The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also issued a PLA survey for a project at Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico.

All ABC members and construction professionals are encouraged to respond to the requests for information and tell the NAVFAC and USACE that government-mandated PLAs harm competition, increase costs, and impede economy and efficiency in government contracting.

Details on the three surveys along with submission dates are below but please review response instructions by clicking the links:

• Responses for the NAVFAC survey for Potable Water Conveyance Systems and Waste Water and Recycled Water Conveyance Systems at Camp Pendleton, Calif., must include a cover letter and be completed on the PLA Inquiry Form and submitted by 2:00 p.m. (PST) on Friday, Dec. 16, either by mail to NAVFAC or by email to Gregory.sies@navy.mil.
• Responses for the NAVFAC survey for the Rotary Aircraft Deport Maintenance Facility near San Diego must include a cover letter and be completed on the PLA Inquiry Form and submitted by 2:00 p.m. (PST) on Monday, Dec. 19, either by mail to NAVFAC or by email to georgina.perry@navy.mil.
• Responses for the NAVFAC survey for HVAC and Ductwork Repairs, Building 1H, Naval Medical Center San Diego must include a cover letter and be completed on the PLA Inquiry Form and submitted by 2:00 p.m. (PST) Jan. 3, 2012, either by mail to NAVFAC or by email to larry.romig@navy.mil.
• Responses to the USACE Market Survey in the Clovis Micropolitan Statistical Area near Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico must be submitted by Friday, Dec. 23 to diana.m.martinez@usace.army.mil. There is no form to fill out for this survey.

NAVFAC, which manages construction of U.S. Navy shore facilities, recently issued surveys for four federal construction projects, exceeding $25 million in total costs, in Maryland and Virginia.

During the past several months, NAVFAC and other federal agencies like the USACE and Veterans Affairs have issued PLA surveys as a result of President Obama’s pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 and federal regulations implementing the discriminatory and costly order. The order and regulations encourage federal agencies to mandate anti-competitive and costly PLAs on a case-by-case basis on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost. ABC has taken the opportunity to respond to all PLA surveys as they are issued and encourages its members to do the same.

If you need help responding, please contact us and we can provide you with some helpful tools and information.

Responding with accurate and timely information is critical and effective at removing federal agency PLA mandates. For example, in 2010, the USACE removed government-mandated PLAs from the Army Reserve Center in Los Alamitos, Calif. and the Patrick Air Force Base in Brevard County, Fla. after a strong grassroots response and survey participation from the contracting community. The USACE removed a PLA mandate on the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Camden, N.J. following a legal challenge and robust grassroots response from the construction stakeholders.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to these surveys. Your responses will help maintain an open and competitive environment that will allow all qualified contractors to fairly compete for contracts to build the best possible construction projects at the best possible price.

Yesterday, the Free Enterprise Coalition released this press release (see below) about documents recently obtained from the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD). They prove government-mandated PLAs reduce competition and increase costs. (Note: SDUSD calls these union agreements Project Stabilization Agreements (PSAs) instead of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). There are a number of alternative names used to describe union agreements that are essentially PLAs, such as Community Workforce Agreements, Site Stabilization Agreements, etc. but they will continue to be referred to as PLAs in this post.)

The press release says union-favoring PLA project bids were 9.7 percent less than the SDUSD’s budget. However, the projects bid without the imposition of the union-only PLA were 31.6 percent below budget…a 21.9 percent difference. If this trend continues, the imposition of the union-favoring PLA could cost taxpayers more than $200 million in unnecessary construction costs on planned projects.

The PLA reduced competition too. For union-only PLA projects, SDUSD was able to interest an average of five responsive general contractor bidders, compared to 10 responsive general contractor bidders on school projects where contractors were not forced to agree to a government-mandated PLA.  General contractors complained projects received only about 50 percent of the subcontractor bids that the non-PLA projects received.

It is no surprise the SDUSD-mandated PLA reduced competition and increased costs.

It will be interesting to see how local Big Labor bosses and school district officials beholden to special interests try to spin these numbers at today’s press conference, where officials were expected to engage in the deceptive manipulation of taxpayers in support of their anti-competitive pro-PLA agenda. (The press conference was planned prior to the public release of these damaging documents. A consultant was expected to present a report in support of the SDUSD PLA policy.)

