The latest to do so is Anne Arundel County, MD, where local leaders adopted a ban on government-mandated PLAs on January 17.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

Maryland joins California, Texas and Pennsylvania as states in which local government entities have approved bans on these Big Labor handouts.  An increasing number of local leaders are starting to understand how Big Labor promises of PLA success usually lead to only cost overruns and discrimination against the vast majority of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization.

This ban on PLA mandates was enacted just one county away from the upcoming Cheltenham Youth Facility project in Prince George’s County, where Maryland leaders are attempting to become the first state or local government entity to procure a construction project with the Obama administration’s U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) PLA preference policy adopted in April 2010.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we thank Anne Arundel’s leaders for standing up for taxpayers and the local construction workforce.

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.

This case stems from former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell administration’s effort to force PLA requirements on several large state correctional institution projects in 2009.  We’ve followed this issue at length on this blog.

Here is the truth, from a press release issued by all four chapters of Associated Builders and Contractors in Pennsylvania.

PRESS RELEASE

SUPREME COURT DECISION RESULTS IN MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS:

ASSURES THAT PLA DISPUTE WILL CONTINUE

A recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has resulted in confusion in the construction industry regarding the legality of Project Labor Agreements in Pennsylvania. On January 18, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued brief Order which affirmed a prior single judge decision issued by Judge Pellegrini of the Commonwealth Court on December 1, 2009 in the case of Hawbaker, et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling was issued in the extremely narrow context of upholding the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction, and was issued “per curiam” (without an opinion) and thus it has no precedential value, i.e., is not binding on any court.

The original lawsuit was filed in 2009 by numerous contractors, employees of contractors, and various Pennsylvania Chapters of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (“Petitioners”) to challenge the legality of the procurement process being used by DGS for various prison projects in Pennsylvania. Among the arguments raised by Petitioners was that the procurement process for many of the projects was illegal because it imposed a Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) on the contractors for the projects. Ultimately, after DGS agreed not to impose PLAs on two of the prison projects, DGS attempted to impose a PLA on the project at SCI Graterford. Petitioners sought to preliminarily enjoin the bid process for that project, and also sought a permanent injunction with respect to the use of PLAs generally on public projects in Pennsylvania. Petitioners’ primary argument is that PLAs violate Pennsylvania’s competitive bid laws. In denying Petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction in December 2009, Judge Pellegrini opined that he could not, as a single judge, rule that all PLAs were illegal or legal, and thus was constrained to deny the injunction. Significantly, one of the primary grounds on which Judge Pelligrini denied the preliminary injunction was due to his belief greater harm would result in the delay of a $400 million prison project which DGS argued was necessary to help address prison overcrowding, than would result if an arguably illegal bid process was permitted to proceed. As an opinion authored by a single judge, the Commonwealth Court decision is likewise not binding on any other courts.

On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Petitioners faced a high burden, as they had to demonstrate that Judge Pellegrini had no reasonable grounds to deny the request for a preliminary injunction. Additionally, DGS contended that the appeal was moot as immediately after the appeal was taken, DGS cancelled the procurement that was at issue in the litigation. By issuing a “per curiam” Order rather than a full Opinion, it is clear that while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Commonwealth Court had at least one reasonable ground to deny Petitioners’ request for a Preliminary Injunction, the Supreme Court opted not to specifically rule on the legality of PLAs in Pennsylvania at this stage in the suit. Significantly, in the Supreme Court’s brief Order, two justices, including Chief Justice Castille, noted their disagreement with the Court’s decision to only issue a per curiam order, but rather those justices favored oral argument and a resolution by a full opinion.

The case will now proceed at the Commonwealth Court for a full blown hearing on the merits of Petitioners’ challenge and request for a permanent injunction. ABC and the Petitioners in the Hawbaker suit are committed to the development of a full and complete record on which the Commonwealth Court can decide the issues which form the basis of their request for a permanent injunction, including seeking a ruling that Project Labor Agreements on public projects conflict with public bid laws. ABC and the Petitioners believe that such a ruling will result in an open and competitive bid environment that places everyone on a level playing field, and therefore will result in the lowest costs for the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. For now, until a final decision is rendered in the Hawbaker suit, there is still no caselaw in Pennsylvania to suggest that a public body simply may impose a PLA as a matter of preference, and the decisions to date in the Hawbaker lawsuit do not hold otherwise.

