Thursday, by a bipartisan vote of 211 to 209, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and cosponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310) that prohibits federal agencies from mandating anti-competitive and costly project labor agreements (PLAs) and using PLA preferences on federal construction contracts authorized by the NDAA.

“This is a victory for the nation’s merit shop construction contractors and the 86 percent of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union,” said Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) Vice President of Federal Affairs Geoff Burr. “With a construction industry unemployment rate of 14.5 percent, everyone deserves a level playing field to compete for this work, regardless of labor affiliation.

“The amendment passed today will ensure fair and open competition on government-funded construction contracts, as well as give taxpayers and the government the best possible construction product at the best possible price – completed safely and on time,” Burr said. “We thank the members of Congress who voted in favor of this amendment.”

Historic Win
This was the first time the U.S. House passed legislation ensuring fair and open competition in federal contracting. During the first session of the 112th Congress, the House voted three times on similar measures. Each effort failed by a razor thin margin (210-210 , 207-213 and 204-203).

On Friday, construction labor unions benefitting from PLA favoritism in federal contracting cut back-room deals and lobbied furiously for a re-vote on the Bartlett amendment. However, House members supportive of discrimination in federal contracting and their special interest lobbyists were unable to muster enough supporters to ensure a successful re-vote, so they withdrew their effort.

It was another victory for taxpayers, free enterprise and the merit shop contracting community.

The NDAA passed the House 299-120 on Friday afternoon.

House Appropriations Committee Supports Fair and Open Competition
On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee passed via voice vote a similar amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on federal and federally assisted construction projects funded in the MilCon/VA FY 2013 appropriations bill.

PLA proponents are expected to attempt to push an amendment to strike this language from the MilCon/VA FY 2013 appropriations bill when it is considered on the House floor later this month.

Efforts Restore Government Neutrality in Contracting
Both measures restore open competition and government neutrality toward government contractors’ labor relations on Department of Defense construction projects authorized and funded by these two pieces of legislation.

Provisions in both bills closely mirror language contained in President George W. Bush’s Executive Order No. 13202 and Executive Order No. 13208, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in the Allbaugh case. The Bush executive orders declared that neither the federal government, nor any agency acting with federal assistance, shall require or prohibit construction contractors to sign union agreements as a condition of performing work on government construction projects.

Allbaugh remains the controlling case on government-mandated PLA law and affirms that governments can mandate a position of neutrality when it comes to a contractor’s use of a PLA, as is the intent of both of these measures.

From 2001 until it was repealed by President Obama’s Feb. 6, 2009, pro-PLA Executive Order 13502, President Bush’s executive orders ensured there were no government-mandated PLAs on $147 billion worth of federal construction projects and hundreds of billions of dollars of federally assisted construction projects.

Under the Bush orders, firms were free to enter into PLAs on a voluntary basis. Research found that the government’s position of neutrality toward PLAs fostered fair and open competition and contributed to the completion of safe, on-time and on-budget projects. In short, PLA mandates were unnecessary.

Additional research suggests government-mandated PLAs can needlessly increase costs and typically force nonunion construction workers to pay union dues, join a union and receive reduced take-home pay and no benefits during the life of a PLA project unless they join a union and become vested in union benefits programs.

The Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (H.R. 735), introduced by Congressman John Sullivan (R-Okla.) and cosponsored by 176 other House members, essentially codifies into law President Bush’s executive orders ensuring fair and open competition on federal and federally assisted construction projects.  It remains in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and was the subject of a subcommittee hearing last year.

Coalition Supports Efforts
A coalition of construction and business groups sent a letter to the full House in support of the Bartlett amendment to the NDAA highlighting concerns with the Obama administration’s anti-competitive and costly pro-PLA policy:

President Obama’s Feb. 6, 2009, Executive Order 13502 encourages federal agencies to require PLAs on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost on a case-by-case basis in order to “advance the economy and efficiency in federal contracting.”

However, studies of construction projects subject to prevailing wage laws found PLA mandates increase the cost of construction between 12 percent and 18 percent compared to similar non-PLA projects. Recent government-mandated PLAs on federal projects have resulted in increased costs, delays and discrimination.

In addition, the executive order and related FAR regulations have exposed agency procurement officials to intense political pressure from special interest groups and politicians to mandate PLAs on federal projects even when they are not appropriate.

The Bartlett amendment counteracts potential special interest favoritism by prohibiting federal agencies building projects authorized by this bill from mandating PLAs and implementing PLA preferences. However, it also permits federal agencies to award contracts to businesses that voluntarily enter into PLAs in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act.

During the Obama administration, a number of Department of Defense construction projects have been subjected to PLA mandates, or have attempted PLA mandates (here and here), discriminatory PLA preferences and onerous PLA surveys.