Opposition to government-mandated PLAs on the $2.1 billion bond measure funding SDUSD projects, Proposition S,  has been covered numerous times here at the TruthAboutPLAs.com. In 2009, the SDUSD sneakily introduced the PLA-mandate policy, which passed May 26 by a 3-2 vote. A number of projects funded by Prop S did not have PLAs mandated on them because of an inter-union dispute. In July 2009, AGC filed a lawsuit against the SDUSD PLA mandate policy. A second lawsuit was filed by the National Right to Work organization in October.  The AGC lawsuit was dismissed in California Superior Court in December 2009. An appeal was rejected in California’s 4th District appeals court in May 2011. The California Supreme Court declined to review the case in September 2011 . In February 2010, bids for the first project subject to the new PSA-mandate policy came in 35 percent more than initial estimates.  In July 2011, SDUSD documents revealed the PSA policy has failed to meet its local hiring goals.

The San Diego region has been a hotbed of government-mandated PLA controversy with Californians taking action in opposition to government-mandated PLAs.

San Diego County voters approved a Fair and Open Competition charter amendment with 76 percent of the vote in November 2010.

In June 2010, 56 percent of voters in the City of Chula Vista approved a Fair and Open Competition ordinance, and 54 percent of voters in the City of Oceanside approved a charter containing a Fair and Open Competition provision.

In response to the passage of similar local fair and open competition measures passed throughout California in 2011, Big Labor pushed the California legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to pass SB 922, which was signed into law Oct. 2, 2011, under odd circumstances through a gut and amend bill. It is a fine example of how Big Labor’s control of California’s elected officials is harming taxpayers and attacks the will of the people. Learn more here.

We will be following this San Diego story closely. Here is the press release.

Internal Documents Show San Diego Unified School District’s Union-Only Construction Program Costing Taxpayers Millions of Dollars

San Diego, CA – In documents obtained from the San Diego Unified School District’s Facilities Department, the construction industry has found that the District’s union-only Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) for construction projects financed by the $2.1 Billion Proposition S bond measure has been a dismal failure. The document, prepared at the request of the firm hired by the District to “conduct a study of the impact and effect of the Projects Stabilization Agreement (PSA),” covers the bidding results of all construction projects bid utilizing Proposition S funding since its inception in 2009.

The PSA was negotiated between the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council and the District in 2009. The first project imposing the terms of the PSA was bid in February 2010. Ten Proposition S projects were bid in 2009 before the PSA was implemented, and six other projects were bid in 2010 and 2011 that were not covered by the terms of the PSA. 17 projects were bid under the terms of the PSA in 2010 and 2011.

One of the documents, “Proposition S Construction Contracts Bidding Review,” shows that on average the District is paying a 21.9% premium for projects bid under the union-only terms of the PSA. This 21.9% premium amounts to approximately $16 million in additional construction costs that the District has incurred in the two years in which they have imposed the union-only condition on the projects. The document shows that while PSA project bids were 9.7% under the District’s budget, the projects bid without the imposition of the union-only PSA were 31.6% under budget…a 21.9% difference. If this trend continues, the imposition of the union-only PSA could cost taxpayers over $200 million in unnecessary construction costs.

Jim Ryan, Executive Vice President of the Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc., stated that “the reason for the 21.9% premium is obvious. On the union-only Prop S PSA projects, the District has only been able to interest an average of 5 responsive general contractor bidders, compared to 10 responsive general contractor bidders on Proposition S projects in which the PSA was not a condition of the contract. General contractors also tell us that the union-only PSA projects receive only about 50% of the subcontractor bids that the non PSA projects receive. When there are more bidders, the District receives better construction bids. It’s that simple.”

Scott Crosby, CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors, San Diego Chapter, noted that “the District has also spent several hundred thousand dollars to administer the PSA. This includes additional staff to administer the numerous grievances and jurisdictional disputes on the union-only PSA projects, pay consultants to conduct seminars to explain the complex provision of the PSA to the industry, and market the bid opportunities to contractors in areas throughout the Southwest. These expenses were incurred because the local contractors have shown little interest in bidding the union-only PSA projects.”

Eric Christen, Executive Director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, expressed hope in the unlikely chance that the school board may use this as an opportunity to rid themselves of the PSA. “We now have two years worth of data in which every metric the district set forth has failed to be met. This disastrous study now gives the school board one more opportunity to put the interest of students and taxpayers ahead of Big Labor special interests who fund their campaigns.”

Another failure of the union-only PSA relates to local workers. The Building Trades promised that 70% of the craft workers would be residents of the San Diego Unified School District. As of December 1, 2011, only 40% of the craft workers working on the projects reside in the District.

