard unless they give in to Big Labor’s demands.”

The ABC New Mexico Chapter urges the Santa Fe City Council to repeal this policy. In the meantime, ABC will do everything within its power to ensure Santa Fe residents are guaranteed the best construction at the best price.

###

While aggressive Big Labor bullying is nothing new in New Mexico, this is the most significant public policy win in the state for union bosses since they successfully lobbied the legislature to abandon prevailing wage surveys and simply make the union wage rate the minimum wage for all state funded construction.

There is great concern in the merit shop construction community that union bosses could use the “success” of this requirement as evidence to support PLA requirements in other cities in New Mexico, or even for state-funded construction projects in the future. Readers of this blog know this requirement can never be truly successful because PLAs/CWAs have a well-established history of increasing construction costs and discriminating against the vast majority of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union – 96.5 percent in New Mexico.

Even more troubling, contractors in Santa Fe report that due to budget issues, there are no projects costing more than $500,000 in the pipeline!

With no projects subject to this CWA requirement expected in the near future—and the agreements’ proven track record of failure at achieving their promised public policy objectives—it is clear that this policy is nothing more than a politically motivated handout to Big Labor. It could potentially guarantee that only union workers have the opportunity to perform Santa Fe construction projects in the future. Additionally, this policy could be a springboard for Big Labor’s attempts to secure CWA/PLA requirements on state construction or in other communities.

Aside from being bad policy, ABC and the merit shop community believe this new requirement could have potential legal problems as well.

New Mexico taxpayers deserve the best construction at the best price. Additionally, the 96.5 percent of the state’s construction workforce that chooses not to join a union deserves the opportunity to compete for projects funded by their own tax dollars. The City of Santa Fe can accomplish neither with a CWA/PLA requirement in place.

We call on the Santa Fe City Council to rethink this discriminatory policy to ensure city residents get the most value for their local construction dollars.

Here is the recap.

On March 10, a public forum to discuss whether a PLA mandate is appropriate for two school projects that are expected to cost approximately $200 million was held in Meriden, Conn. Of note, Congressman Chris Murphy and state House Speaker Chris Donovan appeared to speak in support of the PLA mandates. Both officials are candidates for higher office – Murphy is running for the U.S. Senate and Donovan is running for Murphy’s seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

It should come as no surprise that both have taken union campaign contributions.  Here is an interesting bit of information from the Record-Journal in Meriden:

Through Dec. 31, Donovan had brought in $708,815 in campaign contributions, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that amount, about $124,000 came from organized labor, including trade unions such as the Service Employees International Union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Sheet Metal Workers Union and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union. In total, industrial unions have contributed more than $30,000 to Donovan’s war chest, while building trade unions have given $22,500. Of his 20 largest donors this year, 12 are unions.

<snip>

Of the $3.4 million Murphy has raised for his Senate campaign, nearly $300,000 has come from unions, with more than $70,000 coming from building trade and industrial unions.

The merit shop construction industry was well represented at this event by Lelah Campo, president of the Connecticut Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), who called this more of a campaign event than an opportunity to learn the facts about PLAs.

This issue has arisen in part because of a petition to the Meriden City Council (initiated by union bosses) seeks a community workforce agreement mandate (a PLA by another name) on the construction of the two school projects. The City Council may not be required to take action on the petition because of a problem with its drafting. Regardless, the unions have successfully brought the issue to the forefront and the council is likely to consider a PLA mandate.

If adopted, this mandate will have a chilling effect on merit shop participation on these projects. In order to work on projects where contractors must agree to a PLA in order to perform work, contractors typically must recognize unions as the sole representative of their employees, hire from union hiring halls, pay into union pension and benefit plans, and follow wasteful union work rules.

From a practical standpoint, PLA mandates unfairly tip the scales in favor of unionized contractors. Merit shop employees, who make up nearly 80 percent of Connecticut’s construction workforce, are deprived of the opportunity to fairly compete for contracts and build projects funded by their own tax dollars.

In addition, these mandates have been found to increase construction costs.  A September 2004 study conducted by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston found that the use of PLAs on school construction projects in Connecticut increased the cost of the projects by nearly 18 percent.  The report concludes that the presence of a PLA increased the projects’ final base construction costs by $30 per square foot relative to non-PLA projects.

Unfortunately, the Meriden schools are not the only PLA threat in the state right now.

The Connecticut General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee held an informational hearing in Hartford on Monday, March 19, to learn more about wasteful and discriminatory PLA mandates.

Here is a great recap from CT News Junkies on what likely prompted the hearing:

The existence of PLAs, an issue that doesn’t come before the legislature very often, has come up in the wake of a January Connecticut Supreme Court decision. The decision gave standing to Electrical Contractors, Inc. (ECI), a nonunion Hartford company, that sued the Hartford Board of Education after winning a bid, but declining to sign a PLA for two school construction projects.