At a time when people want a return to civility and pleasant political discourse, “preemptive strike,” a military term, may not be the appropriate one to describe the county commissioners’ move this week on Project Labor Agreements. But that’s exactly what it was.

The commissioners voted 2-1 on Wednesday to outlaw PLAs, onerous agreements that require contractors whether they are unionized or not to subject themselves and their employees to unionization in order to work on government-funded construction projects.

Commissioners Scott Martin and Dennis Stuckey, who make up the Republican majority, voted as they did, even though they can’t recall county government ever participating is such mandatory unionism.

Still, Martin, the commissioners’ chairman, said PLAs are making inroads in other areas of the state, and it’s only a matter of time before they reach us.

So, what do Martin and Stuckey have against PLAs?

They say PLAs discourage participation by non-union construction companies, which employ the vast majority of construction workers in Pennsylvania.

The projects, themselves, end up costing more, and that means more money is taken out of taxpayers’ wallets, the officials contend.

“I believe it is important that this action (ordinance) be taken to preserve fair and competitive costs for taxpayers and to offer a process that doesn’t exclude 85 percent of the work force from competing for government projects,” says Martin.

The new law not only covers county projects, but municipal projects that receive county grants.

Labor unions defend PLAs as a way to ensure a skilled labor force that does high-quality work, but the point is debatable. The fact is, the PLAs are more about protecting union jobs and those of high-paid union bosses.

Commissioner Craig Lehman, a Democrat, sided with those union bosses, calling the new law political pandering.

“We have plenty of important issues here in Lancaster County that we need to work on. This (majority commissioners’ action) is a public relations maneuver to create press on how to deal with PLAs at the state and federal level, and I just find it inappropriate,” says Lehman.

Lehman may be on to something: PLAs were embraced by the previous administration (Democratic) in Harrisburg. Now that we have a Republican governor and Republican-controlled House and Senate, PLAs’ days may be numbered.

The union bosses apparently won’t take the county’s action lying down. They talking about a possible court challenge, believing the new law “discriminates” against contractors that employ union workers.

That’s nonsense.

It is unions and their legislative toadies who seek to discriminate by forbidding non-union workers from government jobs.

The new county ordinance does just the opposite. It assures that construction contracts remain open to all companies.

That’s something all companies non-union and union can embrace. That’s something Lancaster County taxpayers should support.

However you wish to describe it; “pre-emptive strike” or, in Martin’s words, “proactive action,” the new law is on target.

We agree and applaud Lancaster County residents for electing officials who stand up to costly special interests and put taxpayers and fair competition first.

In 2011, taxpayers and the construction industry can expect and should encourage leaders across the country to stand up for what is right and advance similar legislation and initiatives.

Here is a quote that sums up the issue by the measure’s sponsor, Chairman Scott Martin, as reported by FOX43 WPMT:

“As I see Project Labor Agreements starting to be utilized in other areas of the Commonwealth, I believe it is important that this action be taken to preserve fair and open contracting for government projects, ensure that we attain the most competitive costs for taxpayers and to offer a process that doesn’t exclude 85% of the workforce from competing for government projects,” stated Commissioner Martin, Chairman, Lancaster County Board of Commissioners.

Well put, especially if you review the numerous PLA-related issues that taxpayers and the construction workforce have encountered in Pennsylvania chronicled at length on this site.

This preemptive measure will guarantee that local taxpayers will get the best construction at the best price.

The Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era also covered this ordinance in advance of its enactment.  Here are some highlights (“Union Act Splits Lancaster County Commissioners,” 1/25/11):

State lawmakers the past few years have debated whether project labor agreements are appropriate for state construction contracts.

That debate is expected to intensify with the switch from former governor Ed Rendell’s administration — which supported such agreements — to Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration, which does not, according to Martin.

John R. Zimmer, president and CEO of Associated Builders & Contractors of Manheim, applauded Ordinance No. 99.

“More than it being a ban against labor agreements, it’s a statement for open contracting,” he said. “It’s a statement that there will be a level playing field, and, more importantly, it’s a statement that there will not be discrimination in Lancaster County, regardless of color, creed, gender, or union affiliation or not.”

Martin said his proposal is a “proactive action” to make sure Lancaster County taxpayers are not saddled with inflated costs for construction projects that require union labor.