The diverse coalition opposed to government-mandated PLAs includes the following groups representing both union and nonunion employers and employees:

American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)
Associated General Contractors (AGC)
Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC)
Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT)
Independent Electrical Contractors (IEC)
Merit Elevator Contractors Association of America (MECAA)
National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC)
National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC)
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBEC)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Women Construction Owners & Executives, USA (WCOE, USA)

AGC’s letter supporting the Bartlett amendment highlights why union and nonunion contractors are opposed to government-mandated PLAs (emphasis added):

“Government-mandated PLAs – whether mandated in contract specifications or mandated by government rules, regulation or by Executive Order – effectively compel both union and open shop contractors to alter their hiring practices, work rules, job assignments, and benefits in order to compete for, or to perform work on, publicly funded projects. PLAs typically restrict the majority of employment to those workers whom unions are willing to refer to the project. For these reasons, PLA mandates – even when competition is facially neutral and open to all contractors – effectively discriminate against open-shop companies, small companies, and disadvantaged businesses, limiting the number of competitors on a project, increasing costs to the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers. They can also negatively impact union contractors because the PLA supersedes the hard-fought terms and conditions a union has negotiated to achieve in its collective bargaining agreement.

Project owners have many ways to ensure that their construction contractors complete their projects in a timely manner, and there is no reliable evidence that PLAs improve the performance an owner can expect in the absence of such an agreement. In addition, PLAs can give rise to jurisdictional disputes that would not otherwise occur.

The choice of whether to enter into a collective bargaining agreement should be left to the employers and employees who will be subject to the agreement; the choice should not be imposed as a condition to, or advantage in, competing for publicly funded work. In cases where the use of a PLA would benefit a particular project, the construction contractors otherwise qualified to perform the work would be the first to recognize that fact and would adopt a PLA without the mandate.”

The Bartlett amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union:

“PLAs diminish the benefits of competitive contracting and, by effectively encouraging unionization, undercut an individual’s right to choose whether or not to be represented by a union.  PLAs are often the source of cost overruns and higher construction expenses, both of which are passed on to the taxpayer.”

The National Right to Work Committee’s letter to Congress in support of the Bartlett amendment explains the negative impact of government-mandated PLAs on nonunion workers and contractors:

“The fact is, union-only PLAs between public entities and contractors discriminate against independent-minded workers and contractors.

Unfortunately, state Right to Work laws don’t fully protect workers from forced-unionism abuse under PLAs. While Right to Work laws protect workers from forced dues and fees, under a PLA, workers are forced under terms and conditions exclusively negotiated by union bosses.

Worse, PLAs often force contractors and their employees to “contribute” to mismanaged union pension and benefit plans even if their workers already have their own plan. And, unless those employees are willing to give up their independence altogether by joining the union, they’ll likely never see the supposed “benefits” they’ve been forced to pay for.

By requiring union-only PLAs on taxpayer-funded projects, the federal government is essentially telling open or merit shop contractors they either turn their employees over to union boss control or forget about applying for the work. In these tough economic times especially, that’s the last thing Congress should allow!

Forbidding non-union contractors and workers from projects their tax dollars help fund amounts to state-sanctioned discrimination, plain and simple. Congress should never allow federal agencies to actively shut out or discriminate against well-qualified workers and contractors solely on the basis of union affiliation.

The fact is, union-only “Project Labor Agreements” are nothing more than an attempt by union officials to take even more power at the expense of workers and taxpayers.

Adoption of the Bartlett Amendment is critical, not just for non-union workers but for taxpayers as well. Contracts for any publicly-funded project should be awarded on merit, not on the basis of union affiliation.”

Learn about government-mandated PLAs and Right to Work here.

Continued:

“…In fact, studies of other union-only PLAs confirm they increase taxpayer expenses by at least 20%.

It is simple. Under PLAs, higher costs are exacted from taxpayers while individual workers are forced under monopoly union control at best and forced to pay dues or lose their jobs at worst.

By adopting the Bartlett Amendment, you would not only be protecting the rights of American workers and contractors but also defending the pocketbooks of the American taxpayers. Only Big Labor gains from union-only PLAs — not the majority of workers and taxpayers, not the majority of businesses, and not our nation’s economy.

The overwhelming majority of American workers, those who are not union members, should certainly not be denied access to the projects paid for by their taxes simply because they choose not to surrender their bargaining rights to a union boss…”

Review studies on the increased costs and reduced competition resulting from government-mandated PLAs here.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com applauds the House for passing the Bartlett amendment.  It is an important step in restoring fair and open competition in government contracting.

Check back for updates and media coverage.

