In a press release and letter to the White House issued Monday, Sen. Ayotte asked President Obama to repeal his pro-union Executive Order 13502 and remove the anti-competitive and costly union project labor agreement (PLA) mandated by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on a $20 million to $50 million DOL Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H.

The DOL’s Jan. 30 solicitation (DOL121RB20457) for the Manchester Job Corps Center mandates a union-favoring PLA.

Bidding is only open to certified small business contractors willing to agree to the terms and conditions of the union-friendly PLA drafted and mandated by the DOL. 

Qualified federal contractors played no part in creating this government-mandated PLA, which requires contractors to obey numerous union collective bargaining agreements, pay into union pension and benefit plans, follow inefficient union work rules, hire most of their employees through union hiring halls for the life of the project and force unwanted union representation on nonunion employees.The PLA is a direct assault on New Hampshire’s ”Live Free or Die” state motto.

In New Hampshire, 85.5 percent of the construction workforce does not belong to a labor union, according to new government data. The state does not have a history of using government-mandated PLAs and few federal small business contractors are unionized, leading many in the industry to believe out-of-state union contractors and union workers from Boston will steal jobs away from the New Hampshire construction industry, which is already suffering from a grim construction economy.

According to a press release issued by ABC New Hampshire/Vermont President Mark Holden:

The government-mandated PLA has the potential to again delay this project, increase costs, reduce competition from qualified New Hampshire businesses and deny badly needed jobs to skilled New Hampshire construction workers who have freely chosen not to belong to a union.

The Union Leader ran an article about this controversy (“Sen. Ayotte slams bidding for Manchester Job Corps Center,” 2/7/12):

Sen. Kelly Ayotte is calling on the Obama administration to scrap all union-friendly project labor agreements, saying they are the reason the planned Job Corps Center in Manchester has yet to be built.

In a letter to Obama released Monday, Ayotte asked the President to reverse his executive order requiring federal projects over $25 million to consider using project labor agreements, or PLAs. In his State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to cut government red tape. These agreements would be a good place to start, the Republican senator said.

“Federal government-mandated PLAs needlessly increase construction costs and limit the ability of non-union companies to successfully compete for government construction contracts,” wrote Ayotte. “This Washington mandate also significantly slows down the procurement of construction projects, forcing workers to wait on the sidelines until the PLA winds its way through the federal bureaucracy.”

A Foster’s Daily Democrat editorial also blasts the DOL’s anti-competitive and costly union-friendly PLA mandate on the Job Corps Center (“The union souffle is falling fast,” 2/9/12):

While there is some debate on the actual impact of PLAs on construction costs, PLAs should play no role in a free an open marketplace.

Unions argue that even though union labor — or union labor rates — may increase the cost of constructions projects, their workers bring to the table better skills and quality assurance. These, in the long run, supposedly make the extra costs worthwhile.

If that is true unions should be willing to compete on the merit of their argument. Bidding on such projects as the Job Corps Center should not be delayed by the prerequisite of a PLA. The impact of union labor on a projected should be part of the bid offered by contractors who may of their own free will choose to use union labor — no pre-mandate.

Such dictatorial practices go a long way in alienating the general public. They fuel Right to Work efforts in states such as New Hampshire. And they leave such a sour taste in he mouths of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public that union ranks nationally have fallen faster than a souffle after the oven door is slammed shut while baking.

PLA Controversy Delayed Project
TheTruthAboutPLAs.com readers may recall previous media coverage of the Job Corps Center project, which most recently included a Dec. 23  holiday-themed op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader  by Holden. It summarizes the long-running controversy surrounding the DOL’s PLA mandate on the Job Corps Center and the absurdity of this gift to Big Labor at the expense of New Hampshire businesses and workers. It was penned in response to the DOL’s Dec. 22, 2011 pre-solicitation indicating the project would be subject to a PLA mandate.

By Mark Holden

It may be beginning to look a lot like Christmas, but many New Hampshire construction workers and businesses are expecting a lump of coal in their stockings from the federal government.

In this case, the Grinch is the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which is planning to build a $35 million Job Corps Center in Manchester with federal tax dollars.  Unfortunately, the DOL is poised to ensure the project is built by out-of-state union labor and union contractors, despite the fact that more than 91 percent of New Hampshire’s construction workforce chooses not to belong to a construction labor union.

The DOL is mandating a union-favoring project labor agreement (PLA) on the Job Corps Center.  Created by unions as a way to circumvent the free market and regain lost market share, a PLA typically requires contractors to replace most or all of their existing workforce with unfamiliar union labor, follow archaic and inefficient union work rules, and pay into underfunded union pension and benefit plans if they want to win contracts.

New Hampshire’s skilled nonunion workers are forced to accept unwanted union representation and pay union dues, yet they will forfeit benefits paid into union pension and benefit plans during the life of the project unless they join a union and become vested in these plans. 

Such humbuggery has the effect of discouraging competition from New Hampshire’s qualified contractors and their local employees.

Reduced competition coupled with costly union red tape needlessly increases construction costs.  Studies by the Beacon Hill Institute in Boston indicate projects subject to prevailing wage laws built with government mandated PLAs are 12 percent and 18 percent more expensive compared to similar non-PLA projects subject to government-determined wage and benefit rates. The research comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with Boston’s Big Dig boondoggle, which was built with a PLA mandate.