“For me personally, I think there’s something very wrong that the state and federal government allow this to occur with public tax dollars,” he said.

This is a big win for local taxpayers and the 87 percent of America’s private construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization.

Congratulations Lancaster County and here is hoping that other counties follow suit.

UPDATE: The Keystone Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors has issued a press release commending the Lancaster County Council for their work.  Here is the text:

Lancaster County Commissioners Act to Ensure Workforce Fairness

(MANHEIM) Keystone Chapter, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. (ABC) – Lancaster County, led by Commissioner Scott Martin, passed an ordinance to ban the use of discriminatory project labor agreements (PLAs) on all county-funded construction projects. Ordinance number 99, introduced by Martin and seconded by Commissioner Stuckey, took a proactive approach to ensure that all contractors could bid on construction work and that all workers could work on projects.

Under typical PLAs, contractors who are successful at winning a bid must use union workers only to complete the job. In the rare cases in which a contractor is allowed to use his own workers, those workers must pay union dues and follow union work rules. With the passage of Ordinance 99, every qualified contractor can compete for, and be awarded work, without any requirement that the workers must belong to a union.

Jack Zimmer, ABC Keystone President & CEO, proclaimed “Lancaster County has a long tradition of hard working people who value fairness and the merit shop philosophy. I applaud the forward-thinking and actions of Commissioners Martin and Stuckey who saw fit to ensure that any worker, union or non- union, could work on Lancaster County tax funded work.” Zimmer went on to say that this was an historic vote. “This is the first time PLAs have been banned on the county level in Pennsylvania. This sends a strong statement that Lancaster County is open for business for all, and the needs of taxpayers regarding fiscal responsibility are respected. I sincerely hope other counties will follow suit. No matter what argument you put forth, it still comes down to fairness versus discrimination. Commissioners Martin and Stuckey made sure that message was loud and clear.”

# # #

ABC Keystone, operating out of Rapho Business Park, Manheim, represents over 700 construction-related firms locally and is part of a national association with 75 chapters representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and construction-related firms nationwide. ABC Keystone members are involved in commercial, industrial, and institutional free enterprise construction throughout south central Pennsylvania.

ABC WINS ANOTHER CHALLENGE AGAINST GOVERNMENT-MANDATED PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS ON FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

For Immediate Release
January 6, 2011

 Contact: Gail Raiman, (703) 812-2073
Gerry Fritz, (703) 812-2062 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) today announced another victory in its fight against government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction projects. As a result of a bid protest filed Oct. 18 with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a PLA mandate has been removed from the bidding process for the construction of a $50 million U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Research Office Building in Pittsburgh.

“PLAs are special interest schemes that force all bidders for construction projects to sign a labor agreement with construction unions as a condition of performing work,” said ABC President and CEO Kirk Pickerel. “This is the fourth successful bid protest that ABC has supported on behalf of one of its members against unlawful PLA schemes on federal construction projects. In similar protests filed on projects in New Hampshire, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey, federal agencies have withdrawn the PLA mandates. This case gives us the clearest indication yet that PLAs violate federal competitive bidding laws.”

ABC member company Bridges Construction of Pittsburgh, supported and assisted by ABC, filed a bid protest with the GAO. The protest challenged the VA’s PLA mandate that appeared in a September 10 bid solicitation (pdf) for the Research Office Building. The PLA requirement discriminated against qualified open shop contractors and their employees by imposing union dues requirements and inefficient and costly union work rules as a condition of performing work on the project.

During the course of the GAO protest, the VA revealed that its own PLA impact study found imposing a PLA on the project would increase costs by millions of dollars, would reduce the number of bidders and subcontractors, and would decrease the pool of skilled labor. In spite of this evidence, the VA claimed a PLA was supported by President Obama’s Executive Order 13502, which “encourages” federal agencies to impose PLAs on large construction projects if “consistent with law.”

After reviewing the facts of the case, the GAO strongly indicated it would sustain the protest of ABC’s member contractor under the federal Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), absent corrective action by the VA. In direct response to GAO’s action, on Dec. 21, 2010, the VA announced its withdrawal of the PLA mandate from the Pittsburgh solicitation. On January 5, 2011, the VA confirmed that adoption of a PLA would be completely “optional” for submitting offerors. According to the VA, “No additional points or weight will be assigned to proposals submitted with a PLA.”