Further Reading
Language of Bartlett Amendment No. 182
Floor Debate on Bartlett Amendment
Roll Call Vote on Bartlett Amendment
Coalition Letter of Support
ABC Letter of Support
AGC Letter of Support
NRTW Letter of Support
National Taxpayers Union Endorsement
Rep. Bartlett Press Release
Dear Colleague Letter of Support from Rep. Guinta (R-NH)
Building Trades Unions Materials Opposing Bartlett Amendment
Rebutting Misleading and Untrue Statements Union Lobbyists Make about Project Labor Agreements (PLAs)
The Legality of Legislation Restricting Government-Mandated PLAs
Packet Supporting Bartlett Amendment

The amendment was introduced by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and is similar to another amendment offered by Flake in 2011 that was approved by the committee but then later stripped out on the floor of the House via an amendment offered by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Oh.) in a 204-203 vote.

After today’s committee vote, ABC Vice President of Federal Affairs Geoff Burr urged Congress not repeat the same mistake.

“Merit shop contractors and their employees want nothing more than to give taxpayers and the government the best possible construction product at the best possible price, while performing the work safely and on time,” Burr said. “We call on Congress to oppose any effort that would strike this language from the bill.”

ABC also submitted a letter to the committee before the vote, pointing out that Congress must ensure construction projects funded by the bill are cost effective and administered without favoritism or discrimination. ABC noted that no language in Flake’s amendment would prevent a federal contractor from voluntarily entering into a PLA. Instead it will allow the free market to determine if a PLA is appropriate and will ensure fair and open competition on federal construction contracts.

“Rep. Flake’s amendment will eliminate inefficiencies in the federal contracting procurement process, increase competition, reduce costs and create construction jobs while protecting the public interest,” ABC wrote in the letter.

A coalition of construction and business groups also sent a letter to the committee in support of the Flake amendment highlighting concerns with the Obama administration’s pro-PLA policy:

President Obama’s Feb. 6, 2009, Executive Order 13502 encourages federal agencies to require PLAs on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost on a case-by-case basis in order to “advance the economy and efficiency in federal contracting.”

However, studies of construction projects subject to prevailing wage laws found PLA mandates increase the cost of construction between 12 percent and 18 percent compared to similar non-PLA projects. Recent government-mandated PLAs on federal projects have resulted in increased costs, delays and discrimination.

In addition, the executive order and related FAR regulations have exposed agency procurement officials to intense political pressure from special interest groups and politicians to mandate PLAs on federal projects even when they are not appropriate.

The Flake amendment counteracts potential special interest favoritism by prohibiting federal agencies building projects authorized by this bill from mandating PLAs and implementing PLA preferences. However, it also permits federal agencies to award contracts to businesses that voluntarily enter into PLAs in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act.

The diverse coalition includes the following groups representing both union and nonunion employers and employees:

American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)
Associated General Contractors (AGC)
Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC)
Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT)
Independent Electrical Contractors (IEC)
Merit Elevator Contractors Association of America (MECAA)
National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC)
National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC)
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBEC)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Women Construction Owners & Executives, USA (WCOE, USA)

AGC’s letter supporting the Flake amendment can be found here.

The Flake amendment language mirrors critical provisions upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in the Allbaugh case, which upheld President George W. Bush’s Executive Order No. 13202 and and Executive Order No. 13208. The Bush executive orders declared that neither the federal government, nor any agency acting with federal assistance, shall require or prohibit construction contractors to sign union agreements as a condition of performing work on government construction projects.

The Allbaugh case remains the controlling case on government-mandated PLA law and affirms that governments can mandate a position of neutrality when it comes to a contractor’s use of a PLA, as is the intent of the Flake amendment.

In the 112th Congress the House has voted three times on similar pro-fair and open competition amendments (see Roll Call 126 | Roll Call 369 | Roll Call 413). Each effort to restrict government-mandated PLAs failed by a slim margin (a 210-210 tie, 207-213, and 204-203).

During the Obama administration, a number of MilCon/VA projects have been subjected to PLA mandates, attempted PLA mandates (here and here), discriminatory PLA preferences and PLA surveys.

It is unclear when the MilCon/VA Appropriations Bill for FY 2013 will be considered on the House floor.

Check back for updates.

Eric Christen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) recently debated former San Diego City Council Member Donna Frye on the merits of Proposition A, which would ban government-mandated project labor agreements on city funded projects.

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

H.B. 33 prohibits the Commonwealth of Virginia and recipients of state assistance from mandating project labor agreements (PLAs) and enacting PLA preferences discriminating against bidders unwilling to execute PLAs.

Seven states passed similar legislation in 2011; Virginia is the first state to do so in 2012. A total of 12 states have enacted measures restricting the use of anti-competitive and costly government-mandated PLAs, and additional states may pass similar laws this year.

