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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Chris does an outstanding job explaining how PLAs negatively impact Michigan’s taxpayers and the 80 percent of Michigan’s construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union.

Hear the interview

…we now have another reason to be concerned about the proposed solar and wind projects for the desert: Union groups are attempting to block projects unless they get hiring agreements with the developers. Observers are calling it “greenmail,” as these groups are using the lengthy, complicated environmental regulations that already make any sort of development difficult in order to challenge the approval of energy projects, but apparently only the projects that don’t have labor agreements. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors rejected last week a challenge by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Unions to stop the approval of a solar project in Kramer Junction. Their representatives claimed their concerns were about water use for the project, a claim that nobody with half a brain believes.

The editorial mentions how environmental objections delayed the construction of a Walmart distribution center in Barstow. It concludes by decrying how this union tactic hinders economic growth and job creation:

And so Barstow has to wait for more jobs to come. The irony that the people hurt most by these labor actions are other laborers is lost on these folks. They don’t grasp that if their actions keep causing projects to be canceled or delayed, this ultimately reduces demand for construction workers, pushing labor value down. Their actions result in laborers getting paid less, not more. No wonder private sector unions are on the decline in America, down to less than 9 percent, levels not seen since 1932.

The February 9, 2011 Barstow Desert Dispatch and Victorville Daily Press (Kramer Junction Solar Project Approved by Board of Supervisors / Supervisors OK Kramer Junction Solar Project – same article text) reported on the controversy at the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors over the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) greenmail against the 40-megawatt solar photovoltaic generating facility in the Mojave Desert. Remarks by ABC of California are in the article, along with remarks from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction:

Members of two organizations that are opposing labor unions that attempt to stop or delay solar projects say that the labor unions are essentially using elements of the California Environmental Quality Act to “greenmail” project developers into signing project labor agreements. Once a developer signs a labor agreement, the opposition to the project disappears, said Kevin Dayton, state government affairs director for Associated Builders and Contractors of California.

Dayton said that labor unions are the biggest obstacle to solar projects in California because of their attempts to get project developers to sign labor agreements. He said that he hoped that Gov. Jerry Brown would amend CEQA in order to keep labor unions from blocking solar projects throughout California.

A representative of another organization opposing the “greenmail” tactics used by labor unions said that he believes that the lawsuits and environmental injunctions filed on the behalf of labor unions are going to become increasingly common in Southern California. Eric Christen, a representative of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, said that the project developers normally win such disputes, but pointed out that such delays cost money and can cause a developer to cancel the project.

“Is the delay and the cost of the delay worth the win?” asked Christen.

Neither the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) nor the representative of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo was available to the reporter for comment.

Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction appeared on the Rick Amato Show on KCBQ AM 1170 in San Diego during its February 9 evening broadcast to discuss this incident. Amato declared his excitement about a group actually being immersed in the fray to stand up to the unions and support the taxpayers.

Meanwhile, Kevin Dayton, Government Affairs Director for Associated Builders and Contractors of California, appeared on the “Top Story @ 6” / Chris Reed Show on KOGO AM 600 in San Diego during its February 14 evening broadcast to discuss union exploitation of the California Environmental Quality Act to squeeze costly Project Labor Agreements out of solar energy developers. Dayton suggested that Governor Jerry Brown work with legitimate environmental groups to reform CEQA so that unions can no longer exploit the law for purposes unrelated to environmental protection.

Eric Christen will be speaking in support of Proposition A (the position in support of fair and open competition, job creation, and protecting taxpayers) and Lorena Gonzalez will be speaking against Proposition A (the position in support of costly and discriminatory construction union monopolies).

Christen and Gonzalez are intellectual brawlers known for their hard-hitting positions and aggressive debating styles.  This debate promises to be quite entertaining as well as educational.

Proposition A, on the November 2 ballot, would prohibit San Diego County from entering into contracts that require construction companies to sign project labor agreements (PLAs) with unions.

The radio debate will be on KPBS: These Days with Maureen Cavanaugh.  You can listen on the radio on 89.5 FM or online at http://www.kpbs.org/news/these-days/.

UPDATE:

Check out this video that breaks down Ms. Gonzalez’s misinformation:

UPDATE #2:

Listen to a recording of the debate and read the comments here:

Should County Ban Project Labor Agreements? | KPBS.org

Brubeck was invited onto the program to discuss how the free market is being distorted by anti-competitive and costly government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) and President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502, which encourages federal agencies to funnel lucrative federal construction contracts exceeding $25 million to unionized contractors and their union employees via PLAs.

Listen to the interview here at the 29:15 mark.

March 15, 2010, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver took a page out of President Obama’s “Big Labor favor” playbook and signed a state executive order similar to Executive Order 13502 that applies to state-funded construction projects exceeding $25 million in Iowa.

Culver’s Executive Order 22 is viewed by many as a sop to Big Labor in order to obtain Big Labor’s support during his re-election campaign this November. 

This controversial topic has also been grabbing headlines in recent months.

In June, the Iowa University Board of Regents voted 5-4, along party lines, in favor of requiring a PLAon the construction of the $73 million outpatient clinic for the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Coralville, IA after the Culver order pushed them towards using a PLA.

In July, Iowa gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad spoke out against Culver’s anti-competitive and costly pro-PLA policy, which led to statements from both campaigns, labor and the business community about this divisive issue.

On the radio program, Laura Ingraham and Jeremy Price explain to listeners how Obama and Culver’s pro-PLA executive orders are harming small businesses, like Price Industrial Electric, and their skilled and qualified workforce, while taxpayers are likely to foot the bill for increased construction costs as a result of anti-competitive PLAs.