The District will hold a “closed to the public” news conference Friday, December 9 to detail the results of a study by Rea & Parker Research, which was commissioned by the District’s Board of Trustees at the cost of $71,825.

The news conference will be held at Hoover High School’s Woodshop Building, which was the first Proposition S project bid under the union-only terms of the PSA. The project had to be bid twice. Only five bidders bid the first time, and the low bidder from Stanton, California was 35% over the District’s budget. All bids were rejected, and the District rebid the same project. This time there were only four bidders, and the low bid was about 26% over budget. A comparable project was bid about the same time by another school district that does not impose a union-only PSA on its projects. 17 bids were received, and the low bid was about 25% under budget.

Source Documents: Proposition S Construction Contracts Bidding Review & Project Specific Budget/Estimates/Bids

##

CONTACT: Brad Barnum
858-731-8158

Government-mandated PLAs have a negative impact on local construction workers and taxpayers.  These special interest handouts to Big Labor line the pockets of union bosses at the expense of average Americans.

Californians throughout the state have learned about PLA mandates and said “No Thanks” time and again.  Despite Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Legislature’s attempt to slow down the fight against PLA mandates, merit shop contractors, their workers, taxpayer advocates and ordinary citizens are gearing up to bring the message of fair and open competition to the people of Sacramento!

Visit www.fairandopencompetitionsacramento.com to learn more about the effort to ban government-mandated PLAs on projects funded by the city of Sacramento.

This ballot initiative will be similar to those passed by overwhelming majorities in Chula Vista, Oceanside and San Diego.  By putting an end of PLA mandates, citizens can be sure they are getting the best construction at the best price.  Always.

After sailing through the California legislature via a deceptive gut and amend legislative vehicle originally about tuberculosis screening, Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed SB 922 on Sunday to “prohibit” measures passed by local governments that ban government-mandated PLAs.

Local governments in California like the City of Fresno, Orange County, City of Chula Vista, City of Oceanside, Placer County, Palmdale Water District, San Diego County and Stanislaus County have passed measures prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on construction projects partially or completely funded by their government’s funds.  The measures permit contractors to voluntarily execute PLAs on local projects, as is permitted by the National Labor Relations Act and are intended to increase competition and deliver taxpayers the best possible construction project at the best possible price.

Popular ballot initiatives like San Diego County’s Proposition A, which voters overwhelmingly passed in November 2010 by a 75-24 margin, demonstrate that local taxpayers have had enough with these costly crony contracting PLA schemes. Faced with a threat that the people would put an end to union-favoring government-mandated PLAs, Big Labor called in a favor with Gov. Brown and Sacramento Democrats to pass SB 922.

Today the Wall Street Journal editorial board blasts Gov. Brown and Sacramento Democrats for trampeling the political will of local voters and supporting schemes that steer taxpayer-funded construction projects to prominent donors of the Democrat party (“Shovelling for Labor: California tries to raise the cost of construction projects,” 10/5/11):

We keep hearing that the U.S. needs better roads, bridges and other public works. But then why do politicians keep making it so much more expensive to build them? In the latest example, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill on Sunday that attempts to prevent California cities from banning government-mandated project labor agreements, or PLAs.

PLAs are pre-hire agreements that contractors negotiate with labor unions. Construction firms must generally agree to play by union work rules, pay workers union wages, and contribute to union health and retirement funds—whether or not the employees they hire belong to a union. Non-union workers usually then have to join the union and pay union dues. According to some studies, PLAs raise costs by 12% to 18%, which explains why cash-strapped governments and tapped-out taxpayers are moving against them.

Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan and Tennessee have enacted laws in the last year prohibiting local governments and agencies, which often play into the hands of unions, from mandating PLAs. Voters in San Diego County and the San Diego suburbs of Chula Vista and Oceanside approved bans on government-mandated PLAs last November. The cities of San Diego and Sacramento are planning similar ballot measures next year.

Unions hate this trend, so they, er, encouraged Democrats who run the state legislature in Sacramento to pass the bill that Mr. Brown so obligingly signed. Democrats know that the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law, already prevents local governments from banning PLAs altogether. But what states and cities have been trying to do is prevent governments from requiring PLAs. Democrats hope the new law will deter cities from passing laws that keep the doors open to non-union contractors. Cities that ban government-mandated PLAs could face legal challenges and harassment from unions. The state could also refuse to fund their projects.

The California law is the first of its kind, and non-union construction firms fear that other labor-friendly state legislatures will follow Sacramento’s lead. If that happens, taxpayers will lose the limited ability they have to constrain costs and expedite construction. The result? Public projects that cost more and create fewer jobs, though they’ll be the kind of jobs that Democrats prefer—unionized, and thus with dues payable into campaign funds to elect more Democrats.