Virginia Del. Barbara Comstock, who introduced H.B. 33 with chief co-patrons Del. Tim Hugo and Del. David Ramadan, released a statement supporting the measure’s passage:

“H.B. 33 is commonsense legislation that will guarantee competition and a level playing field for all Virginia workers and businesses. This bill protects the 96 percent of Virginia workers who are nonunion. It commits that Virginia workers won’t be robbed of jobs through crony contracting and makes sure that Virginia’s tax dollars are spent wisely and stretched to respond to our transportation and infrastructure needs.”

The issue of government-mandated PLAs and PLA preferences has been hotly debated in Virginia and the greater Washington, D.C., area as a result of the PLA mandate controversy on Phase 2 construction of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority’s (MWAA) $2.8 billion Dulles metro rail project known as the Silver Line.

In April 2011, MWAA mandated a PLA on Phase 2 of the project. In the face of months of PLA mandate opposition by Phase 2 funding partners, stakeholders, lawmakers, taxpayers and Virginia’s construction industry, MWAA abandoned the PLA mandate in February. However, MWAA was heavily criticized by stakeholders for substituting the PLA mandate with a preference policy that amounts to a de facto PLA mandate. (Note: Here is a copy of the draft PLA circulated by MWAA board member and Laborers Union Vice President Dennis Martire. Learn more about MWAA and the PLA mandate and preference controversy here).

“Passage of this legislation should send a wakeup call to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board (MWAA) that they need to work with all of their funding partners who seek a level playing field for all Virginia workers,” said Comstock. “With passage of this legislation, MWAA can no longer stack the deck for union contractors. Instead of pushing union mandates and union preferences, they should do what is best for Virginia and comply with the law and our right-to-work tradition that treats all employees equally.”

Virginia’s Budget Targets MWAA’s PLA Preference Scheme
Last week Virginia passed a budget containing language from Delegate Hugo that prevents Virginia from giving money to projects implementing a PLA preference, such as Phase 2 of the Silver Line.

While the Republican-controlled House passed a budget three times, Senate Democrats delayed passage of the budget for nearly 40 days. They held out for an additional $300 million of funding for Phase 2 of the Silver Line, but the evenly divided Senate approved the budget without additional funding when Sen. Charles J. Colgan (D-Prince William) voted with Senate Republicans.

According to the original Silver Line funding agreement, the project is financed by MWAA (4.1 percent), Fairfax County (16.1 percent), Loudoun County (4.8 percent) and the Commonwealth of Virginia ($275 million total). Toll revenue generated from the MWAA-owned and operated Dulles Toll Road will fund the remainder of Phase 2.

MWAA Can Do the Right Thing
The passage of H.B. 33 and the Virginia budget containing language prohibiting MWAA’s PLA preference schemes will force MWAA to choose between abandoning their discriminatory PLA preference policy benefiting special interests, or forfeiting Virginia’s planned $150 million contribution to Phase 2 costs.

Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton’s letter to Silver Line stakeholders in Northern Virginia establishes a list of conditions MWAA must meet in order to receive Virginia’s pledged $150 million this year and possible future funding from the Commonwealth.

In addition, Loudoun County has until July 1 to decide if they want to fund their share of the Silver Line. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors have repeatedly told MWAA that they must eliminate a PLA preference and mandate if they want Loudoun to fund the project and have raised additional concerns about maintenance costs.

MWAA said the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of Loudoun and Virginia contributions to Phase 2 would simply be passed on to Dulles Toll Road motorists via increased tolls.  Stakeholders are concerned that raising tolls in excess of the already expensive toll projections needed to finance Phase 2 will decrease traffic and related revenue, which will disrupt already tenuous Silver Line financing models.

Last week, MWAA announced Phase 1 was expected to finish at least $150 million over budget and it has delayed the release of the Phase 2 RFQ until July, when funding commitments are expected from Loudoun County.

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is meeting with stakeholders on Wednesday to get this project back on track.

Phase 1 was built with a PLA voluntarily entered into by the Phase 1 prime contractor, Dulles Transit Partners (DTP).  However, it did not apply to Phase 1 subcontractors. A DTP report revealed that the majority of construction workers employed by DTP on Phase 1 are union members from Maryland dispatched through union hiring halls under the rules of the PLA, despite the fact the project is in Virginia and 97.4 percent of Virginia’s construction workforce does not belong to a union (see coverage in “Maryland workers outnumber Virginians on Dulles Rail project,” 2/17/12).

