Last week the RCC District Trustees approved spending $1.6 million for staff and consultants to oversee the RCC District’s anti-competitive and costly project labor agreement (PLA) scheme that will govern about $350 million worth of future RCC District construction. 

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com have objected to the absurdity and corruption of PLAs on RCC District projects before, but RCC District trustees beholden to Big Labor’s special interest agenda have taken waste and corruption to a new level with this latest blunder.

Big Labor and RCC District trustees misled the public and falsely-claimed that a PLA would reduce costs and keep projects on budget, despite evidence that PLAs deny jobs to 82.4 percent of the Calif. construction workforce (construction employees who choose not to belong to a union) and increase the cost of construction between 12 percent and 18 percent. By a 3-2 vote, RCC District trustees approved a PLA requirement on all RCC District construction projects over $1 million that use funds from the 2004 voter-approved $350 million Measure C.

Now trustees are flushing more money down the toilet to administer the corrupt backroom PLA deal that will funnel construction contracts to unionized political patrons.

Residents are not happy and The Riverside Press-Enterprise printed an editorial slamming the government-mandated PLA and Riverside Community College District Trustees’ reckless spending to implement anti-competitive and costly crony contracting (“RCC Slams Taxpayers,” 6/23):

Riverside Community College District offers a prime illustration of why public agencies should avoid union-driven labor pacts governing new construction: Taxpayers will pay more than a million dollars just to oversee an unnecessary agreement propelled by politics. And that figure does not include any higher project costs that derive from the deal’s restraint of price-cutting competition.

District trustees last week hired a consulting firm to oversee the “project labor agreement” the board approved in March. The consulting firm’s employees will charge hourly rates of up to $238.71 (equivalent to an annual salary of nearly $500,000), with total compensation as high as $1.6 million, to make sure that the district’s construction projects follow provisions of the labor agreement.

The labor pact essentially requires all contractors to pay union fees and benefits, which are usually the highest around. Those provisions erase any competitive advantage held by nonunion builders — the bulk of the state’s construction work force. So the agreement slashes the amount of money available for new buildings and renovations at district campuses, while simultaneously driving up construction costs.

Trustees have never managed to explain the public benefit of making taxpayers’ $350 million investment in college improvements buy less. A majority of trustees just ignored those added costs, showing more interest in currying favor with union supporters than in responsible oversight of public funds.

Such narrow, self-interested politics directly contradict elected officials’ duty to ensure careful use of public money. The real price of the project labor agreement is only now emerging. But the already visible effects give other public agencies no excuse for missing the clear lesson of the college district’s folly.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com agrees.

Check out the mailer sent to Riverside taxpayers following the vote by RCCD Trustees to mandate a PLA on future RCCD construction. 

Will Riverside taxpayers hold them accountable?

The March 20, 2010 article “Project Labor Agreements Spark Debate at Three Inland Agencies in One Week” reports that on March 16 the elected boards of three local government agencies in the Inland Empire discussed PLA policies: the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Riverside Community College District, and the San Bernardino City Unified School District.

The dean of the U.C. Riverside business school was quoted as saying, “For each side, there are some seemingly rational arguments.  But, it’s all about politics.”  Years ago, I identified 20 “Axioms on Fighting for the Merit Shop Agenda,” and axiom #5 is “Our issues are about politics, not logic…”  Basically, if unions can get control of a majority of votes on an elected board in California, they will push for a union monopoly on future construction regardless of how nonsensical it is or how much it costs the taxpayers.

The article also confirms axiom #11: “Look behind a local politician initiating a push for the union agenda, and you will find ambition for higher office.”  Riverside Community College trustee José Medina – a big supporter of the PLA there – is the Democrat challenging Republican incumbent Brian Nestande for the 64th Assembly District seat.

Click here for more on the fight against wasteful and discriminatory PLAs in California.

The Riverside Community College District has a public duty to protect taxpayers’ $350 million investment in new facilities. That duty requires the district to seek the best deal on new construction, not give labor unions an effective monopoly on the work.

The district Board of Trustees should reject the “project labor agreement” on the agenda tonight. Instead, the district should opt for a truly competitive bidding process that seeks the best value for public construction dollars. District voters approved Measure C in 2004 to renovate aging buildings and provide room for expansion, not so that board members could hand favors to union supporters.

The agreement between the college district and labor unions would cover all construction projects of more than $1 million financed by Measure C. The pact would basically force all contractors — union and nonunion alike — to follow union rules and pay union fees and benefits. The goal is to wipe out any competitive advantage nonunion construction firms might have.

That approach serves union interests at the public’s expense. The bidding process for the jobs cannot be truly competitive when the rules are slanted to favor union companies — usually the highest-priced labor around. Why should the district want an agreement that stands to inflate the cost of new construction? Furthering a union agenda comes nowhere close to meeting trustees’ responsibility to spend tax money wisely.

The Union Membership and Coverage Database, built on federal statistics, finds that only about 18 percent of California private-sector construction workers were covered by union contracts in 2009. What sense is there in the college district excluding companies that compose four-fifths of the state’s construction labor force?

The pact says that the provisions would help avoid work stoppages or delays. But the only real threat of work stoppages comes from the unions themselves. The agreement is a promise by the unions not to cause trouble if the district plays by labor’s rules — a thinly disguised form of blackmail, not a means of public-spirited cooperation.

The agreement also proposes to encourage the use of local businesses and workers. Yet pursuing that goal hardly requires the district to approve a labor pact.

And the district’s handling of the project agreement only adds to the suspicion surrounding the document. A majority of the board voted to push ahead with the pact in December, with little time for debate or public scrutiny and no analysis of the consequences.

And now the final agreement is back before the board — and still lacks any report analyzing how much the deal might cost the public, how it might affect district construction plans or what benefits the pact could offer taxpayers. Those basic details should be at the center of the discussion. Instead, they are not available to the public before tonight’s meeting — assuming the district has even compiled such information.

Trustees would be smart to discard the labor agreement. The pact does not represent good policy or sound oversight of public money. And taxpayers should ask the crucial question about any board members who do vote for this deal: Just who are those officials representing, anyway?

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com agrees and encourage readers to reach out to the Riverside Community College District Board of Trustees at the following email addresses and tell them to protect local taxpayers and say NO to PLAs:

• Virginia Blumenthal: heidi.wills@rcc.edu
• Janet Green: JanetGreen@juno.com
• Mark Takano: MTakano@rialto.k12.ca.us
• Jose Medina: JMedina@rusd.k12.ca.us
• Mary Figueroa: votemaryfigueroa@yahoo.com