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

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.

As predicted, the PLA has already failed to deliver on Big Labor’s promises:

WINNING BID IS FROM LOS ANGELES COMPANY AND 35% OVER BUDGET!

Big Labor Promises of “On Budget” and of “Local Jobs” Ring Hollow as Bid is Awarded on First Prop. S Project with PLA
       
San Diego – The bid results are now in and they are devastating for Big Labor special interests and their SDUSD Board Member allies Richard Barerra, Shelia Jackson, and John Lee Evans. 

Yesterday at 2pm the bid results were opened for SDUSD’s Hoover High School New Woodshop Building. This is the first Proposition S project bid with a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) covering it. CFEC and others have warned for more than a year the results of a PLA would be disastrous in a city where 90% of the construction workforce is union-free but the three union controlled school board members would have none of it and shoved a PLA through with little study and no understanding of what it would mean to taxpayer dollars.  Now we know.

Total Bidders:

In this economy similar size projects, $2.8 million, have at least 15 bidders on them. For instance, the Auto Tech Careers Center Project at Miramar College for the San Diego Community College District had 17 bidders on it less than one month ago.  But San Diego Unified’s Hoover High School New Workshop Building had only FIVE BIDDERS!

Cost:

In this economy it is unheard of to see a job not come in UNDER budget.  That same project, the Auto Tech Careers Center for San Diego Community College District which was estimated at $2.8 million came in at $2,195,000. SDUSD’s Hoover High School New Workshop Building’s estimate was $2.5-$3.5 million; however, the low bid was $4 million. THAT IS 35% OVER THE ESTIMATE! This is exactly what we warned the district the cost increases would be.

Local Work:

Perhaps worst of all for PLA proponents was the complete and total undermining of their chief claim for why a PLA was so needed: “Local Jobs”.  The winning bidder for this job is USS Cal Builders, a Los Angeles based firm! 

“This is a complete and total repudiation of these three board members and their special interest allies in Big Labor” said CFEC’s Eric Christen. “In these tough times where taxpayers are demanding the best product at the best price SDUSD has instead given special interests a monopoly agreement that will result in children and taxpayers getting three schools built when they could have had four.  These three board members at their next board meeting need to take care of two orders of business before they do anything else: First they need to repeal the PLA and then they need to resign.”

San Diego taxpayers supported the $2.1 billion Proposition S school construction bond in November of 2008.  At their first school board meeting in January of 2009, three board members heavily supported by unions  (Jackson, Barerra, and Evans) had as their first order of business, a PLA for all Prop S work.  The PLA mandates that all workers have to pay union dues and into union benefit programs and it excludes non-union apprentices.  CFEC has also learned it is costing the district more than $600,000 per year just to administer.  The public outcry over this monopoly giveaway to Big Labor special interests was unanimous with the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors, Western Electrical Contractors Association, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, the Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Minority Contractors, and countless other community groups opposing such discrimination and waste.  Two board members, Katherine Nakamura and John DeBeck also agreed it was unnecessary  Their prescient predictions were ignored.

Now, if only someone had told the SDUSD this would happen.  Oh wait, they did. 

This is just one more example of local officials putting their political friends’ interests ahead of the people they represent.

Additional TheTruthAboutPLAs.com coverage of this debacle is available here.

Here is an excerpt from Michael M. Rosen’s commentary published in the 12/30 edition of the San Diego News Room:

For almost 20 years, residents of America’s Finest City have enjoyed New Year’s fireworks over San Diego Bay. But not this year, or possibly ever again, thanks to “greenmail” threats by environmental groups.

“Greenmail” is a notorious tactic deployed by activists to hamper plans for development. It works like this: a green or labor organization threatens to sue a developer under one or more of California’s myriad environmental laws and regulations unless the developer agrees to the demands of the group, such as scaling back the size of the project or hiring only union workers. Fearing the great expense and severe delays that prolonged environmental litigation typically entails, the developer reluctantly accedes to the activists’ demands. And the process begins all over again.

In this case, extremist environmental organizations have for years sought to terminate coastal fireworks shows on the ground that the falling debris pollutes the ocean, bay, or what-have-you.

The Encinitas-based Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) recently notified the San Diego Port Tenants Association, which stages the annual pyrotechnics show, that the group would sue the port commission unless the association obtained a federal Clean Water Act permit.

But the association, which is essentially a glorified business improvement district for port businesses, lacked the time, money, and even the authority to get the permit by New Year’s. The San Diego Unified Port District is arguably the only entity with standing to obtain authorization, but the district does not put on the show, and its spokesman told the Union-Tribune it had no plans to seek the necessary approval.

With the New Year’s fireworks scratched, the Independence Day pyrotechnics might not be far behind. The recent cancellation “raises doubt about the future of the July 4 fireworks as well,” according to Sharon Cloward, president of the Port Tenants Association. “Fireworks over San Diego Bay may be a thing of the past.”

Marco Gonzalez, an attorney with the Coast Law Group and the founder of CERF, which the law group represents, concurs. He told the U-T’s Logan Jenkins “every single coastal firework display is on the radar screen.”