In short, government-mandated PLAs are a gift to Big Labor at the expense of taxpayers and New Hampshire construction businesses and tradespeople.

If this controversy has the disappointing familiarity of a re-gifted fruitcake, it is because the DOL tried to mandate a PLA on the Job Corps Center in 2009.  In the face of such blatant discrimination, a brave contractor, North Branch Construction of Concord, filed a bid protest against the DOL’s anti-competitive PLA. Instead of proceeding with PLA-free construction subject to fair and open competition – which would result in badly needed local job creation – the DOL canceled the project.

Not to be deterred, the DOL retained the services of a consultant, Hill International, to prepare a report justifying and defending a PLA requirement. The report cost taxpayers $130,000. It was the second PLA report Hill International prepared for the DOL. The first report, which trumpeted the alleged benefits of PLAs on federal construction projects, cost taxpayers $300,000. The latest report is so shoddy and full of pro-PLA bias, taxpayers will wish it came with a gift receipt.

The DOL and the federal government’s discriminatory policy is the product of an executive order signed by President Obama just a few days after moving into the White House in 2009. The measure encourages federal agencies to mandate PLAs on a case-by-case basis on large federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost.

It is no coincidence it steers federal contracts to one of the White House’s and Democrat party’s biggest political patrons: Big Labor.

So while the Grinch has come to town, stealing Christmas hopes and dreams away from The Granite State’s workers and their families, will any of the GOP presidential candidates take a stand against deceptive payback to Big Labor prior to New Hampshire’s Jan. 10 primary?  

All nonunion contractors and their employees want this holiday season is the ability to fairly compete.  Some members of Congress, such as New Hampshire Sen. Ayotte, Rep. Frank Guinta and Rep. Charlie Bass, have stood up for free enterprise and New Hampshire families in support of legislation (S. 119 and H.R. 735) to “preserve open competition and federal government neutrality toward the labor relations of federal government contractors on federal and federally funded construction projects.”

That’s exactly what should happen. The federal government should preserve the right of everyone to fairly compete for jobs, not just a select few.

Congress should pass this legislation or a new president should undo President Obama’s destructive policy catering to well-connected special interests. It’s the only surefire way to keep the federal Grinch at bay.

##

Mark Holden is the president of the New Hampshire/Vermont Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors. To learn more about anti-competitive PLAs, visit www.TheTruthAboutPLAs.com.

Obama Administration’s First Federal PLA Mandate
The DOL mandated a PLA on this project in 2009. It was the first PLA mandated by a federal agency on a federal construction project following President Obama’s Feb. 6, 2009 Executive Order 13502, which encourages federal agencies to mandate PLAs on a case-by-case basis on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost. The DOL’s 2009 PLA mandate was especially unusual because it was issued prior to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council final rule (pdf), issued April 13, 2010, and effective May 13, 2010, implementing Executive Order 13502 into federal procurement regulations (learn more here).

Similar attempts by federal agencies to mandate PLAs before and after the effective date of the FAR final rule were foiled by ABC contractor-led bid protests (learn more here).

Last summer, the project and PLA controversy received attention from the New Hampshire Union Leader (“Jobs Corps Center project going forward,” 8/20/11) and a related press release from Sen. Ayotte (“Senator Ayotte Expresses Concerns about Labor Requirement for Manchester Job Corps Project,” 8/19/11) in response to the DOL’s August announcement they will proceed with construction and mandate a PLA despite previous controversy.

Executive Order 13502 and the related FAR rule remain controversial White House gifts to Big Labor likely to increase federal construction costs, reduce economy and efficiency in federal contracting, reduce competition from quality nonunion contractors and their skilled employees, and deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve from the government.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com will be following the DOL Job Corps Center project closely in the coming weeks.

While the Giants and the Patriots prepared for their Super Bowl match-up, Indiana’s state government took steps to guarantee Hoosiers the opportunity to work without having to pay dues to a labor union. On Wednesday, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed legislation to make Indiana the 23rd right-to-work state.

The enactment of Indiana’s right-to-work law may be the most significant general labor law reform adopted since the 2010 election. This law gives workers an opportunity to decide whether to join a labor organization, even if their workplace is organized, without having that decision made for them by union bosses.

Courtesy of the National Right to Work Foundation

From our perspective at TheTruthAboutPLAs, this is a very positive development. It will position Indiana to attract investment and this will help create much needed jobs. This is particularly true in the manufacturing and service sectors of Indiana’s economy. There is no doubt it will lead to additional construction jobs, too.

Unfortunately, the right-to-work law does not eliminate the threat of government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) in the Hoosier state. As we have explained before, PLA mandates can still occur in right-to-work states, although the PLA cannot require workers to pay full union dues. The PLA can still require contractors to recognize a labor union as the sole representative of all workers on the job, hire some or all of their workers from a union hiring hall, pay into union pension and benefit programs, and follow inefficient union work rules. The right-to-work law removes an important component of PLAs, which is to force workers to join a union as and/or pay union dues as a condition of employment, but the other provisions are burdensome enough that contractors utilizing union labor from local unions participating in PLAs are at a significant competitive advantage over their merit shop counterparts.

