One such example occurred in California, where union efforts helped get Robert Calone appointed to the Governing Board for the Contra Costa Community College District.  Mr. Calone’s day job is Recording Secretary for the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 159.

While it’s possible that civic duty motivated Mr. Calone to apply for this office, it is also pretty clear that the construction unions have a revenue stream to develop.  And thanks in part to Mr. Calone, Big Labor will have a virtual monopoly on community college construction for the next five years.

But in all of the excitement over securing nearly all of the community college’s construction work in the next five years for Big Labor, it appears that Mr. Calone may have forgotten to take care of a small detail – properly completing his ethics disclosures.

Here is the press release from the Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors issued on January 10:

FPPC Complaint filed against Contra Costa Community College District Trustee for Failure to File Form 700 Timely and Report Income

The Fair Political Practices Commission has confirmed receipt of a complaint filed for possible violations relating to Robert Calone, who holds the office of Governing Board member for the Contra Costa Community College District.

California Government Code §87202(a) states that “Every person who is elected to an office specified in Section 87200 shall, within 30 days after assuming the office, file a statement disclosing his or her investments and his or her interests in real property held on the date of assuming office, and income received during the 12 months before assuming office.”

Robert Calone failed to file a statement within 30 days (he did it 200 days after assuming office, after the public requested his Form 700 from the college district). When he filed his statement, he failed to report income.

Finally, by filing his Form 700 late and then omitting a source of income on the late Form 700, Robert Calone concealed his financial interest in a controversial contract that was approved on December 14, 2011 by the Governing Board of the Contra Costa Community College District. Only the intervention of the public in exposing Robert Calone’s failure to submit a Form 700 and his failure to report his employment income prevented him from voting on a contract for which his loyalties and allegiance were divided and influenced by his paid employment as an instructor for an organization that was signatory to the contract.

“Mr. Calone, the Recording Secretary for the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 159, was appointed to the Board for the sole purpose of enacting a union-only Project Labor Agreement for District construction projects, thereby creating a monopoly on District work that will result in reduced competition and increased costs for public contracts funded by taxpayer dollars” stated Matt Heavey, a local citizen who filed the complaint.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed here.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we believe sunshine and transparency are the best medicine for public corruption.

Regardless of whether Mr. Calone violated the letter of the law, this one doesn’t pass the smell test.

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.

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.

Measuring the Cost of Project Labor Agreements on School Construction in California (Vince Vasquez, Dr. Dale Glaser, and W. Erik Bruvold; 2011) examined the inflation-adjusted square foot construction costs for 551 school projects in California built between 1995 and 2009 – a dataset more than four times larger than any previous similar study, such as the three studies examining the impact of PLAs on school construction costs in Mass., Conn., and NY by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, which also found that there is a statistically robust correlation between PLAs and greater school construction costs when compared to school projects constructed without a PLA.

The findings of the NUSIPR study are particularly important because California voters have approved $64 billion in school construction bonds during the past decade and several school districts have adopted the use of PLAs on these projects.

“This study, the largest and most comprehensive to date, provides new insight into the fiscal impact of PLAs,” said Vince Vasquez, NUSIPR senior policy analyst and co-author of the report. “It is our hope that our findings inform public debate when PLAs are advanced as a costless policy tool. Our research suggests they are not. Should districts choose to adopt them, school construction costs are likely to rise significantly.”

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com has long maintained that anti-competitive government-mandated PLAs are special interest schemes that end open, fair and competitive bidding on public works projects. PLAs drive up the cost of construction by reducing competition and discouraging qualified merit shop contractors and their skilled employees from building projects paid for by their own tax dollars.

Typical PLAs are pre-hire contracts that require projects be awarded only to contractors and subcontractors that agree to:

• recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job
• use the union hiring hall to obtain workers
• obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs
• pay into underfunded and mismanaged union pension and benefit plans
• obey costly, restrictive and inefficient union work rules

Study Criticized by PLA Proponents
The AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department – staunch advocates and beneficiaries of anti-competitive and costly government-mandated PLA schemes – attacked the study’s findings, citing arguments by a proponent of PLAs, Dr. Dale Belman of Michigan State University’s School of Labor and Industrial Relations (see Belman’s CV and previous coverage). Belman claimed that the study overlooked important factors that affect school construction costs.

In response, the study’s authors noted during a July 22 press conference the NUSPIR study used methods to control for factors that might have increased costs that could not have been attributed to the PLA, such as the numbers of stories, where the school was built and the presence of swimming pools and gymnasiums.  NUSIPR also responded to Belman’s critique in this July 25 news release.

Adding credibility to the study’s methodology and findings, the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the University of Southern California performed an independent review of the study and endorsed the statistical analysis and associated findings:

“Overall, we believe that the conclusion drawn in the report regarding the influence of PLAs on project cost are supported by the data set provided to us and the subsequent statistical analysis of that data,” said Richard G. Little, AICP, Director of The Keston Institute. “The research team appropriately utilized well-accepted statistical methods to arrive at this conclusion and it constitutes an important research finding. However, I would like to reiterate at this time that the results of our review should in no way be construed as the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy supporting any position relating to the use of Project Labor Agreements by any public or private entity.”

There is little doubt that academic experts will continue to vigorously debate relevant study methodologies and the overall value and cost implications of government-mandated PLAs on construction projects (for example, take a look at how Dr, David Tuerck from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston dissects Congressional testimony provided by PLA advocate and University of Utah Professor Dr. Peter Phillips in a recent Congressional hearing.