Listen to the radio interview.

At 3:40, Laura Ingraham summarizes this issue best:

“The project labor agreement executive order was signed into law on Feb. 6, 2009. The President, right after being sworn into office as President of the United States, set about to reward the cronies in the unions across this country, and labor bosses/union bosses have been sitting pretty and riding the Obama wave ever since.

That means you are spending more money. How? Your tax dollars are paying for these federal projects. So the taxpayers suffer. Small business owners like Jeremy Price of Price Industrial Electric…he suffers. He is being undercut despite the fact that he will charge less, he will get the job done faster, you will have less bureaucracy, less red tape.

But guess what? In land Obama, the unions are in control. The unions reign supreme. That means they are in control….

This is an absolute outrage. If you are listening to this show….these project labor agreements, you need to find out about them in your area. You need to start speaking about them to your friends. You need to continue to shine the light on these excesses of union enhancement by this Obama administration.”

We agree with Laura Ingraham. Go home tonight and spread the truth about PLAs in your community.  Taxpayers deserve the best possible construction product at the best possible price instead of crony contracting and corruption.

Dick Lombardo, President and CEO of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) member Harkins Builders, discusses President Obama’s executive order encouraging the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction projects costing more than $25 million with the Liberty Pundits on the May 19 edition of their podcast.

The full podcast is available here.

The Liberty Pundits also blogged about their interview with Dick and the Obama order (Obama’s EO 13502, PLAs and Union Handouts (Again), 5/19).  Here are the highlights from their post:

I’ll admit my gut instinct was that this forced unionization was piling on. I assumed that the percentage of unionization was quite high in this type of work – large construction projects. But I was wrong. Only 14.5% of the construction industry is unionized. That means that over 85% of the available talent is either being frozen out of these contracts or being forced to join the union, if only for that project. That means union dues. That means paying into union pension funds without the longevity to vest. That means more union donations to dems running for office, more bussed-in town hall attendees, and more bullhorns and cute signs at MoveOn.org rallies. Oh joy.

Further, the EO gets cute and then ominous all in one short section: Sec. 5. This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project, nor does it preclude the use of a project labor agreement in circumstances not covered by this order, including leasehold arrangements and projects receiving Federal financial assistance. This order also does not require contractors or subcontractors to enter into a project labor agreement with any particular labor organization.

Does not “require” a PLA? How easy will it be for a pro-union executive agency to state, “This bid was not chosen because of the uncertainties associated with the proposal, i.e., without a PLA there is too much risk of cost increases and work stoppage.” It will so common, I suggest Rahm will have rubber stamps made of the several lines.

[snip]

Yet the reality is that published studies have found significant cost increases when PLAs are used: An October 2009 report by Dr. John R. McGowan of St. Louis University found that had Order 13502 applied to federal contracts in 2008, additional costs incurred by employers related to wasteful PLA pension requirements likely would have ranged from $230 million to $767 million. Lost wages for nonunion construction workers would have ranged from $184 million to more than $613 million. In total, McGowan estimates that the Obama order encouraging PLAs would have cost nonunion workers and their employers $414 million to more than $1.38 billion in 2008. These calculations would be similar in 2010 and beyond.

But let’s be fair. Here’s another study that is less critical of PLAs: Because they are negotiated pre-bid and specifically tailored to the needs of particular projects, PLAs give project owners, building contractors and trade unions a unique opportunity to anticipate and avoid potential problems that might otherwise arise and possibly impede project progress. They maximize project stability, efficiency and productivity and minimize the risks and inconvenience to the public that often accompany public works projects. This is why Project Labor Agreements have long been used in the private and federal sectors, and more recently by state, county and municipal agencies.

Ah, but do you see the assumption? ”Trade unions.”

This study goes on: On a typical construction project operating without the benefit of a PLA, there can be fifteen or more different collective bargaining agreements covering work being performed by various crafts. As many as fifteen separate union contracts are not generally coordinated in any meaningful way and this leads to certain inefficiencies — inefficiencies that can be addressed by a PLA.

Yes, assume the presence of trade unions, and perhaps a PLA makes sense. Yes, assume that 14.5% of the workforce should drive the labor practices of the remaining 85.5%, then perhaps PLAs make sense.

But. The. Assumption. Sucks.

Dick Lombardo and the Liberty Pundits aren’t the only ones discussing PLAs on the radio this week.  Carole Bionda, VP of ABC member Nova Group of Napa, CA and author of an outstanding editorial published in the May 15 edition of The Daily Caller, called into the “Central Wisconsin’s Morning News” program on WSAU-AM/FM in Wausau, WI earlier today to talk PLAs.

Carole does an outstanding job breaking down why PLAs are bad for workers and taxpayers alike.

The interview is available here.

This wide-ranging discussion breaks down how PLAs are a huge win for Big Labor at the expense of American taxpayers and the vast majority of the private construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization.

The podcast is available here.

The interview is available here.

Mike addressed both the Obama Administration’s release of rules to implement Executive Order 13502, which encourages the use of PLAs on federal projects costing more than $25 million, and also proposed Baltimore City legislation to require PLAs on city-supported projects costing more than $5 million.

This interview took place just as the ABC Baltimore chapter released a new radio ad pointing out how the proposed Baltimore City bill would set aside much needed construction jobs for out of state workers at the expense of city residents.  The ad is available here.

The debate was inspired by an anti-PLA Boston Globe column by Scott Lehigh that we covered here last week.  Massachusetts newspapers came out in full force against PLAs last week as a Worcester Telegram columnist also attacked PLAs (we covered it here).

Listen to the debate here.