Indiana is no stranger to PLA activity. Super Bowl attendees will enjoy the game from Lucas Oil Stadium, a facility constructed under a wasteful and discriminatory PLA mandate. As a result, it was virtually impossible for nonunion construction workers to build this project. This kept 70 percent of Indiana’s construction workforce – those who chose not to join a labor union – from building this project, which was funded in part by their own tax dollars. Out of state license plates from construction union members flooded the area, demonstrating how a PLA does not guarantee local hire.

Additionally, the stadium project was $75 million over budget, despite burning through a $50 million contingency fund.

Lucas Oil Stadium Mid-Construction, Courtesy of Wikipedia

This is just another example of how PLA mandates not only hurt the construction workers and their families, who are deprived of the opportunity to compete for projects, but also average taxpayers.

In an interesting bit of irony, rumors are swirling around Indianapolis that some union members and ‘Occupy’ protesters are planning to protest the right-to-work law at the Super Bowl on Sunday. If protests do happen, we are sure the protesters will say they are standing up for the middle class. Someone should ask them how excluding 72 percent of Indiana’s construction workforce from building the stadium grows the middle class.

Of interest to TheTruthAboutPLAs.com readers, the estimated 13,000 Keystone XL pipeline construction jobs would be created exclusively for labor union members, as TransCanada required a union-favoring project labor agreement (PLA) on this privately financed project, which forces contractors to use union labor and follow inefficient union work rules.

UPDATE: A TransCanada representative contacted TheTruthAboutPLAs.com and stated the Southern portion of Phase 3, about 120 miles worth of pipeline, was not subject to the PLA and was awarded to a contractfrom firm in Eunice, LA. He said some of the pumping stations are not subject to the PLA as well. We asked for proof of this claim and an executed copy of the PLA but have not received any supporting evidence.

Did Politics or Policy Kill the Project?
Controversy surrounding the project created a schism in the Democrat party’s political base. Environmentalists oppose the project, characterizing it as gift to Big Oil that would destroy farmlands, aquifers and sensitive ecosystems in the pipeline’s path; increase reliance on dirty fossil fuels; and contribute to global warming. 

Meanwhile, construction trade unions support the pipeline expansion because the PLA would create new construction jobs exclusively for union members as the construction industry suffers from a 16 percent national unemployment rate.

Congress and some in the business community point to this stalled project as an example of how President Obama and onerous government regulations stand in the way of job creation and decreasing our reliance on foreign energy supplies.

For more than three years, the State Department conducted a “transparent, thorough and rigorous review” of the privately financed project. After increased pressure by all parties to make a decision, the State Department announced on Nov. 10, 2011, that it needed more time to explore alternative pipeline routes prior to approving TransCanada’s permit application. In response, Congress inserted a provision in the temporary payroll tax cut bill passed in December giving the administration until Feb. 21 to decide the fate of the pipeline.

On Jan. 18, the State Department recommended that President Obama deny the permit, but left the door open for future project approval, stating “it could complete the necessary review to make a decision by the first quarter of 2013.” The White House issued a statement and submitted a report to Congress following the denial of the permit, providing some insight into the reasoning behind the decision.

Political pundits characterize this decision as a political calculation by the Obama administration to shore up environmentalist support prior to the election, but keep the side window open for union job creation pending the results of the 2012 presidential election and additional studies.

Keystone XL Pipeline Creates Union-Only Construction Jobs
In September 2010, TransCanada announced it was requiring contractors interested in working on Phase 3 and Phase 4 of the Keystone XL pipeline to sign a PLA with various construction trade unions.

Typical PLAs force contractors to hire construction workers from local trade union halls in each craft, follow pro-featherbedding union work rules, and pay into union pension and benefit programs.  Nonunion contractors are discouraged from competing for contracts to build taxpayer-funded projects when a PLA is mandated by a government entity, such as a local, county, state or federal government in charge of a project, because the terms of the PLA discriminates against their existing nonunion workforce and makes them less competitive against unionized firms.

The anti-competitive and discriminatory nature of government-mandated PLAs is why the merit shop contracting community was outraged when President Obama signed Executive Order 13502. The order, signed just a few weeks into President Obama’s term on Feb. 6, 2009, encourages federal agencies to mandate PLAs on a case-by-case basis on projects exceeding $25 million in total cost.

On privately financed projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, a PLA can prohibit nonunion firms from bidding or prevent all nonunion workers from being hired, even if they have the necessary qualifications and experience. In some instances, a PLA allows a limited number of nonunion workers, but forces them to pay union dues and fees and/or join a union as a condition of employment. In short, private sector PLAs can take discrimination to a whole new level compared to PLAs mandated by the government in the public sector of the construction market.

The project’s owner, TransCanada, voluntarily mandated a PLA on this private project. There is no evidence to suggest the Obama administration or federal officials forced TransCanada to mandate a PLA on this private project, nor is there evidence suggesting labor unions extorted TransCanada into requiring a PLA through typical tactics attacking construction owners to win more work for union members.

It is unfortunate that TransCanada elected to needlessly discourage competition from qualified merit shop contractors and discriminate against nonunion employees. It is a shame TransCanada’s PLA is telling 87 percent of the U.S. construction workforce they are not welcome to build the pipeline because they don’t have a union card, even if they have the necessary skills and experience.

The possible reasons why TransCanada mandated a PLA are numerous. Perhaps TransCanada needed Big Labor as an ally to shore up Democrat support at the local, state and federal levels of government. It wouldn’t be the first time a corporation hoped to exploit Big Labor’s cozy relationship with the president and his party, knowing that Big Labor donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats during prior election cycles.  Or perhaps TransCanada felt a PLA gave its project the best chance at all-around success. 