Study Renews PLA Debate
The study, covered by the San Diego papers here and here, renewed the debate about government-mandated PLAs on California construction projects funded by taxpayer dollars.

The San Diego Union Tribune reported that PLA proponent Tom Lemmon, business manager for the San Diego local trades council, admitted that PLAs do not save money when asked to comment about the study:

“You could study this thing to death,” said Lemmon, an asbestos worker. “PLAs do not raise the cost of projects. We are not saying they save money either, but they bring the projects in on time and on budget because of a more coordinated workforce.”

An op-ed published in the Sacramento Bee from Eric Hogue, a talk show host on KTKZ (1380 AM) in Sacramento and vice president of advancement at William Jessup University, argues that public officials should evaluate contractors on merit, rather than whether or not they are willing to sign a union-favoring PLA that only benefits Big Labor’s special interests (“Viewpoints: Exposing California’s costly school construction secret,” 6/22/11):

Given this data, if I were in charge of a school district, here is what I would do. If we needed to build a new school or modernize an existing facility, I would encourage all contractors to bid on the project. I would prohibit any discrimination against union contractors or other licensed construction firms. And I’d make sure that every bidder was evaluated on the merits of their proposal, the history of their performance and the benefit to my teachers, students and taxpayers who are paying the bills.

To my conservative friends, I’d say, “I’m hiring union” if their bid was best. And to my liberal friends, I’d say, “sorry, can’t work with you this time” if another contractor was the best choice. That’s the point. Political ideology has no business in anything other than history books. And that’s the biggest benefit of the national study. It’s all about dollars and cents.

The study also inspired The Flash Report’s John Fleishman’s call for fair and open competition on school construction projects  (“Checkmate: University Study Makes the Case Against Project Labor Agreements,” 7/25/11)::

I would encourage every education official to think long and hard about enacting these mandated waste agreements and tell any voter to reject a school bond, UNLESS, there is written language that states there will be no project labor agreement tied to any of the funds.  If the unions earn the work by providing the best bid, then that’s fine.  But forcing taxpayers to spend millions more than necessary at the same time as we’re pink-slipping teachers and talking about shortening the school year is flat wrong.

This report is required reading for anyone who cares about schools or the state’s budget challenges.  It’s full of good data that should serve as the foundation for a statewide campaign to ensure all public dollars spent for school construction are allocated through a competitive bidding process that is open to all licensed and qualified contractors.

The Associated Builders and Contractors California Cooperation Committee — which supported the study with a grant to defray about 20 percent of the study’s extensive research costs according to NUSIPR estimates — plans to educate  public officials about the study’s findings through a direct mail piece to California’s construction stakeholders.

Be sure to review the study and related materials at www.TheCostofPLAs.com.

Check back with www.TheTruthAboutPLAs.com and www.facebook.com/theTruthAboutPLAs for more coverage and analysis as this study gains more attention.

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.

In Indiana, the Democrats initially left town over proposed Right-to-Work legislation, which would have allowed private sector workers to avoid paying union dues as a condition of their employment. This would have given thousands of Hoosiers the opportunity to choose whether to join a union, instead of having that choice made for them. Union membership would no longer be required of individuals hired by unionized employers.

This may seem like a relatively common sense change to many, particularly when you consider the way Right-to-Work states have economically outpaced their counterparts over the last 20 years. Nevertheless, Right-to-Work laws deprive Big Labor of the dues money that they would otherwise collect if all employees were forced to pay union dues and as a result, Right-to-Work legislation is Big Labor’s proverbial “Public Enemy Number 1.” When it looked like the Indiana House of Representatives was poised to pass their Right-to-Work bill, the Democrats did what lawmakers from their side of the aisle seem to do best – fled to another state.

After the House Democrats split for Illinois, the Republicans took the Right-to-Work bill off the table. Unfortunately, the Democrats were emboldened and produced a list of 10 other bills that the House majority and Governor Mitch Daniels (R) would need to promise not consider for the remainder of session before the Democrats would return to Indianapolis. One of these bills is H.B. 1216, which would prohibit the use of wasteful and discriminatory project labor agreements (PLAs) on public projects in Indiana.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we have gone out of our way not to comment on the issues surrounding the public employee unions in Wisconsin. While our sister blog, Halt the Assault, has been vocal in its concern for expense public sector unions impose on taxpayers and the power they exert on lawmakers, we have tried to stay focused on PLAs and similar Big Labor schemes. Unfortunately, we would be remiss if we didn’t comment on the abdication of responsibility that is taking place in Indianapolis right now, as it is depriving taxpayers of the opportunity to get the best construction at the best price on public projects.

The Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives are entering the fourth week of their walkout. For the last 28 days, this chamber of the Indiana General Assembly has failed to do the people’s business. Instead, representatives are doing Big Labor’s wishes.

As President Obama reminded Republicans and America during the 2009 health care debate, “He won.”  In other words, elections have consequences. In Indiana, Democrats at the state level were routed in the last election. Prior to the 2010 election, Democrats held a four seat majority. In November, Hoosiers gave the Republicans a 20-seat majority and sent a message that business as usual is no longer acceptable in their state capital.

Taking your ball and leaving town is not a responsible legislative tactic. The House Democrats MUST return to Indianapolis and do the work they were elected to do.

And here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we thank the Indiana Republicans for standing up for taxpayers and the 72 percent of Indiana’s private construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor organization.  We urge them to stand strong and force the Democrats to do their job.

Also, check out ABC of Indiana Chapter President J.R. Gaylor’s column from the Indy Star for more information on the legislation to ban wasteful and discriminatory PLAs on taxpayer funded work in Indiana.