In this case, the Port Tenants Association called his bluff and scrubbed the show on its own in a move certain to generate a fierce public backlash against CERF and its ilk, who will be held responsible tomorrow night when San Diego Bay falls silent.

This is San Diego’s equivalent of Gaylord Entertainment’s decision to drop its plans to build a convention center complex on Chula Vista’s bayfront a year ago after labor groups sought to extort a sweetheart deal for union workers. Gaylord’s departure triggered an outpouring of public frustration with labor that may well translate into passage of the Fair and Open Competition Ordinance on Chula Vista’s July ballot.

In other words, both the Port Tenants Association and Gaylord refused to be greenmailed. Instead, they changed the game by choosing not to play.

Gonzalez, surely realizing that he overplayed his hand, insists that “people who think we are trying to stop these shows are wrong. We are just trying to make them legal and safe for the environment.” He even contended that the Port Tenants Association “canceled the show on their own, despite the fact that we made it clear that we weren’t going to sue to stop the show.”

Yet Gonzalez—who incidentally is the brother of the Labor Council head Lorena Gonzalez—told Jenkins that his group was “willing to grant a pass for New Year’s” and then compel the appropriate entity to seek a permit for the Fourth of July. In other words, Gonzalez is saying, “yes, we do intend to sue, only not now, but in a few more months instead.” Whatever the timing, CERF is by its own admission hanging a litigious Sword of Damocles over the port’s head to extract concessions.

Gonzalez also frankly acknowledged that he hates pyrotechnics displays, saying “what are fireworks but pretend war?” and claiming they signify “our lack of evolution as a society.” Apparently, he believes all San Diegans should be compelled to adopt his progressive views of the evils of colorful aerial explosions.

For followers of PLA activities, this should sound familiar.  Big Labor used the same tactics in an attempt to pressure Gaylord Hotels into signing a project labor agreement (PLA) on its $1 billion and 2,000-room proposed hotel and convention center in Chula Vista in 2006-2007.

The project would have created over 8,000 jobs.  Gaylord refused to sign a PLA, so Big Labor tied the project up in so much enviornmental red tape that they left southern California for Arizona.

The fireworks are just one more example of Big Labor and their allies running amuck.

Project labor agreements (PLAs) came to the forefront in San Diego in the wake of the San Diego Unified School District’s decision to require PLAs on all projects funded by Proposition S, a $2.1 billion bond approved by voters in November 2008.

Here is an excerpt from the San Diego News Network’s coverage of Monday’s press conference:

“This measure imposes clear rules for open and fair contracting within city government,” DeMaio said at a news conference outside City Hall, flanked by about two dozen non-union trade workers.

It would also ban project labor agreements on developments being undertaken by the city, according to DeMaio.

A project labor agreement mandates that government contracts for public construction projects go only to union contractors. There isn’t currently a project labor agreement before the city, but San Diego is exploring several large projects, including a downtown stadium for the Chargers, a new central library, redeveloping City Hall and expanding the Convention Center.

“We need to ensure that if these taxpayer-funded projects do proceed, that all San Diegans are allowed to apply for the jobs that they would create,” DeMaio said.

The event’s speakers included members from Associated Builders and Contractors of San Diego, Associated General Contractors of San Diego, the National Association of Minority Contractors and local apprentices.  The apprentices at the event are trained professionals that could be prohibited from working on projects funded by their own tax dollars by government-mandated PLAs.

Video of the event is available on YouTube and pictures are also available.

This event was covered by a number of local news outlets, including:

Here is an excerpt from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation press release:

The discrimination against nonunion construction workers is facilitated by a so-called “Project Labor Agreement” (PLA) – essentially a collective bargaining agreement signed by contractors as a condition of performing work on a government-funded construction project. Arguing that the PLA between the school district and various unions (including the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters and San Diego Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO) illegally discriminates against construction workers who exercise their right to refrain from union membership, Foundation attorneys are defending the interests of the vast majority of construction employees in California who have opted against unionization.

Last November, San Diego voters approved a $2.1 billion school bond, called Proposition S. California law requires that all qualified contractors’ employees complete state-mandated “apprenticeship” programs, but it is illegal under federal law to discriminate against workers or businesses on account of union association. The discriminatory PLA, however, requires workers to go through union-run apprenticeship programs (disqualifying high quality training programs run by employers and other groups), and the subcontracting clause further attempts to coerce even more workers into union ranks.

This is the second legal challenge filed against the SDUSD since adopting the project stabilization agreement requirement in May.

Read the San Diego Source’s October 13 article titled, “Another Discrimination Claim Against School Bond Measure,” or the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s October 7 press release for more information.

San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) Superintendent Terry Grier’s decision to take a new job in Houston, TX is no surprise to the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, who blame the local teachers union and their labor allies for pushing Mr. Grier to look for greener pastures after less than two years on the job.  Here is an excerpt from the Union-Tribune’s August 21 editorial:

As far as San Diego Education Association boss Camille Zombro is concerned, the district’s 130,000-plus students are little more than props necessary to receive state funding for a union jobs program. Board members Shelia Jackson, Richard Barrera and John Lee Evans — elected with heavy union support last fall — share Zombro’s extreme views.