Merit Shop Applauds H.B. 33
ABC Virginia applauded the passage of H.B. 33, which it strongly supports:

 “This legislation will enhance competition, protect and expand opportunities for qualified Virginia employers and their skilled workers, and help ensure Virginia obtains the best product and service at the best price.”

Earlier this year, TheTruthAboutPLAs.com urged taxpayers to contact their legislators and encourage them to support H.B. 33 and Sen. Mark Obenshain’s companion legislation in the Virginia Senate, S.B. 242 (pdf). Kudos to everyone who contacted their elected officials and participated in this legislative process.

TheTruthAbouPLAs.com applauds the passage of H.B. 33 and a Virginia budget ensuring fair and open competition on all taxpayer-funded construction projects. We thank Virginia Delegates Comstock, Hugo, Ramadan, Sen. Obenshain, the McDonnell administration and all of the local and state stakeholder groups for their leadership on this important issue.

It is time for MWAA to eliminate the PLA mandate and preference schemes and ensure fair and open competition for Phase 2 construction contracts. Doing so will ensure critical funding from Phase 2 stakeholders, create jobs for Virginia’s construction industry and the community served by the Silver Line, and help deliver to taxpayers the best possible project at the best possible price.

However, data continues to show that construction union multiemployer pension plans (MEPPs) are in serious financial trouble, which calls into question the wisdom of elected officials pushing MEPPs onto qualified contractors and craft professionals through PLA mandates.

A new report shining light on the dreadful health of MEPPs for U.S. union workers and retirees estimates such plans are only 52 percent funded, with a $369 billion shortfall (Dan McCrum & Ajay Makan, “US Union Pensions Hole Deepens To $369 Billion,” Financial Times, 4/8/12 and “The Multiheaded Pension Monster,” WSJ, 4/23/12 ).

The March 26, 2012, Credit Suisse report paints a grim financial picture for firms, workers and retirees participating in MEPPs, concluding the deficit in these plans could more than triple if participating companies calculate their funding levels using fair market values.

Construction Industry MEPPs Are Troubled
While the report does not measure the specific exposure of construction industry MEPPs to underfunding, data from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)—the federal agency created in 1974 to monitor and insure pension benefits in private sector defined benefit plans—indicates the construction industry is a key contributor to the drastic overall underfunding of MEPPs.

Fifty-five percent of the 1,488 MEPPs insured by the PBGC are in the construction industry, according to the most recent PBGC report using 2009 data (see table M-8: PBGC-Insured Plans and Participants by Industry (2009) Multiemployer Program).

The largest number of employees from any industry, about 3.885 million or 37.4 percent of all PBGC-insured MEPP participants (workers and retirees), are from the construction industry.

Construction MEPPs are responsible for about $167 billion (or 47 percent) worth of PBGC-insured MEPP underfunding (see Table M-14: Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Industry (2009, estimated) Multiemployer Program).

In 2009, the PBGC reported the construction industry was responsible for about $87.8 billion (or 45 percent) worth of PBGC-insured MEPP underfunding (see Table M-14: Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Industry (2007) Multiemployer Program).

The construction industry MEPP underfunding doubled in a few years, and it is likely to get worse. Yet, the public won’t know the real-time financial implications because there is a two-year lag in the public reporting of the health of MEPPs. The public does not yet know the health of MEPPs for the 2010 and 2011.

Will the MEPP Crisis Result in a Taxpayer Bailout?
The PBGC has publicly raised concerns about the simmering funding crisis because its balance sheet is impacted by the health of MEPPs. MEPP insolvency triggers the PBGC’s guarantee and loans are provided to the MEPP (those loans are rarely repaid by the MEPP) to help it pay guaranteed benefits (up to $12,870 per year per individual beneficiary), according to the Credit Suisse report. PBGC financing comes from insurance premiums paid by companies insured by the PBGC, as well as other sources such as investment income, plan assets and other recoveries. Taxes do not fund the PBGC plans…yet.

Engineering News-Record reported that PBGC’s fiscal 2011 report estimates the number of insolvent MEPPs would more than double in five years. (“Pension Agency Sees Rise in Aid to Ailing Multiemployer Plans,” 12/5/11):

PBGC estimates its “reasonably possible” obligations to multiemployer plan participants were $23 billion at the end of fiscal 2011, up from $20 billion a year earlier and $326 million in 2009. PBGC says the main reason for the increase in potential obligations to multiemployer plans is that two large plans were added to the “reasonably possible” inventory.

[snip]

PBGC reports it provided $115 million in aid to 49 multiemployer plans in 2011, up from $97 million in aid to 50 plans in 2010. Because added plans failed, PBGC says its multiemployer plan insurance program’s deficit jumped to $2.8 billion in 2011 from a $1.4-billion shortfall in 2010.