As usual, the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s analysis is correct.

It is unclear how SB 922 will impact current government-mandated PLA bans enacted by charter cities as well as the progress of ballot initiatives in the City of San Diego and City of Sacramento already underway.

What’s clear is that Big Labor’s chums in Sacramento have no qualms about choking free enterprise, soaking taxpayers with added construciton costs and smothering the will of the people in order to feed their campaign coffers with Big Labor’s campaign contributions.

Expect some legal wrangling, requests for legal opinions and lots of press in the coming weeks.

Update: Fox News covered Jerry Brown’s signing of this disastrous legislation on the October 7 edition of Fox and Friends:

Considering that San Diego County voters approved a Fair and Open Competition charter amendment with 76 percent of the vote in November 2010, it was no surprise that signature collection for this ballot measure was easy. Project labor agreements have been a familiar issue of concern to citizens in San Diego County since the notorious union extortion of Gaylord Entertainment in 2007 and 2008 for a project labor agreement using the threat of objections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the end, Gaylord abandoned its proposal to build a $1.2 billion hotel and conference center on the bayfront of the City of Chula Vista, and unions solidified a reputation in San Diego for underhanded tactics in pursuit of monopoly control of work.

In June 2010, 56 percent of voters in the City of Chula Vista approved a Fair and Open Competition ordinance, and 54 percent of voters in the City of Oceanside approved a charter containing a Fair and Open Competition provision.

Ban on Labor-Friendly Contracts Will Be on 2012 Ballot – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 21, 2011 (breaking news)

New Initiative Sets Stage for Latest Labor, Business Battle – www.voiceofSanDiego.org – September 21, 2001

‘Fair and Open Competition’ initiative qualifies for San Diego ballot – San Diego Daily Transcript – September 22, 2011 (Article notes that the Fair and Open Competition measure is the first qualified by San Diego citizens for the city ballot since 1998 – thirteen years ago.)

This is also a good opportunity to review the numerous times that California media availed itself of the opportunity to can the entire package.

For those not following this issue, California State Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez changed two bills unrelated to construction or labor issues and through a “Gut and Amend” process, transformed them into vehicles to overturn the will of both local elected officials and taxpayers in a number of communities throughout the state.

The legislative leadership took a bill about tuberculosis screening (Senate Bill 922) on the Friday before Labor Day and turned it into a bill that nullifies current and future bans on PLA mandates by local governments and cuts off state funds for charter cities that ban government-mandated PLAs.

Two other bills were amended at the last minute and without much public scrutiny to meet Big Labor’s demands.  The first, A.B. 436, requires certain local governments to pay fees to the state for labor compliance, unless these governments require their construction contractors to sign a PLA, in which case they don’t have to pay the fees to the state.

Another, S.B. 790, includes an unrelated tack-on provision that allows utilities to pass through to ratepayers the costs of mandatory payments in PLAs to Labor-Management Cooperative Committees, mysterious and unaccountable slush funds authorized by an obscure federal law from 1978.

These bills are designed to undercut the eight California communities to ban PLA mandates on taxpayer funded projects.  Several of these communities adopted these bans through ballot initiatives that were overwhelmingly approved.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we urge Gov. Brown to veto these bills.  That is pretty obvious.  But we aren’t the only ones.  State and local media has covered these, and other bad bills on their way to the governor’s desk, extensively.  It turns out that other people are concerned about some of the garbage coming from the California Legislature also.

(Cartoon Credit: Bakersfield Californian)

Here is a round-up of media coverage on this issue:

News Media Coverage of Senate Bill 922 Since Passage in the California Legislature:

1.      Raft of labor-backed bills are a challenge for Jerry Brown– Sacramento Bee – September 12, 2011; in Fresno Bee – September 13, 2011

2.      Bills that Need to be Vetoed – Modesto Bee (editorial) – September 12, 2011

3.      EDITORIAL: Meet the boss – North County Times (editorial) – September 13, 2011

4.      Not every bill warrants that signature – Merced Sun-Star (editorial) – September 13, 2011

5.      Four bills need Gov. Brown’s veto– Oakland Tribune, Contra Costa Times, other San Francisco Bay Area local newspapers (editorial) – September 13, 2011