“This result confirms ABC’s position that the open competition requirements of the federal CICA law take priority over President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502,” said ABC President Pickerel. “The GAO agrees that no PLAs can be imposed on federal contracts in the absence of a compelling showing of need and evidence that PLAs will deliver increased economy and efficiency in federal contracting.”

“It’s time for the Obama administration to stop steering lucrative federal construction contracts to Big Labor – one of their largest political supporters – through unlawful government-mandated PLAs,” Pickerel said. “The American people deserve the best possible construction project at the best possible price. We can’t afford the increased costs, reduced competition and delays created by these special interest handouts. ABC will continue to fight for fair and open competition, and will challenge federal agencies attempting to impose unjustified PLAs on federal projects.”

Numerous studies show that PLAs discourage open shop contractors and subcontractors from competing for federal contracts, thereby increasing costs to taxpayers and discriminating against the majority of the construction industry workforce; or the 85 percent of the construction workforce that are not members of a labor union.

##

Here are some interesting facts about this case:

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com readers may recall that in 2009, the VA hired a consulting firm to produce a study about the impact of PLAs in specific construction markets where the VA was looking to renovate and build new facilities (“Independent Study Finds PLAs Increase Construction Costs,” 11/2/09). While that study did not address the Pittsburgh market specifically, a similar study (referenced above), was completed in 2010 for the VA on the Pittsburgh market. Like the 2009 study, it found a PLA would increase costs by millions of dollars, reduce the number of bidders and subcontractors, and decrease the pool of skilled available labor.

According to www.unionstats.com, just 20.3 percent of Pennsylvania’s private construction workforce belongs to a construction labor union and just 11.2 percent of ALL private workers (in all industries) in Pittsburgh’s Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) belong to a labor union.

The VA failed to produce evidence to suggest that a PLA would create economy and efficiency in federal contracting.  It is no surprise because a PLA is a solution in search of a problem.

If PLA advocates claim that PLAs are needed to prevent labor disputes, the public record from 2001 through early 2009 (when PLAs were prohibited on fedearl and federally assisted construction projects by President Bush’s Executive Order 13202 and 13208) clearly demonstrates that a lack of a PLA did not result in strikes and labor disputes on VA projects, as evidenced by this 2009 Freedom of Information Act request filed by ABC.  Aferall, Big Labor is the cause of labor unrest and worksite friction. Why reward such extortionary tactics with a PLA monopoly?

In addition, comments by PLA proponents claiming that a PLA ensures fair wages and benefits on this project are also bogus. All federal projects, regardless of a PLA, are subject to federal prevailing wage laws set by the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” rates are typically articifially inflated union wage and benefit rates set by the government that must be paid to all workers, regardless of whether or not there is a PLA or they belong to a union. Wage rates can be found at www.wdol.gov. For example, the rate for an electrician engaged in “Building” construction in Allegheney County is $34.26 in wages plus $17.88  in benefits, for a total compensation package of $52.14 per hour. Assuming full employment through the year, that is a wage and benefit package of $108,451. That is without a PLA, folks.

Again, a PLA is a solution in search of a problem. We think the real problem might be that Big Labor needs a handout from politicians in return for Big Labor’s political investment through campaign contributions and endorsements.

We suspect that officials at the VA were pressured into mandating this PLA by politicians, Big Labor bosses, political appointees and possibly White House staff  interested in paying back Big Labor for their political support.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com believes that fair and open competition, free from government-mandated PLAs, will help the VA deliver to taxpayers the best possible product at the best possible price.

Update: The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway covered this story today (“White House Loses Battle Over Union Paybacks,” 1/6/10):

Bridges Construction of Pittsburgh recently filed a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office after the federal government tried to impose a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) as part of the federal contract in the construction of a $50 mllion Veterans Affairs building. PLAs are construction contracts negotiated in advance that basically mandate union labor — a study from the Beacon Hill institute found that PLAs make construction projects 12 percent to 18 percent more expensive on average.

Last month, I wrote about how the Obama White House signed an executive effectively imposing on all big Federal construction projects as way to pay back unions for their political support. After my column ran, a number of Republican Congressmen wrote a letter to the White House questioning the White House’s PLA policy.

According to today’s press release from Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Builders and Contractors and Bridges Construction successfully thwarted the PLA on the VA building in Pittsburgh:

[snip].