That’s right. The PBGC’s MEPP insurance program deficit doubled in one year. If this deficit continues to climb, expect calls from Big Labor and its beltway pals to orchestrate a backroom-deal PBGC bailout. Caps on annual monetary contributions from the PBGC to insolvent MEPPs and participants could be raised significantly because taxpayers would foot the bill instead of private revenue generated by the PBGC.

Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) tried to execute a similar bailout in 2010, described in this Aug. 15, 2010, Wall Street Journal editorial. So did Reps. Patrick Tiberi (R-Ohio) and Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), according to this RealClearMarkets column by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor.

If re-elected, President Obama and Democrats in Congress may consider a bailout of the union MEPPs through the PBGC. The current maximum of $12,870 per year MEPP beneficiaries are guaranteed through the PBGC is possible only if the PBGC has the money. If Democrats use the PBGC to bail out the union MEPPs, they first have to bail out the PBGC.

MEPPs in the Construction Industry
All MEPPs are defined by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. They cover workers from more than one employer. Employer contributions, determined by collective bargaining with a labor union, fund the plan. These plans exist to provide benefits to unionized workers in businesses characterized by frequent job and employer switching, such as union craftspeople in the construction industry. They do so by considering service with multiple employers under the same plan as if the worker had worked for the same employer during the life of their career.

Unionized contractors receive craft labor from union hiring halls composed of tradespeople who specialize in a specific craft (e.g., IBEW dispatches electricians and LiUNA dispatches laborers).  During their career, union workers may be dispatched by union halls to dozens of union-signatory contractor employers. Designated union bosses and union contractors administer pension plans that multiple union-signatory employers must pay into on behalf of employed trade union members in accordance with their respective collective bargaining agreement(s) with a construction union.

In contrast, quality merit shop contractors typically hire, train and invest resources in tradespeople who work exclusively for the company in a traditional employee/employer relationship. These contractors provide common benefits packages including a portable 401(k), paid time off, training and profit sharing to attract and retain skilled, experienced employees.

MEPPs Opposed by Merit Shop for Decades
As TheTruthAboutPLAs.com has stated many times, one of the reasons nonunion contractors are discouraged from competing for contracts on construction projects subject to government-mandated PLAs is because of typical provisions in a PLA that require employers to pay employee benefits into Big Labor’s MEPPs for the life of a PLA project.

In rare instances when nonunion employees (and union employees who do not belong to unions that are favored in PLAs) and their employers participate in PLA projects, employers must make benefit contributions to Big Labor’s MEPPs on behalf of their employees. These benefit contributions are forfeited to the MEPP unless employees join a union and meet vesting schedules defined by each plan.

An October 2009 report by Dr. John R. McGowan, “The Discriminatory Impact of Union Fringe Benefit Requirements on Nonunion Workers Under Government-Mandated Project Labor Agreements,” found that employees of nonunion contractors forced to perform work under government-mandated PLAs suffer a reduction in their take-home pay that is conservatively estimated at 20 percent.

Besides stealing benefits rightfully earned by construction employees working on a PLA project, PLA pension provisions are a windfall for Big Labor’s MEPPs because the MEPPs don’t have to pay future benefits to those employees. Though small in comparison to overall funding shortfalls, these contributions prop up insolvent MEPPs and hide the flawed structure and Ponzi-scheme economics of MEPPs.

For decades, merit shop firms have offered alternative retirement plans for their workforce in lieu of MEPPs because they know union MEPPs cannot be financially sustained in the long term. Construction industry stakeholders have only recently publicly addressed MEPP underfunding, partially because of scrutiny from the financial industry.

For example, data from Moody’s Global Corporate Finance’s Sept. 10, 2009, report, “Growing Multiemployer Pension Funding Shortfall is an Increasing Credit Concern,” measured the crisis faced by construction industry MEPPs. Using 2007 numbers as a starting point, Moody’s estimates that 2008 underfundings for construction MEPPs ballooned to $72.484 billion, or a 54 percent funded level. In other words, for every dollar that these construction MEPPs owe, they hold only 54 cents of invested assets.

With unemployment in the construction industry at 17 percent as of March 2012, it is no surprise that contractors (specifically union contractors) that participate in these MEPPs are going out of business. And when MEPP participants go belly up, the burden on employers remaining in the MEPPs becomes greater. Bankrupt contractors that can’t pay their fair share to MEPPs create additional liability for a MEPP’s remaining employer participants, which produces all sorts of disastrous consequences like forcing more employers out of business, weakening already struggling MEPPs and forcing the PBGC to step in.

The Blame Game
The recession, decline in construction industry union membership, high industry unemployment rate, and a looming construction industry workforce shortage point to future insolvency for many MEPPs.