The Superior Court that first heard the trial decided that ECI did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, but the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. It’s now back in trial court.

While the actual case may not be decided for years, the ruling on ECI’s standing creates the opportunity for other contractors to sue on account of PLAs.

Here is video of a few minutes of testimony by ABC Connecticut Chapter President Lelah Campo:

ABC was not the only group to speak out against PLAs at this hearing.  Connecticut’s Minority Construction Council wrote a strongly worded letter to voice its opposition to PLA mandates.  Here is an excerpt:

Not only do PLAs harm minority contractors who are not union contractors, they also harm non-union employees because if these employees work on a PLA project they must pay union benefits and become union members for each PLA project worked on. It is not fair for employees to pay into a union pension program they will never be able to collect from because they will never vest. This constitutes an unfair windfall for the union. Under current prevailing wage laws, fringe benefits are paid directly to the employee if the contractor he/she works for does not have benefit plans. It is better for employees under prevailing wage laws to be able to directly receive compensation in their paychecks for benefits rather than have their money go to a union’s irretrievable benefits program. The union benefits are payable to the union, even if the non-union employee is covered under the employer’s existing program (i .e., paying twice for the same benefit but only being able to collect to collect on one).

PLAs also harm minority contractors because the contractor has to get some or all of his/her employees from a union hall as opposed to directly hiring all employees. Consequently, a contractor is forced to bid a job without knowing his workforce or their work habits, because there is a great chance the minority contractor’s employees will come from the union hall as opposed to their regular workforce. Under this setup, the employee’s loyalty is to his union hall as opposed to the contractor. I can give you anecdotal evidence to support the harm suffered by minority contractors under a PLA because of union issues.

The merit shop construction community is concerned the General Assembly may take some action to undercut the ECI lawsuit or promote the use of anti-competitive and costly government-mandated PLAs on state and state-funded projects. Doing so would send a clear signal that Connecticut’s lawmakers are in the pockets of union bosses and special interests, and not looking out for the interests of taxpayers and free enterprise.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com will be following the situation in Connecticut closely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See material provided by staff to the board here.

News Reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(See: CFEC’s mailer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Minnesotans likely to pick up at least some of the bill for this project, this PLA will keep thousands of hardworking taxpayers from being able to compete effectively for a project funded by their own tax dollars.

Associated Builders and Contractors Minnesota Chapter President Bob Heise expressed his thoughts on this discriminatory PLA in an op-ed published by the Star Tribune on Feb. 14. Here are the highlights:

These PLAs are bad public policy. In Minnesota, three out of four construction workers are employed by contractors not affiliated with any union.

Since PLAs effectively preclude open-shop companies from working on a stadium project, they discriminate against the majority of workers who choose not to join a union but whose hard-earned tax dollars may go toward funding this project.

Organizations like the Associated Builders and Contractors would never advocate a public policy that says “union contractors should be banned from doing public work.” That would be as offensive to us as it is when the unions advocate policies that shut out merit shops.

If the unions really are as efficient as they claim, they wouldn’t need to advocate for public policies that give them an artificial competitive advantage in projects like stadiums.

Several minority and women’s groups have been vocal opponents of union-only agreements

The National Association of Women Business Owners, National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Latin Builders Association are among the groups that have gone on record opposing PLAs. The National Black Chamber of Commerce described PLAs as anti-free-market, noncompetitive and, most of all, discriminatory.

Basically, the PLA deal was sold to the Vikings on the basis that they could reduce costs and ensure “labor peace.” Both propositions are erroneous.

By limiting the bidding pool to union-only contractors, you reduce healthy competition and drive up costs, almost guaranteeing wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. The unions also agreed not to strike on the Vikings stadium project in exchange for the concession that the PLA be signed.

They contend this saves money by avoiding costly delays and keeping labor peace. The real meaning of labor peace is that, since only union labor will be working on the stadium, unions will not engage in strikes. This guarantees protectionism for a small part of the construction market.

These restraints imposed by the Vikings are political decisions, which have no economic rationale. The real losers are the taxpayers across the state who have chosen not to be affiliated with a union. Their tax dollars will subsidize a stadium that they will not be allowed to build.

It’s going to be difficult to gain legislative support to fund a Vikings stadium when the Vikings can only support some fans some of the time.

Big Labor frequently targets large-scale stadium projects for PLA mandates for several significant reasons. Stadium projects fit union bosses’ narrative that PLAs are required for large, complex projects. Additionally, because stadium projects are large, unions have the opportunity to put large numbers of members to work when they are covered by a PLA. Most importantly, unions target large stadium projects for PLAs because they are often built in cities controlled by politicians supported by Big Labor. Unions attempt to leverage this political muscle to ensure that PLAs are mandated on stadium projects.