Whatever the reason, it is clear construction trade unions are irate at President Obama for his job-destroying decision. Mark Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, issued a statement critical of President Obama, as did Laborers’ Union President Terry O’Sullivan.

Despite Big Labor repeatedly attacking Republicans in the 112^th Congress, House Speaker John Boehner says the fight for jobs is not over, and even mentioned they have been working with labor unions to get this project back on track:

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

What Next?
BNA Bloomberg’s Construction Labor Report says (“President Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline But TransCanada Plans to File New Request,” 1/19/12):

TransCanada President Russ Girling said he is “disappointed,” although the decision was not unexpected.

“TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL,” Girling said. The company has spent, or is committed to spend, about $1.9 billion so far on the project.

Girling said the company will reapply for a presidential permit, and he hopes that a new application will be processed “on an expedited basis” that would allow an in-service date by late 2014.

However, State Department Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones said in a media briefing that a new application would require a new review process. She would not speculate on how long such a review might take and whether existing analysis could shorten the environmental review process.

The original TransCanada permit application was filed in September 2008 and has been under review by the State Department for the past three years.

News reports also indicate Canada may build a new pipeline from Alberta to the West coast of Canada and sell this oil to China and the world.

While it is interesting to see the odd political bedfellows created by this controversy, it is important to remember that the Keystone XL pipeline would not offer any direct benefit to the merit shop contracting community due to the discriminatory PLA voluntarily mandated by TransCanada.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com will be following this project closely.

UPDATE: The Laborers’ International Union Jan. 20 announced it will leave the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental groups that advocates for environmentally friendly green jobs, over disagreements with other coalition members on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The hearing was an opportunity for the committee to discuss how certain parties, particularly labor unions, exploit public participation in the CEQA process to achieve objectives unrelated to environmental protection. Assemblywoman Grove cited four specific recent examples of different unions (the Teamsters, the California Nurses Association, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and the Service Employees International Union) filing CEQA lawsuits to delay projects as leverage to extract labor concessions from businesses. She also noted that some businesses use CEQA to try to block potential competition.

Testifying on behalf of the sponsor, ABC of California Government Affairs Director Kevin Dayton discussed how certain construction trade unions abuse CEQA as a weapon to delay projects until the owner agrees to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. The Western Electrical Contractors Association (WECA) and the Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara were the other public supporters of the bill.

Assemblywoman Linda Halderman (R-Fresno) cited a specific example of a union using CEQA to try to force a contractor to sign a Project Labor Agreement to install solar panels at Fresno-Yosemite International Airport. Assemblyman Steve Knight (R-Palmdale) adeptly exposed the Attorney General’s double standard of opposing the additional responsibilities assigned in AB 598 while remaining silent about adopting additional responsibilities through other legislation.

Legitimate environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League opposed the bill. The Teamsters and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union opposed the bill in writing but did not speak at the hearing. Democrats on the committee opposed the bill, but some of them (along with the Attorney General’s office) acknowledged that some parties abuse CEQA. Assemblyman Bill Monning (D-Santa Cruz) said nothing about how the Carpenters union used CEQA in a recent high-profile campaign to delay and ultimately derail the proposed La Bahia Hotel in Santa Cruz.

The committee defeated the bill on a 5-3 party-line vote: Democrats opposed, Republicans in support.

You can thank the following state legislators at these email addresses:

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove: Contact

Assemblywoman Linda Halderman: Contact

Assemblyman Steve Knight: Contact

Background on Assembly Bill 598: text, committee analysis

Some Recent News Media Coverage of CEQA Abuse: Bad Environment for Development? (Los Angeles Business Journal, July 18, 2011, via Central City Association of Los Angeles); Firms Turning to Environmental Law to Combat Rivals (Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2011).

Bidding is open only to certified small business contractors willing to agree to the terms and conditions of the DOL’s union-friendly PLA. The DOL issued a sources sought notice Sept. 23, 2011 (DOL111RI20431), to determine if there were enough interested and qualified small business general contractors to designate it a 100 percent small business set-aside.

Controversy concerning the union-favoring PLA mandate will heighten once the project’s solicitation containing the PLA is issued the second week of January.

Update Jan. 30: The DOL solicitation, issued  Jan. 30, 2012, can be read here. Here is the actual PLA and here are the numerous union collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) contractors will have to agree to in addition to the PLA for the life of the project. Bids are due March 21, 2012.

Update Feb. 6: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued a press release and sent a letter to the White House asking for President Obama to repeal his pro-PLA Executive Order 13502 and remove the DOL’s PLA mandate on this project. The Union Leader has a piece on the controversy here.

Dec. 23, the New Hampshire Union Leader ran a holiday themed op-ed by ABC New Hampshire/Vermont President Mark Holden. It summarizes the long-running controversy surrounding the DOL’s PLA mandate on the Job Corps Center and the absurdity of this gift to Big Labor at the expense of New Hampshire businesses and workers.

Executive Order 13502: Obama's Gift to Big Labor. Image courtesy of The Boston Globe, "Obama kowtows to labor unions," 10/07/09.

By Mark Holden

It may be beginning to look a lot like Christmas, but many New Hampshire construction workers and businesses are expecting a lump of coal in their stockings from the federal government.