6.      Brown Ought to Use His Veto Pen Without Mercy – Sacramento Bee (editorial) – September 13, 2011

7.      Follow the Yellow Brick Road – www.CalWatchdog.com – September 14, 2011

8.      FORUM: Legislature cares little about local control – North County Times (powerful opinion piece by Oceanside City Councilman Jerry Kern about his personal experience at the state capitol opposing Senate Bill 922) – September 15, 2011

9.      Late amends leave advocates punched in the gut – Capitol Weekly – September 15, 2011

10.   Proposed legislation could cost cities millions – North County Times – September 11, 2011

11.    California Legislators: Gut and Amend is Gutless and Abusive – California Political Review – September 14, 2011

12.     Brown would be wise to veto many of the bills before him – Fresno Bee (editorial) – September 15, 201

13.     600 bills on Jerry’s desk – Sacramento Bee – September 17, 2011

14.     Senseless Bills – Riverside Press-Enterprise (editorial) – September 17, 2011

15.    Four Bills the Governor Should Veto – Woodland Daily Democrat – September 16, 2011

16.    Four for Brown’s veto pen – Vallejo Times-Herald – September 18, 2011

17.   New Initiative Sets Stage for Latest Labor, Business Battle – www.voiceofSanDiego.org – September 21, 2001

Receiving the most attention is Senate Bill 922, a bill created on September 2 as a “gut and amend” bill and authored by the Assembly Speaker and Senate Pro Tem. This bill terminates local government policies that prohibit mandates for contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements. To compel California’s 120 charter cities (cities with full authority over their purely municipal affairs) to end their policies, the bill deprives these cities of state funding for projects if they maintain or enact policies that prohibit mandates for contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements.

Votes on this bill were strictly on party lines. Other than the few legislators who did not vote on SB 922 for unknown reasons, every Democrat in the legislature voted for SB 922 and every Republican voted against SB 922. No Democrat was willing to buck the political power of the unions and defy the caucus leaders in the Assembly and Senate, even if some recognized the inappropriate interference of the state government in the affairs of local governments. Realize that many Democratic state legislators were recently serving themselves in local government and complaining about state mandates and the state’s manipulation of local government policies.

Not surprisingly, numerous construction trade associations representing both union and Merit Shop contractors are asking Governor Jerry Brown to veto of SB 922, along with broader business organizations. But the brazen usurpation of local government authority by the state under SB 922 has also upset local government officials, even those who are neutral or even supportive of Project Labor Agreements.

“SB 922 is an unnecessary interference in local community decision making,” states a veto request from the California State Association of Counties. The League of California Cities also opposes SB 922: “Regardless of your position on PLAs, SB 922 is a bad bill and should be opposed. This is one more example of state legislative interference in what should be a local issue.” Numerous individual local elected officials have also sent veto requests to the governor.

Eight local governments have enacted policies to ban Project Labor Agreements, including three where voters solidly approved ballot measures to ensure Fair and Open Competition.

PROPOSITION G for CITY OF CHULA VISTA – JUNE 8, 2010
YES: 18783 55.75% (56%)
NO: 14906 44.25%

PROPOSITION K for CITY OF OCEANSIDE – JUNE 8, 2010
YES: 14951 53.79% (54%)
NO: 12846 46.21%

PROPOSITION A for SAN DIEGO COUNTY – NOVEMBER 2, 2010
YES: 614744 75.80% (76%)
NO: 196315 24.20%

As confirmed by these votes (as well as by polling), most California voters recognize that Project Labor Agreements are a costly scheme engineered by union lobbyists and politicians to give unions monopoly control over taxpayer-funded construction projects.

With ballot measures soon to qualify for the June 2012 ballot to establish Fair and Open Competition policies in the City of San Diego (Ban on labor-friendly contracts targeted for ballot – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 7, 2011), in the City of Sacramento, and in the County of Sacramento, union lobbyists have turned to the California legislature to bail out their unpopular strategy of using government-mandated Project Labor Agreements to cut competition and gain market share.

Learn more about these bills here.