Unfortunately for union bosses, PLA mandates have a public record of poor performance on stadium projects. Cost overruns, delays, safety issues and other problems have plagued stadium construction projects covered by PLAs.

Here are the highlights from the 2011 edition of Maury Baskin’s publication, Government-Mandated PLAs: A Public Record of Poor Performance.

Miller Park – Milwaukee, Wis.

• This stadium, built under a government-mandated PLA, was supposed to be completed in time for opening day of the 2000 season. Instead, the new stadium was not completed in time to be used at all during that season due to construction delays, which included a fatal accident involving union workers.
• In August 1999, the PLA-mandated construction came to a halt when a crane collapsed onto the stadium, killing three workers and injuring three others.

Gund Arena – Cleveland

• Original costs were estimated at $118 million. After the governing agency entered into a PLA, the final cost came in at $148 million—$30 million (25 percent) more than estimated.

Cleveland Browns Stadium – Cleveland

• The cost of the Cleveland Browns’ stadium, also constructed pursuant to a government-mandated PLA, was $21 million higher than the estimate in 1998. The union-only bids for the stadium were millions of dollars higher than the estimates.
• The final cost of the stadium was reported to be at least $61 million more than the original estimate, an increase of 25 percent.

Comerica Park – Detroit

• A PLA was signed and, upon completion of construction, costs were reported to be in excess of $320 million. The original cost estimate was $260 million in 1999.
• Four female African-American carpenters sued the Stadium Authority for discrimination and failure to provide promised job opportunities to minorities and women on the ballpark project.

Nationals Park – Washington, D.C.

• Construction of a new Washington Nationals baseball stadium under a government-mandated PLA ran significantly over the budgeted $611 million. By contrast, Baltimore’s nearby Camden Yards and Washington’s own FedEx Field (football) were built without any PLA requirements, with no cost overruns.
• The owner of the Washington Nationals initially refused to pay $3.5 million in rent because the PLA project was not “substantially complete” on the date the city was required to hand over the stadium.
• The PLA called for half of the journeyman construction hours to be performed by city residents, a high percentage of whom are minorities. A subsequent study revealed, however, that city residents only performed 27 percent of the work. Targets to have all new apprentices be city residents and to have their work constitute at least one-fourth of the hours dedicated to construction also fell short.

Lucas Oil Stadium – Indianapolis

• After using a $50 million contingency fund, this project was still $75 million over budget. (Read more about this project)

Citi Field – New York

• The New York Post reported in 2009 that the Mets’ new Citi Field, built under a PLA at a cost of $850 million, was “riddled with construction defects.” The defects included large chunks of concrete and granite and a neon sign falling from the stadium, as well as numerous problems with elevators, electricity and flooding of various stadium sections.

Safeco Field – Seattle

• In Seattle, the PLA construction of Safeco Field for the Seattle Mariners experienced very high cost overruns in 1998. The original estimate for the new stadium was $320 million. The stadium’s final price tag was in excess of $517 million, a 60 percent increase. Safeco Field was completed months later than scheduled as the stadium could not be opened in time for the beginning of the 1999 season, as had been promised, and the Seattle Mariners could not begin play at their new home until July 1999.

There have been other problems with stadiums not in the report.

The New Yankee Stadium – New York

• The NY Daily News reported that the community benefits agreementcontaining a PLA on the new $1.3 billion Yankee Stadium has been a “joke” and a failure:
  

  Then there are all those promises about contracts and construction jobs.

  The team acknowledges that more than 3,900 people have applied for construction work at the stadium. More than 80% didn’t belong to any union. Since you must be a union member to work on the site, the Bronx residents most in need of a job have been shut out of the daily workforce of 1,200.

  As for the union employees, a lot of the craft unions have been “checkerboarding,” according to one source who has worked on the stadium project from the start.

  “They take members who live in the Bronx but work at some other site in Manhattan, then they transfer them to the stadium just to boost the numbers. That doesn’t add any new jobs for Bronx residents.”

Construction is a complex, expensive and dangerous industry. Unfortunately, local hire failure, construction delays, cost overruns and even tragic accidents can happen.

It is also important to note that large stadium projects have been built without PLAs.  For example, on the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium, union and nonunion workers alike worked side-by-side to build the project on time and on budget without a PLA. The same can be said for the Redskins home, FedEx Field (formerly Jack Kent Cook stadium); the Baltimore Ravens stadium; and the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte where President Obama is scheduled to deliver his DNC speech this summer.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we reject the contention that a PLA mandate will make large-scale projects more efficient, safer or more likely to guarantee job opportunities to women and minorities in the construction industry. PLAs simply guarantee that contractors have to play by Big Labor’s rules in order to work on a project.

For the people of Minnesota, we hope the stadium is finished on time and on budget as soon as the building plans are finally approved. Minneapolis is a great football town and it deserves a first-class stadium; just don’t think it is going to get one just because the union bosses say so.

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.)