In response, Big Labor has tried to exploit its political clout to fix its pension woes by pushing lawmakers and unelected bureaucrats at the National Labor Relations Board to pass rules that will make it easier for unions to organize and add new members to the basement of their MEPP scheme (see the Employee Free Choice Act/Card Check, Executive Order 13502, Ambush Elections, Micro Unions and Invasion of Privacy).

In addition, unions have ratcheted up rhetoric blaming their pension troubles on Wall Street and the recession.  Instead of pushing reasonable solutions like adjusting benefits, increasing contributions, preventing fraud and waste, executing sound investment and management strategies, and diverting hundreds of millions of dollars of discretionary union political spending to pension plans, unions are playing the blame game and posturing for a bailout from Uncle Sam. The union MEPP crisis is a key reason why unions are hijacking the Occupy Wall Street movement and asking this loaded question: If Wall Street can get a bailout, why shouldn’t union pension plans?

However, the shaky financial condition of some MEPPs was obvious pre-recession and occurred under the watch of union pension trustees, such as this example from a TheTruthAboutPLAs post:

The Sheet Metal Workers National Pension fund discloses the plan’s annual funding levels for plan participants here.  The SMWIA union’s own pension fund documents indicate that on 1/1/2008, the fund was just 52.2 percent funded.

So just three months after the Dow closed at an all-time high of 14,164 on 10/9/07, the pension fund took such a big loss in the stock market that the plan ended the year at 52.2 percent funded? Something doesn’t smell right.

This July 26, 2009, WSJ article points to similar anecdotes of pre-recession MEPP underfunding in other industries and inequality between the pension plans of rank-and-file members and Big Labor Bosses:

Poor management probably deserves a lot of the blame for the union decline, but the exact causes are a mystery. An even bigger mystery is that the unions do a far better job with funds created for their officers and employees than for mere workers. The SEIU Affiliates, Officers and Employees Pension Plan—which covers the staff and bosses at its locals—was funded as of 2007 at 102.2%. The plan for the folks at SEIU international headquarters was funded at 84.8%.

A September 2009 report on union pension plans by the Hudson Institute, “Comparing Union-Sponsored and Private Pension Plans: How Safe Are Workers’ Retirements?” found similar results and highlighted the disparities between union officer pension plans and union member plans. So does this piece.

Get to Know Your MEPP
The U.S. Department of Labor provides a list of all MEPPs in the critical and endangered status here. We’ve sorted through the growing list and identified construction industry MEPPs in this easy-to-search spreadsheet. Check to see if the MEPP you are participating in (or your competitors pay into) is in trouble.

For too long construction industry employees, contractors and lawmakers have been fooled into thinking union MEPPs deserve special treatment, are without fault and are a safe retirement strategy. The truth is that many plans are not in good shape and haven’t been healthy even in the best of economic times. Construction industry MEPPs have offered little transparency, accountability or meaningful solutions.  Workers, contractors and taxpayers should expect more of the same without proper education, oversight and corrective action.

Share your thoughts, concerns and anecdotes on this issue in the comments section.

Required Reading

• Multiemployer Pension Plans Face Uncertain Future (pdf)
• A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Taft-Hartley (pdf)
• Outstanding WSJ analysis in this editorial (8/15/10): “The Next Pension Bailout” (pdf)
• Construction Unions Push PLAs to Save Underfunded Union Pension Plans
• Construction Union Pension Plans and Project Labor Agreements
• New Report Finds PLA Pension Requirements Steal From Employee Paychecks, Harm Employers and Taxpayers
• Construction Unions Posture for Pension Bailout?

Readers can keyword search “pensions” to review the numerous posts TheTruthAboutPLAs.com has written about the link between government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) and MEPPs.

UPDATE 5/15/12: The WSJ wrote about this piece, “The Union Pension Bomb: Multi-employer plans look to be in big trouble,” 5/14/12. Take a look.

On Friday, March 23, Meriden Record-Journal op-ed writer Eric Cotton authored a strong piece urging the city not to require a wasteful and discriminatory PLA on two future school construction projects.  Here are the highlights from his op-ed “Skip the PLA“:

The local building trades unions are looking for an exclusive deal that would guarantee they receive the lion’s share of $220 million in renovation work, overriding the normal bidding process. In return, the city would get access to qualified union contractors, a guarantee of no work stoppages and assurances that 30 percent of the work would go to local residents, if possible.

But there’s already an abundance of qualified contractors available. With jobs in the construction industry so scarce, it won’t be difficult to find good people — union or non-union — to work on the high schools. Strikes and other work stoppages are also unlikely. And city officials are already looking into other ways of setting goals for hiring local workers.

There’s little need, at least from the city’s perspective, for a project labor agreement, or PLA.