News Media Coverage of Senate Bill 922 Since Passage in the California Legislature:

1.      Raft of labor-backed bills are a challenge for Jerry Brown– Sacramento Bee – September 12, 2011; in Fresno Bee – September 13, 2011

2.      Bills that Need to be Vetoed – Modesto Bee (editorial) – September 12, 2011

3.      EDITORIAL: Meet the boss – North County Times (editorial) – September 13, 2011

4.      Not every bill warrants that signature – Merced Sun-Star (editorial) – September 13, 2011

5.      Four bills need Gov. Brown’s veto– Oakland Tribune, Contra Costa Times, other San Francisco Bay Area local newspapers (editorial) – September 13, 2011

6.      Brown Ought to Use His Veto Pen Without Mercy – Sacramento Bee (editorial) – September 13, 2011

7.      Follow the Yellow Brick Road – www.CalWatchdog.com – September 14, 2011

8.      FORUM: Legislature cares little about local control – North County Times (powerful opinion piece by Oceanside City Councilman Jerry Kern about his personal experience at the state capitol opposing Senate Bill 922) – September 15, 2011

9.      Late amends leave advocates punched in the gut – Capitol Weekly – September 15, 2011

10.   Proposed legislation could cost cities millions – North County Times – September 11, 2011

11.    California Legislators: Gut and Amend is Gutless and Abusive – California Political Review – September 14, 2011

12.     Brown would be wise to veto many of the bills before him – Fresno Bee (editorial) – September 15, 201

13.     600 bills on Jerry’s desk – Sacramento Bee – September 17, 2011

14.     Senseless Bills – Riverside Press-Enterprise (editorial) – September 17, 2011

15.    Four Bills the Governor Should Veto – Woodland Daily Democrat – September 16, 2011

16.    Four for Brown’s veto pen – Vallejo Times-Herald – September 18, 2011

Despite the gutting and amending of this bill immediately before Labor Day weekend, numerous construction trade associations, business groups, taxpayer organizations, local government associations, and local government officials went on record in opposition to the bill, starting with a hastily-scheduled Assembly Business and Professions Committee hearing on Tuesday, September 6.

State Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield), who plans to run for Congress, appeared before the committee to cheerlead for this sloppy last-minute creation of the State Building and Construction Trades Council and its affiliate construction unions. Senate Bill 922 passed this committee and then passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on September 7 on party-line votes. (All Democrats supported the bill; all Republicans opposed it).

Meanwhile, faxes began pouring into legislators’ offices from contractors, business owners, and ordinary California taxpayers objecting to Senate Bill 922 and its union-backed partners, Assembly Bill 436 (gutted and amended on Wednesday, August 30) and Senate Bill 790.

Assembly Bill 436 requires certain local governments to pay fees to the state for labor compliance, unless these governments require their construction contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements, in which case they don’t have to pay the fees to the state. The state leaves those contractors (and the unions) to do whatever they do when no one with official authority is watching. It passed on the Senate floor on a party-line vote (Democrats in support, Republicans opposed) on September 7.

Senate Bill 790 includes an unrelated tack-on provision that allows utilities to pass through to ratepayers the costs of mandatory payments in Project Labor Agreements to Labor-Management Cooperative Committees, mysterious and unaccountable slush funds authorized by an obscure federal law from 1978. The bill (about community choice aggregation programs for electric consumers) was uncontroversial and headed toward unanimous approval until this provision (inserted at the request of union lobbyists) tainted the bill. It passed the Assembly floor on September 8, after the presiding chairman of the Assembly denied the request of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) to show physical evidence of such payments and then cut off her oral statement. See the video here: Assemblywoman Grove tries to discuss a controversial provision of SB 790 and is shut down by opposing leadership before being able to speak.

Then the news media became aware of these bills. Here are articles and editorials about at least one of these bills (and in some cases, all three bills):

1. Editorial: Gut-and-amend bill needs to be stopped – Sacramento Bee – September 7, 2011

2. Legislature moves to overturn bans on local labor friendly agreements – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 7, 2011

3. Kevin Dayton: Construction Unions Set Up State Legislature to Crush Fair and Open Competition Policies at Local Governments – www.FlashReport.org (op-ed) – September 7, 2011

4. Union Bias – Riverside Press-Enterprise (editorial) – September 8, 2011

5. Legislature’s Rhetoric on Jobs is Empty – San Diego Union-Tribune (editorial) – September 8, 2011

6. Labor bills introduced as session nears end – Orange County Register (editorial) – September 8, 2011

7. Banning Project Labor Agreement Bans in California – www.PublicSectorInc.com – September 7, 2011

8. Opinion: SB 922 Undermines Basis of State/Local Government Relationship – www.PublicCEO.com – September 8, 2011

9. Unions attempt to push through Senate Bills by going to puppet legislators – San Diego Daily Transcript (op-ed) – September 6, 2011

10. Dan Walters: Fun, games mark California Legislature’s final week – Sacramento Bee (columnist, run in numerous state newspapers) – September 8, 2011