In this case, the Grinch is the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which is planning to build a $35 million Job Corps Center in Manchester with federal tax dollars.  Unfortunately, the DOL is poised to ensure the project is built by out-of-state union labor and union contractors, despite the fact that more than 91 percent of New Hampshire’s construction workforce chooses not to belong to a construction labor union.

The DOL is mandating a union-favoring project labor agreement (PLA) on the Job Corps Center.  Created by unions as a way to circumvent the free market and regain lost market share, a PLA typically requires contractors to replace most or all of their existing workforce with unfamiliar union labor, follow archaic and inefficient union work rules, and pay into underfunded union pension and benefit plans if they want to win contracts.

New Hampshire’s skilled nonunion workers are forced to accept unwanted union representation and pay union dues, yet they will forfeit benefits paid into union pension and benefit plans during the life of the project unless they join a union and become vested in these plans. 

Such humbuggery has the effect of discouraging competition from New Hampshire’s qualified contractors and their local employees.

Reduced competition coupled with costly union red tape needlessly increases construction costs.  Studies by the Beacon Hill Institute in Boston indicate projects subject to prevailing wage laws built with government mandated PLAs are 12 percent and 18 percent more expensive compared to similar non-PLA projects subject to government-determined wage and benefit rates. The research comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with Boston’s Big Dig boondoggle, which was built with a PLA mandate.

In short, government-mandated PLAs are a gift to Big Labor at the expense of taxpayers and New Hampshire construction businesses and tradespeople.

If this controversy has the disappointing familiarity of a re-gifted fruitcake, it is because the DOL tried to mandate a PLA on the Job Corps Center in 2009.  In the face of such blatant discrimination, a brave contractor, North Branch Construction of Concord, filed a bid protest against the DOL’s anti-competitive PLA. Instead of proceeding with PLA-free construction subject to fair and open competition – which would result in badly needed local job creation – the DOL canceled the project.

Not to be deterred, the DOL retained the services of a consultant, Hill International, to prepare a report justifying and defending a PLA requirement. The report cost taxpayers $130,000. It was the second PLA report Hill International prepared for the DOL. The first report, which trumpeted the alleged benefits of PLAs on federal construction projects, cost taxpayers $300,000. The latest report is so shoddy and full of pro-PLA bias, taxpayers will wish it came with a gift receipt.

The DOL and the federal government’s discriminatory policy is the product of an executive order signed by President Obama just a few days after moving into the White House in 2009. The measure encourages federal agencies to mandate PLAs on a case-by-case basis on large federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost.

It is no coincidence it steers federal contracts to one of the White House’s and Democrat party’s biggest political patrons: Big Labor.

So while the Grinch has come to town, stealing Christmas hopes and dreams away from The Granite State’s workers and their families, will any of the GOP presidential candidates take a stand against deceptive payback to Big Labor prior to New Hampshire’s Jan. 10 primary?  

All nonunion contractors and their employees want this holiday season is the ability to fairly compete.  Some members of Congress, such as New Hampshire Sen. Ayotte, Rep. Frank Guinta and Rep. Charlie Bass, have stood up for free enterprise and New Hampshire families in support of legislation (S. 119 and H.R. 735) to “preserve open competition and federal government neutrality toward the labor relations of federal government contractors on federal and federally funded construction projects.”

That’s exactly what should happen. The federal government should preserve the right of everyone to fairly compete for jobs, not just a select few.

Congress should pass this legislation or a new president should undo President Obama’s destructive policy catering to well-connected special interests. It’s the only surefire way to keep the federal Grinch at bay.

##

Mark Holden is the president of the New Hampshire/Vermont Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors. To learn more about anti-competitive PLAs, visit www.TheTruthAboutPLAs.com.

Well said, Mark.

To date, The Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (H.R. 735/S.119) has 170 cosponsors in the House, nearly 30 cosponsors in the Senate, and broad support from industry groups.

Concerned taxpayers can write Congress here to help keep the federal Grinch at bay this holiday season.

Image Courtesy of the Columbus Dispatch

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com readers may recall previous media coverage of the Job Corps Center project, which most recently includes a New Hampshire Union Leader article (“Jobs Corps Center project going forward,” 8/20/11) and related press release from U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (“Senator Ayotte Expresses Concerns about Labor Requirement for Manchester Job Corps Project,” 8/19/11) in response to the DOL’s August announcement they will proceed with construction and mandate a PLA:

MANCHESTER — A project labor agreement, which delayed construction of New Hampshire’s Job Corps Center for 21 months, will be a project requirement according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

The department announced last week it would move forward with the long-delayed $35 million project off Dunbarton Road. A New Hampshire contractor challenged the requirements two years ago, delaying project construction.

U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte said in a press release Friday she is concerned that the PLA favors out-of-state unionized contractors over local firms and could drive up the project’s cost.

“The administration’s plan to keep in place the PLA represents yet another senseless government mandate that could put New Hampshire businesses and workers at a competitive disadvantage. A PLA effectively gives unionized firms an unfair advantage over non-union firms, making it less likely that New Hampshire contractors would be able to bid successfully for the work,” said Ayotte. “This is a New Hampshire project, and local contractors should be able to compete for it on a level playing field.”

Project labor agreements usually require companies working on a construction project to provide health care, retirement benefits and apprenticeship programs. And PLAs usually include work rules, safety provisions, dispute resolution and a no-strike clause.