<Snip>

The city has to protect the interests of taxpayers. Residents can hardly afford to shoulder additional costs from the high school projects as they struggle to make ends meet. Controlling costs is a big part of making sure the renovations go smoothly and it starts with the competitive bidding process. But PLAs, by their very nature, eliminate competition.

“When you eliminate competition, prices go up,” Petro said.

The unions argue that non-union companies are welcome to bid on PLA projects, which is true. But those companies would need to abide by the terms of the agreement, which means they have to rely on the unions to provide most of the workers, all but a few essential supervisors. That makes submitting an accurate bid nearly impossible since the non-union companies will be using workers they’re unfamiliar with. Fringe benefits are also handled differently in union and non-union situations, putting non-union shops at a disadvantage when bidding on PLA projects. This effectively eliminates them from the equation.

Since Meriden happens to have a lot of non-union contractors, that could make it more difficult to meet local hiring goals.

<Snip>

At any rate, in this climate, the city will be better off handling the school projects through the normal bidding process and with union and non-union contractors ultimately working side by side at Platt and Maloney.

Mr. Cotton is exactly right.  PLAs have a long history of reducing competition, which leads to increased construction costs, and not guaranteeing a local workforce.

PLA mandates also discriminate against the 80 percent of Connecticut’s construction workforce that chooses not to join an union and won’t have the opportunity to fairly compete for projects funded by their own tax dollars.

We urge the Meriden City Council to stand firm against Big Labor’s pressure and say no to PLA requirements on future school construction.

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.

An Albany County Supreme Court ruled March 1 that the government-mandated PLA issued by NYS DOT violated state procurement laws. The court found that the NYS DOT failed to demonstrate that the decision to require a PLA advanced the state’s interests in the procurement of construction services. The court ordered NYS DOT to re-bid the project.

Here are the highlights from the press release issued by the Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC):

“The ruling effectively means the DOT was flawed in its decision to add a project labor agreement to the job, which would cost taxpayers $4.5 million more than necessary,” said Mark Galasso, President of Lancaster Development, Inc. “As a contractor and taxpayer I am pleased by today’s decision.”

The court on Friday ruled the PLA illegal and thus nullified the existing contract. This means the state DOT must rebid the project.

“The ruling shows a failure by New York State Department of Transportation officials to comply with the competitive bidding rules set out by state law,” said Steve Lefebvre, President of ABC. “Thanks to the court’s decision the project will be rebid, to the benefit of the taxpayers. When this project goes out to be rebid, I would caution the DOT not to attempt the inclusion of a PLA, as we have just seen an open and fair bidding process is the best way to maximize cost savings on public work projects.”

Lefebvre further added that the decision rendered by the court confirms what the ABC has said right from the start, that Project Labor Agreements are subjective and subject to questionable insider negotiations.

In this ruling, the judge points out several alarming issues that arose during the court’s examination of NYS DOT’s attempt to implement a PLA mandate.

Throughout the legal process, the courts ordered NYS DOT to hand over correspondence and other documents surrounding the process used to determine that a PLA is appropriate for this project.  In the decision, the judge takes NYS DOT to task for not being able to produce all the documents involved in the decision to require a PLA despite repeated requests by the court.  At best, this is evidence of sloppiness on the part of NYS DOT.  At worst, it could indicate that they have something to hide.  Either way, it is troubling.

The court also criticized the department’s handling of its feasibility study process.  In New York, public entities are required to obtain a feasibility study prior to requiring contractors to sign a PLA as a condition of performing work.  The study must demonstrate that the PLA mandate will promote the public interest through the: “(1) protection of the public finances by obtaining the best work at the lowest possible price; and (2) prevention of favoritism, improvidence, fraud and corruption in the awarding of public contracts.”

The court found the decision to require a PLA was not supported by either the first draft of the feasibility study developed by Arace & Company Consulting, LLC or NYS DOT’s own initial research.  The department relied on the more PLA-friendly second draft of the Arace study to justify the PLA mandate.  This second study was released to the department approximately one month after the first draft and with virtually no new evidence, endorsed the PLA mandate to a degree that the initial draft did not.

Clearly, the department wanted a PLA mandate on this project.  You don’t need to look any further than the fact that they threw out a bid from a qualified contractor for nearly $5 million more than the next lowest bid to determine NYS DOT’s intent.

The project will now be rebid.  We hope fair and open competition will trump Big Labor favoritism this time.

We also hope this incident will prompt lawmakers to take a closer look at The Public Construction Savings Act (S. 4121/A. 7855).  This bill would prohibit government-mandated PLAs on public construction projects.  It would guarantee that PLAs would be used when they make sense and ensure that taxpayers get the best construction at the best price.

…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