11. Legislation Boosts Union Trust Fund – www.CalWatchdog.com – September 8, 2011

12. Dan Walters: New legislative bills grow in the dark – Sacramento Bee (columnist, run in numerous state newspapers) – September 9, 2011

13. Union ‘Gut and Amend’ Bills Slice Open California – www.FoxandHoundsDaily.com – September 9, 2011

14. A Bad Bill Sneaks through Legislature – Modesto Bee (editorial) – September 8, 2011

15. Bill OK’d that could expedite stadium (also reports on SB 922 moving through legislature) – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 10, 2011

 16. Senate approve bill boosting NFL stadium in L.A. (also reports on SB 922 moving through legislature)  – Orange County Register – September 10, 2011

UPDATE: All three bills passed the California legislature and wait for Gov. Brown’s approval.

Fax Gov. Brown TODAY and urge him to VETO all three bills.

With virtually no legislative review or public scrutiny, these bills will sail through the so-called legislative process in a few chaotic days and go to Governor Jerry Brown for quick action. Surely there were guffaws and snickers among top union officials at Labor Day picnics throughout the state as they gloated over their anti-democratic abuse of the California Kangaroo Court that operates nowadays at the state capitol.

What Are the Three Bills to Undermine Fair and Open Competition in California?

(1) Senate Bill 922 (a bill formerly about immunizations and tuberculosis screening) was gutted and amended on September 2 to become a bill that effectively terminates Fair and Open Competition laws and Project Labor Agreement bans enacted by local elected officials and local voters.

This heavy-handed, authoritarian bill shows how unions compel the state government to suppress the rights and powers of local governments and their hapless citizens. It will nullify Project Labor Agreement bans at most local governments and cut off state funding on projects for charter cities that ban Project Labor Agreements. This bill is authored by the top Democrats in the Assembly and Senate. The bill is here: SB 922 as amended 9/2.

(2) Assembly Bill 436 (a bill formerly defining private energy generation facilities as public works) was gutted and amended on August 30 to require certain local governments to pay Labor Compliance Program fees to the state, unless they require their contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions. (Unions claim contractors under PLAs don’t violate laws, despite evidence to the contrary – see here for the City of Milpitas and here for the Los Angeles Unified School District.)

Soon California construction union officials will claim that Project Labor Agreements save money for taxpayers because local governments won’t have to pay labor compliance fees to the state – fees lobbied for by those same union officials! At the new bill’s first hearing on Thursday, the Democrat committee chairman reportedly said he didn’t understand why labor unions wanted less labor compliance, but “if the unions wanted it, he would vote for it.” The 76-page bill is here: AB 436 as amended 8/30.

(3) Senate Bill 790 had been a bill with bipartisan support about community choice electric load aggregation programs. Apparently the unions saw this popular bill as an excellent vehicle to hijack for their own nefarious purposes, because it now includes an obscure and unrelated amendment that authorizes payments in Project Labor Agreements covering utility infrastructure construction to mysterious union slush funds managed by top construction union officials. See Part 5, Section 11 of the bill on pages 27-28 here: SB 790 as amended 8/30. The most prominent of these trust funds, the California Construction Industry Labor-Management Cooperative Trust, had $3 million in the bank last year and mailed letters dated August 5 to elected officials throughout the state promoting Project Labor Agreements.

Here’s the scheme protected by Senate Bill 790: hold up the permit for a power plant by exploiting environmental laws until the developer or public utility surrenders and signs a Project Labor Agreement. Include a provision in the PLA requiring payments to a mysterious union slush fund. Use the slush fund to fund pet projects, contribute to election campaigns, and support other political activities. When the scheme is exposed, get the state legislature to declare it legal in the Public Utilities Code! For more details about this racket, go here.

Without the Support of the People, the Unions Revert to the California Legislature

The state legislature is the last refuge of scoundrels and special interests in California who want to change the world into their desired image at the expense of everyone else. This is where unions can circumvent the will of the people and local government decisions with ease.

The Assembly and the Senate are each almost two-thirds controlled by Democrats, almost all of whom won their primary elections (and thus their politically uncompetitive districts) through toadying up to unions and promising to vote for their latest political agenda. In addition, the strange operations of the state legislature allow bills to be completely changed at the last minute (a process called “gut-and-amend”) so that special interests can sling controversial and divisive proposals through the legislature before opposition effectively activates. In practice, the legislature also allows provisions that are not germane to be added to existing bills.

As a result, California union lobbyists and top officials will be crowing this week throughout the state and across the country about Senate Bill 922, Assembly Bill 436, and Senate Bill 790 and how these bills will preserve Project Labor Agreements, now their primary political means of cutting bid competition and raising construction costs by 15 percent for California taxpayers.