During the course of the GAO protest, the VA revealed that its own PLA impact study found imposing a PLA on the project would increase costs by millions of dollars, would reduce the number of bidders and subcontractors, and would decrease the pool of skilled labor. In spite of this evidence, the VA claimed a PLA was supported by President Obama’s Executive Order 13502, which “encourages” federal agencies to impose PLAs on large construction projects if “consistent with law.”

[snip]

Emphasis mine. The government’s own study found the PLA was a waste of tax dollars, and yet they still tried to impose one anyway. Remember unions are Democrats biggest campaign donor. PLAs are not about efficient use of your hard earned tax dollars — they’re political payback.

Hemingway hit the nail on the head. Government-mandated PLAs are all about payback.

Update 1/12/11: An editorial in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review praised the removal of government-mandated project labor agreement (PLA) on the construction of a $50 million U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Research Office Building in Pittsburgh and heavily criticized politicians and special interests participating in these anti-competitive and costly schemes (“The VA & PLAs: A welcome reversal,” 1/13/11):

Dropping inclusion of union-coddling project labor agreements (PLAs) from bidding requirements for a $50 million Veterans Affairs research office building in Pittsburgh is a step in the right direction — a direction in which all public construction projects must go for taxpayers’ sake.

The VA dropped the requirement — and said it won’t give preference to bids that include PLAs — after North Side contractor Bridges filed an October protest with the Government Accountability Office. Bridges had help from Associated Builders & Contractors, the local trade group that has sued over PLA requirements for Community College of Allegheny County and Penn Hills School District projects.

PLAs should not be part of public construction projects — period. Politicians use PLAs to reward unionized supporters, putting taxpayers on the hook for the higher costs that studies show PLAs impose. Project labor agreements also discriminate against nonunion workers’ — taxpayers who outnumber unionized workers — job opportunities.

The VA decision on the Oakland project must stick, becoming standard procedure for that agency. And the rest of government, at all levels, must follow suit. Taxpayers’ interests must come before those of extorting unions and the politicians who pander to them.

We agree.

BNA’s Construction Labor Report also covered this story with notable interviews from VA and GAO officials (“Contractor Protest Causes VA to Delete PLA Mandate from Research Building Bid Notice,” 1/12/11) [Note: Subscription Required]:

The Department of Veterans Affairs has made the use of a project labor agreement optional for all offers to construct a research building in Pittsburgh for the department after it withdrew a PLA mandate from the project’s bid solicitation, a department official told BNA Jan. 10.

 A Veterans Affairs spokesman told BNA that proposals submitted with PLAs on the project to construct the VA Research Office Building in Pittsburgh estimated to cost between $50 million to $100 million, will not be awarded any “additional points or weight” during the bid evaluation process. The spokesman said the decision applies only to this specific project. [snip]

A GAO attorney explains the bid protest and PLA withdrawal, indicating that the GAO would have ruled against the VA’s PLA mandate:

According to Ralph White, managing general counsel of GAO’s procurement law division, the protest was dismissed Dec. 9, 2010, because the VA decided to delete the PLA mandate from the bidding requirements. The Veterans Affairs chose to amend the bid solicitation after concluding that the protest filed by Bridges Construction might be sustained by the GAO, however GAO did not reach a final decision because the VA “decided to take corrective action,” White told BNA.

To learn more about the bid protest and victory for taxpayers and members of the construction community, please visit here.

UPDATE: The VA hired the same consulting firm to update their PLA study from September 2010. The new study, dated May 17, 2011, again recommended against a government-mandated PLA on the Pittsburgh project:

For a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania project at the present time, we see a potential cost risk premium of 3% to 5% if a PLA is mandated. For a $40 mil. project, this would equate to $1.2 to $2.0 mil.

We see that a mandated PLA will reduce sub-contractors and lower the labor pool to the detriment of the project, and potentially add cost; therefore we believe that a PLA would likely not “advance the federal Government’s interest in achieving economy and efficiency in federal procurement.”

Falk set out on this walk on Friday, Sept. 17 to deliver a petition urging Congress to repeal President Obama’s Executive Order 13502, which encourages federal agencies to require wasteful and discriminatory project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction costing more than $25 million.

Photos of Falk’s departure and media coverage of the walk are available on our earlier post.

Here are some great pictures of Falk’s arrival in D.C., including some with the petition signed by thousands in support of free enterprise and open competition on public construction projects.