Contractors balked when the Job Corps agreement called for experience with three or more PLAs. North Branch Construction of Concord filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office and that brought the bidding process to a halt.

Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas said Friday his concern with the original PLA was the prior PLA experience. That meant no New Hampshire firms could qualify to do the work, because no firm had experience with three PLAs, he said.

“My understanding was that was not going to be in there,” Gatsas said. “It should be New Hampshire people doing this project.”

Gatsas said he has not seen the documentation, but noted “This is a project we need to move forward. It’s 300 construction jobs to the city and 135 permanent jobs.”

In response to a request from Ayotte asking to clarify the PLA issue, the DOL wrote that in keeping with a January 2009 executive order by President Obama, construction projects over $25 million should use PLAs. A PLA is appropriate for the $35 million Job Corps project, the department wrote.

Mark Holden, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors of New Hampshire/Vermont said: “It is important for all New Hampshire taxpayers to understand the impact of this decision. Requiring non-union contractors to execute union agreements for the project, agreeing to replace their employees with union workers, pay into union funds and abide by union work rules and conditions creates unknown costs that are impossible to plan and bid for and are conditions that make it non-competitive for non-union contractors.

“To suggest that a non-union contractor’s ability to compete would not be impacted by this PLA is untrue. A PLA requirement will have a chilling impact on competition from non-union contractors and will dramatically inflate the construction cost of this taxpayer funded project. At a time when a challenging economy is dependent on real solutions for job creation and accountability for every taxpayer dollar, this decision is unbelievable.”

Joe Casey, president of the New Hampshire Building and Construction Trades Council, said Ayotte and Holden are making a lot of assumptions about the PLA and what it will require. “It all depends on what the project labor agreement is and I have yet to see one for this project,” Casey said. “This is a debate we should have once the Department of Labor releases the project (documents).”

He noted the DOL hired an independent group, Hill International, to determine if a PLA is feasible for the project, but he had not seen the study. “We should all take a step back and see the actual contents of the project labor agreement,” Casey said. “The provisions could benefit New Hampshire contractors and New Hampshire workers.”

He noted the last major federal construction project in New Hampshire was the Berlin prison and the contractors and almost all of the workers came from out-of-state. That prison has yet to open because the federal government has not released operation money.

“That is the type of thing the project labor agreement addresses,” Casey said. “If federal money is coming to the state of New Hampshire, why shouldn’t it stay in New Hampshire with the New Hampshire workforce. At the end of the day, that is what we are looking for.”

Dick Anagnost, a Manchester developer who is chairman of the Job Corps Task Force, told the New Hampshire Union Leader last week that the project will take about 18 months.

He said the Labor Department should take a month to prepare bid specifications. Another month will be needed to solicit bids, and a final month will be needed to review them.

A Job Corps Center will help train economically disadvantaged youth to enter high-growth industries. New Hampshire is among the last states to have a Job Corps Center. The state began efforts 10 years ago to land a center of its own.

The DOL’s 2009 PLA mandate was the first PLA mandated by a federal agency following President Obama’s Feb. 6, 2009 Executive Order 13502, which encourages federal agencies to mandate PLAs on a case-by-case basis on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost. The DOL’s 2009 PLA mandate was especially unusual because it was issued prior to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council final rule (pdf), issued April 13, 2010, and effective May 13, 2010, implementing Executive Order 13502 into federal procurement regulations (learn more here).

Similar attempts by federal agencies to mandate PLAs before and after the effective date of the FAR final rule were foiled by ABC contractor-led bid protests (learn more here).

However, Executive Order 13502 and the related FAR rule remain controversial White House gifts to Big Labor likely to increase federal construction costs, reduce economy and efficiency in federal contracting, reduce competition from quality nonunion contractors and their skilled employees, and deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve from government.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com will be following the DOL Job Corps Center project closely in the coming weeks.

Sacramento City Hall on Dec. 27, 2011

Article 2 of the California Constitution gives voters of cities and counties the right to exercise initiative powers. Article 2 begins with the statement that “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

Unions and their political friends hold this right of the people in contempt.

During the six-month campaign to put the Fair and Open Competition charter amendment on the ballot, signature gatherers were repeatedly harassed and physically assaulted by individuals with apparent ties to local construction unions. Eleven reports were filed with the Sacramento police in response to these incidents. An article in the December 22 Sacramento News & Review reports on union operatives gloating about getting a signature gatherer removed from a public area. In addition, advertisements sponsored by a construction union front group during the summer claimed to listeners of news and talk radio that their identify could be stolen if they signed petitions to place measures on the ballot. Governor Brown signed a bill (Senate Bill 202) that requires initiatives to be on the November ballot, apparently based on the idea that the union political machine will be more effective in the November 2012 election than in the June 2012 election. Finally, Governor Brown signed a last-minute gut-and-amend bill in September (Senate Bill 922) that nullified Fair and Open Competition policies for counties and general law cities (where the state legislature has full authority over contracting policies). This bill derailed the simultaneous signature-gathering campaign for a Fair and Open Competition charter amendment for the County of Sacramento.

Note that these incidents occurred in California, not in Venezuela.