We have already seen this PLA requirement lead to expensive cost increases. Media reports now find that projects covered by the PLA requirement are also failing to achieve local hiring goals as well. Here is an excerpt from last Friday’s San Diego Union-Tribune:

The San Diego school district has failed to meet the hiring goals of its labor pact, which promised to employ local workers to build and repair campuses under its $2.1 billion construction bond measure.

The district rolled out its project labor agreement two years ago over the objections of the construction industry, pledging to give jobs to locals whose children might attend San Diego schools.

The union-friendly plan called for contractors to hire all of their crews from San Diego County, with 70 percent living within the boundaries of the San Diego Unified School District, and 35 percent from some of the poorest ZIP codes.

A district review of the actual hiring shows that 95 percent of the workers live in the county. Thirty-two percent live within district boundaries, less than half of the 70 percent goal. About 20 percent live in City Heights and the other specified low-income ZIP codes, below the goal of 35 percent.

The labor pact initially mandated local hiring provisions, but the agreement was softened before adoption in 2009 to call for employment goals.

[Snip]

Jim Ryan, executive vice president of the Associated General Contractors Association San Diego chapter, said the hiring goals were included in the pact for political purposes — to make the agreement more appealing. He said the goals are out of reach, in part, because they defy some union hiring rules that award jobs to workers on a priority list that does not take into account residency.

“It sounded great but it was never practical,” Ryan said.

The San Diego school board voted in March to spend $86,350 to hire consultants to conduct a study to determine the effectiveness and impact of the labor pact. The report is expected to be complete in October.

This is further evidence that this PLA requirement is a bad deal for school district residents.

In fact, San Diego County residents already recognize that PLAs are a not in their interest and have voted to ban government-mandated PLAs all three times bans have been on the ballot (Chula Vista, Oceanside and San Diego County)

The local hire struggles on Proposition S funded projects are just more evidence debunking Big Labor’s claim that PLAs guarantee local hire.  They don’t.

Here is an excerpt from our August 5, 2010 post that explains why this is the case:

An article in yesterday’s San Francisco Examiner demonstrates that PLAs can’t guarantee local hire because union hiring rules can’t guarantee local hire (“Union allocation is roadblock to local hiring,” 8/4):

SAN FRANCISCO — City residents are landing more construction jobs on San Francisco Redevelopment Agency projects, but union practices still keep some from working.

The City and the Redevelopment Agency, a state bureau that oversees massive building efforts, aim to provide half the work on construction projects to San Francisco residents.

But those goals are rarely achieved, prompting some activists and politicians to push for a law that would fine contractors when city residents perform less than half the work on a locally funded project.

Mayor Gavin Newsom would support such legislation if it’s achievable given the constraints of unions’ collective bargaining agreements and the poor economy, mayoral spokesman Tony Winnicker said.

Less than 25 percent of work on 29 San Francisco-funded construction projects went to locals, a city-funded research report published Monday showed.

[snip]

But with tens of billions of dollars worth of construction planned in San Francisco, including the building of new Hunters Point neighborhoods, city and agency officials said unions hold the key to achieving 50 percent local hiring rates.

“There’s no way we’re going to meet the goal without relationships with the building trades,” Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Fred Blackwell said at the bureau’s meeting Tuesday.

That’s because construction workers are generally assigned to jobs by unions, not contractors.

“We cannot legally determine our membership by where they live,” San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council Secretary-Treasurer Michael Theriault said. “Hiring is generally done under the principle that the worker who has been out of work longest has first crack at the work.”

Theriault is involved with a city task force that’s exploring ways of boosting the local work force through labor agreements and other measures. The group next meets Thursday.

That quote from a Big Labor Boss is accurate. Union membership and hiring hall rules can’t guarantee a local workforce for public projects. PLA advocates claim special language within PLAs can help establish local hiring goals (not mandates) that can help with local hire.  But so can clauses in contracts without all of the discriminatory and costly baggage contained in typical PLAs.

It is not uncommon for a city or state to experience a lack of job creation for local residents when Big Labor has control of an urban or regional construction market with help from politicians beholden to Big Labor’s special interest agenda.

PLAs fail at local job creation. It is just that simple.

The local hire issue is just a Big Labor smoke screen to deflect reasonable people away from the real issue, that government-mandated PLAs are special interest handouts that deprive the vast majority of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization of the opportunity to compete for projects funded by their own tax dollars.