Again, this was an important effort by one individual to bring government-mandated waste and discrimination to light.  To learn more, visit Falk’s site at 89milesforfreedom.com or his Facebook page.  Falk is also still collecting signatures on his online petition, so please sign it if you haven’t done so already.

You can also visit our earlier posts to learn more about PLAs in Falk’s home state of Pennsylvania.

On Friday, Sept. 17, Falk held a kick0ff event with local elected leaders and members of their community.  Some great pictures of the event are below.

The media was also on hand to cover Falk’s departure:

• The York Dispatch: Red Lion Man Walking to D.C. to Make Point on Labor Agreements (video)
• WGAL (Lancaster): Man Walking 90 Miles To Protest Union Laws
• The York Daily Record: York Glass Worker Walking From York to Washington

This is an inspirational story of an individual standing up to tell the Obama administration to stop the Big Labor handouts that hurt the vast majority of the construction industry and American taxpayers.

Learn more about Falk’s walk and petition at www.89milesforfreedom.com or via his Facebook page.

You can access the petition directly here as well.

After witnessing the impact that wasteful and discriminatory project labor agreements (PLAs) have on his employer and the construction industry in Pennsylvania, and angered by federal and state policies promoting the use of PLAs on taxpayer-funded work, John Falk decided it was time to take action.

Falk began circulating a petition urging Congress to overturn President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 and enact legislation to guarantee fair and open competition on federally supported construction.  He plans to WALK from York, Pa. to the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. to hand deliver the petition to his member of Congress.

That’s right, walk.  He plans to start this Friday, Sept. 17 with a send-off event in York, PA.  The map of his route is available here.

This effort is nothing short of inspiring.  Mr. Falk is availing himself of a basic America right, the right to petition his government for the redress of grievances.  He works in an industry that is already facing high unemployment and economic uncertainty, and he knows that public policy promoting PLAs stands to make things worse.

Additionally, after reviewing his website, it is clear that Falk understands the inherent unfairness of PLAs.  These Big Labor handouts funnel taxpayer-funded projects to one special interest group at the expense of the 85 percent of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union.

A website dedicated to Mr. Falk’s journey was launched this week.  It tells his story, will chronicle his progress and gives people the opportunity to add their name to his petition.  This site is available at www.89milesforfreedom.com.

There is also a Facebook page for this effort, which is available here.  We strongly encourage you to visit the website, “like” the Facebook page and send this information out to your contacts.  The main website is really well done and people still have the opportunity to sign the petition through the site.

The walk is scheduled to begin this Friday in York, PA.  Again, the route is available on his website at http://89milesforfreedom.com/where/.

Bravo Mr. Falk, bravo!

We’ll also be following his progress on TheTruthAboutPLAa.  Please check back for updates starting tomorrow.

Here is the Tribune-Review’s take (“The Penn Hills PLA,” 9/8/10):

Eight Penn Hills School District board members who voted to require only union labor on a construction project ensured that taxpayers will bear needless additional costs — and set a bad example for students.

Those eight are guilty of “failing to do their homework” before voting for the project labor agreement (PLA) on Penn Hills’ $130 million high school and elementary center project, as Bob Glancy put it. He’s chairman of Associated Builders & Contractors of Western Pennsylvania, whose members employ the 85 percent of area construction workers who aren’t unionized — firms and workers who are unfairly denied opportunities by PLAs.

The group, whose lawsuit over another PLA prompted Community College of Allegheny County to halt bidding on a science center project, is considering suing the school district, too. So one way or another, Penn Hills taxpayers will pay more — either for district legal costs or for costs that the district’s PLA will add to its project, as studies prove that PLAs do.

Still, it’s a “teachable moment.” Penn Hills students get real-world lessons about the consequences of blowing off homework and disregarding basic economics — lessons their elders on the board should have learned long ago.

As usual, the Tribune-Review is right on point.

If you live in this school district, we strongly encourage you to contact your school board members at 412-793-7000 and tell them that taxpayers deserve the best construction product for the best price.  Say NO to wasteful and discriminatory PLAs.

UPDATE: Here is a great blog post from a Penn Hills resident that is not happy with their school boards “sop” to Big Labor: http://www.libertyreborn.com/2010/09/09/penn-hills-school-district-lays-down-with-dogs/