As a charter city, Sacramento is able to establish its own contracting policies for city construction, so the governor and the legislature were unable to use their new anti-democratic law to suppress the will of the people there. If the enthusiasm of the public for signing these petitions is a reliable indicator, politicians in the City of Sacramento will soon lose their coercive power to force construction contractors to sign costly Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with union leaders for proposed projects such as the $387 million arena for the Sacramento Kings professional basketball team. Taxpayers will get the best quality work at the best price.

MEDIA
The campaign’s submission of the petitions to the Sacramento City Clerk was reported in www.CalWatchdog.com on December 27: Effort to Nix Sacto’s Union-Only Contracts

Is it right for a government to require contractors to make employee fringe benefit payments to union-managed trust funds and obtain their workers from a union hiring hall? What kind of thinking leads a representative of the People to require workers to pay initiation fees and dues to a union as a condition of working on a public project? What kind of community leader wants to build four taxpayer-funded schools for the cost of five, in order to curry favor with a special interest group?

Project Labor Agreements are associated with fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, internal corruption, and lack of accountability to the people who pay taxes for the government to provide services. Citizens abdicate their responsibilities to oversee their local governments. As a result, unions fill the resulting political vacuum and attract ambitious people who see unions as a vehicle to attain personal power and position.

Arguments based on reason and common sense have no power in this kind of environment, where only scandals earn public attention.

Today’s Exhibit A is the City of San Fernando, near Los Angeles.

The City of San Fernando was the first municipality in California to require a PLA for all public works projects. On September 19, 2005, the San Fernando City Council voted 5-0 to require all construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions for prime contracts worth $150,000 or more and specialty contracts worth $25,000 or more. These project cost thresholds are unusually low, indicating that representatives of the city made little effort to engage in credible negotiations with union leaders to develop the PLA.

Voting for the PLA in 2005 were council members Julie Ruelas, Nury Martinez, Steven Veres, José Hernández, and Maribel De La Torre. So what happened to them?

San Fernando voters recalled José Hernández and Julie Ruelas on January 13, 2009.

Nury Martinez was elected in 2009 to the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District, with endorsements from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Steven Veres was elected in 2011 to the board of the Los Angeles Community College District, with endorsements from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Only Maribel De La Torre remains on the San Fernando City Council. At the November 21, 2011 city council meeting, she was entangled in a spectacle that is bizarre, even by California standards.

Meanwhile, the city continues to require its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement to work on taxpayer-funded city construction. Business as usual.

Postscript: Today’s Exhibit B on Project Labor Agreements and Moral Breakdown…

Inquiry Targets Two Contractors on L.A. Community Colleges Project – Los Angeles Times – December 1, 2011

“The D.A.’s probe centers on Los Angeles Community College District allegations that the firms submitted fraudulent billings for Mission College work, part of a $5.7-billion construction program.”

According to Philly’s press release, the order does not mandate PLAs on all projects, but it creates a PLA evaluation procedure that opens the door to waste and discrimination during procurement of city construction contracts:

“City departments and agencies will refer projects appropriate for a PLA above five million in estimated construction costs to the Mayor’s Office, which will determine the feasibility of a PLA. The executive order establishes the Advisory Committee for Project Labor Agreements, which will monitor and review all PLAs and will make periodic evaluations of the use of PLAs. The members of the Committee are the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Solicitor, Managing Director, Director of Finance, Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Utilities, and Deputy Mayor for Economic Development.”

The press release claims the executive order will lead to government-mandated PLAs that can prevent strikes, save taxpayer dollars and lead to increased minority and Philadelphia resident participation on construction projects funded by local tax dollars.

A press release (pdf) issued yesterday by ABC Eastern Pennsylvania opposed Mayor Nutter’s pro-PLA executive order. And for good reason. TheTruthAboutPLAs.com readers know how government-mandated PLAs do not prevent strikes, reduce costs, increase competition from qualified bidders or, encourage employment of minorities and women tradespeople. Instead, they serve as a barrier to contracts for minority and disadvantaged businesses, and fail to create meaningful local hiring.

More from ABC Eastern PA’s press release:

ABC objects to the use of government-mandated PLAs on any taxpayer-funded construction project.

”Mayor Nutter’s executive order is discriminatory and costly. Government-mandated PLAs effectively preclude a majority of qualified contractors and their local employees from building construction projects funded by their tax dollars,” said Jeff Zeh, president and CEO of ABC Eastern Pennsylvania. “PLAs are only promoted by construction trade unions and their allies in an effort to end open, fair and competitive bidding, thereby providing unions with a workforce monopoly on construction projects.”

“This is nothing more than play to pay politics at its best in Philadelphia,” said Zeh. “The public should hold the Mayor and new Advisory Committee on PLAs accountable for any PLA mandates as these schemes will undoubtedly restrict competition, increase costs and unfairly cater to narrow special interests.”

Why the Reversal in PLA Policy, Mayor Nutter?
Few media outlets have covered this new executive order or questioned the reasoning behind Mayor Nutter’s sudden reversal of his position on government-mandated PLAs.

Journalists need to ask if this is the best solution for taxpayers, minorities and residents. Is this flip flop the result of Philly trade unions becoming more inclusive and less discriminatory, or is this standard Philly pay-to-play politics now that Mayor Nutter was elected for a second term?

Big Labor Causes Discrimination, Waste and Headaches for Philly
For years, Philadelphia was subjected to a pro-PLA bias on city-funded construction projects, starting with Executive Order No. 5-95, signed by Mayor Ed Rendell (D), who served as Pennsylvania’s governor for two terms and pushed government-mandated PLAs on construction projects built and funded by the commonwealth through the Department of General Services.