This is evident in how the board majority has dealt with the two biggest issues to come before it this year: the implementation of Proposition S, the $2.1 billion construction and renovation bond approved by voters last fall, and the crafting of a 2009-10 budget.

With Proposition S, Jackson, Barrera and Evans forced through a “project labor agreement” requiring the use of union labor on most bond-funded projects and mandating that non-union workers pay union fees.

In the 2008 campaign for the bond, plans for such a union payoff were never mentioned. The board majority adopted the PLA before it had been subject to even cursory independent scrutiny by either district staff or members of the bond oversight committee.

The certain result, based on the history of PLAs, is that far less will be done with the $2.1 billion bond than was promised to taxpayers.

In other news, there is a potential greenmail situation developing on San Diego’s new $21 million cruise ship terminal on Broadway Pier. Here is an excerpt from the SignonSanDiego.com story:

The San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition’s attorney served the port with a “cease and desist” letter Friday.

Environmental attorney Cory Briggs argues that the terminal is out of sorts with the port’s master plan, which shows public space on the pier and a 79,000-square-foot oval park at the base of the pier. The group is expected to file a lawsuit on this issue next week.

The port held a groundbreaking for the terminal Aug. 4, but construction had already begun.

Would this citizen coalition have the same problem with this project if it were build with a PLA, or is this just another example of Big Labor holding up an important project because they didn’t get their slice?

• San Diego radio station KPBS has an online report detailing the “bad news” that the San Diego Unified School District received last week from Associated General Countractors – San Diego President Jim Ryan.   It looks like trying to discriminate against 80 percent of California’s private construction workforce is an easy way for a school district to find itself in court.

The District [SDUSD] policy [to require the project stabilization agreements on all projects funded by Proposition S bond] expressly conflicts with apprenticeship law in California and it eliminates and impressmisibly restricts participation on the projects for all apprenticeship programs in California for training under their standards, regardless of their prior approval by DAS/CAC, except certain programs hand-picked by the District.

As a result, the District policy violates the Labor Code and related regulations, which permit contractors to utilize any approved apprenticeship program in which they participate to fulfill apprenticeship requirements on public works projects, including the [Proposition S funded] Projects.

AGC-San Diego representatives held a press conference with local media on July 30th to release details of their suit.  AGC leaders were joined by several local apprentices, each of whom is prohibited from working on Proposition S funded projects by the project stabilization agreement approved by the SDUSD.  The San Diego Union-Tribune’s coverage captured the worker’s perspective on this political handout:

James Ray, a 49-year-old father of four from San Diego’s Skyline neighborhood, is slated to finish a three-year training program at AGC in December, after which he expects to receive a certificate of completion from the state.

“We just want the chance to take care of our families and, you know, be a blessing . . . ,” Ray said at the AGC news conference. “What do we do now?”

This lawsuit and press conference come on the heels of the SDUSD School Board’s approval of a SECOND project stabilization agreement on July 28.  Followers of this blog are probably scratching their heads and wondering why a SECOND agreement is necessary.  Well, the project stabilization agreement approved in May was fine for the the Building and Construction Trade Department (BCTD), AFL-CIO locals, but the local carpenter unions had objections.  Carpenter union locals have found themselves involved in jurisdictional disputes throughout the country recently and have been accused repeatedly of stealing work and raiding BCTD unions for their members.  In the context of this dispute, the local carpenter unions refused to sign the project stabilization agreement that the SDUSD had already approved, forcing the School Board to draft and approve a second project stabilization agreement. 

By the way, the LA/Orange County BCTD website sums up the inter-union dispute very well:

Building Trades crafts are uniting to fight efforts by the Carpenters Union to take over the work and raid the membership of other unions. Since disaffiliating from the National Building Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the Carpenters have embarked on an aggressive campaign that has targeted a number of different crafts including the Plasterers and the Painters and Allied Trades (Drywall Finishers).

The Carpenters who supported both George Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been used their political clout with the anti-union politicians in Sacramento in order to get the California Apprenticeship Commission to approve state funding and certification for a Carpenters Union apprenticeship program to train Plasterers.

“[The Carpenters] are trying to position themselves politically with a dangerous foe. These politicians are no friends to labor,” said Ernersto “Ernie” Penuelas, Business Agent with Iron Workers Local 433. “The Carpenters are trying align themselves with people who carry a big stick in order to get favoritism for what they are trying to do, which is—in the opinion of a lot people—to take over the entire Building Trades and make it one big Carpenters union.”

Craft unions are not taking this struggle lying down. A video that surfaced on the website YouTube.com, shows confrontation between two Carpenter Business Agents and a group of Iron Workers, that ends in a brawl [union violence anyone?] after one of the Carpenter Business Agents grabs an Iron Worker as he tries to enter a job site.

As others have already said, it looks like the brotherhood isn’t what it used to be.

Regardless, this SECOND project stabilization was approved by the SDUSD School Board 3-2 and will be challenged as a part of AGC’s lawsuit.