Taxpayers are also hurt by Big Labor’s presence in Philly’s residential construction market.  To put the negative impact of Philly’s construction unions on city residents into perspective, a 2010 construction industry report suggested modular homes as a solution to Philadelphia’s urban blight and run down neighborhoods because of Philly’s high construction labor costs.

The report said:

“Philadelphia’s construction costs are the fourth highest of any major city in the nation and 18 percent above the national average for all United States communities. The city’s house values—the price for which homes can be sold —are the third lowest of any major city in the nation and are 40 percent below the national average. As a result, construction costs often exceed the prices of new homes. This makes government subsidy a prerequisite for home building in most Philadelphia neighborhoods to fill the gap between building costs and the sales price of a home. High labor costs, 39 percent above the national average, drive the construction industry’s out-of-scale cost structure. These labor costs make up over half the total cost of an average project in Philadelphia.”

Big Labor’s stranglehold on Philly’s government and construction market also has wasted billions of dollars in the commercial and publicly funded construction markets. Embarrassments like the construction trade unions almost running MTV’s Real World out of town for using nonunion labor to build the cast’s trendy home, and unions forcing the Comcast Tower developers to install a second set of plumbing pipes because of a union dispute over the use of environmentally friendly PVC pipes and flushless urinals because they require less labor to install and less maintenance during the building’s lifespan, are too common. And then there is the infamous Dec. 2007 incident in which an African-American union construction worker from the Operating Engineers Local 542 in Fort Washington, Pa., (which has a storied history of choking diversity since at least 1971) complained that another construction worker from the glaziers’ union brandished a noose while working at the city’s Comcast Center.

The noose incident sparked a demonstration by African-American construction workers in City Center and compelled  the Philadelphia City Council to challenge the unions’ pattern of racism in 2007 and 2008. City Council members were outraged by constituent complaints, high city unemployment, and the lack of diversity in Philadelphia’s construction trade unions. Minorities and local residents have been shut out of the trade unions for decades (remember Nixon’s Philadelphia Plan of 1967) and weren’t hired on recent union-controlled projects funded by the city. Despite the fact that almost 80 percent of Pennsylvania’s private construction workforce does not belong to a union, local nonunion contractors and qualified workers complained they’ve been prevented from working on Philadelphia projects because of the city’s pro-PLA policy and other measures designed to steer contracts to union contractors and union labor who have installed pro-union Democrat allies in all levels of government.  At the time, City Council members and Mayor-elect Nutter called it “economic apartheid” for Philly’s constituents.

In early 2008, Tom Ferrick Jr., the Philadelphia Inquirer’s resident investigative journalist, tirelessly researched and bravely brought these facts to light:

“The building-trades unions – despite nearly three decades of effort to the contrary – remain all-male and overwhelmingly white.

Data I have analyzed recently indicate that only one craft is majority black and Latino: the laborers, who are at the bottom rung of the pay scale…

…Under federal regulations, OHCD must keep information on the home addresses, race and sex of workers who work on any government-subsidized project.

The union projects covered by the OHCD data totaled $514 million and involved 10,748 workers.

The nonunion projects – understandably – added up to much less. They totaled $39 million and involved 992 workers.

But the majority of workers in these nonunion projects were minorities: 72 percent, to be exact. And 71 percent lived in the city. Only 2 percent were women.”

This packet of articles, including Ferrick’s columns, document the Philly PLA controversy and tipping point, when Philadelphia City Council members demanded unions put more local and minority residents to work on the then estimated $700 million Convention Center renovation.

The project’s proposed PLA called for 13 percent of the workers to be minorities. The council wanted it at 50 percent. When the unions refused, the city threatened to open the Philadelphia Convention Center renovation project to competition from nonunion contractors by exempting them from having to agree to the union-only PLA as a condition of winning a contract.  The city demanded that trade unions open up their books and reveal the demographics of their membership. Two unions refused, but those that begrudgingly complied (or else they would lose their beloved PLA – their tool to obtain a labor monopoly on the Convention Center project) revealed results supporting Ferrick’s research: Philadelphia construction trade unions are not diverse and their members are not city residents.

The Philadelphia Daily News ran this article Feb. 5, 2008:

A breakdown of building-trades info that ended standoff

Here’s a breakdown of the 11 building-trades unions that provided membership data to City Council:

* Asbestos Workers: 6 percent minorities and women, 19 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 9 percent minorities and women, 35 percent city residents.
* Bricklayers: 20 percent minorities and women, 26 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 25 percent minorities and women, 59 percent city residents.
* Cement Masons: 27 percent minorities and women, 42 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 45 percent minorities and women, 64 percent city residents.
* Elevator Constructors: 5 percent minorities and women, 9 percent city residents. Apprentice data not provided.
* Ironworkers: 19 percent minorities and women, 32 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 24 percent minorities and women, 47 percent city residents.
* Painters: 7 percent minorities and women, 21 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 8 percent minorities and women, 33 percent city residents.
* Plumbers: 5 percent minorities and women, 29 percent city residents. Apprenticeship data not provided.
* Sheet Metal Workers: 14 percent minorities and women, 30 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 23 percent minorities and women, 56 percent city residents.
* Sprinkler Fitters: 6 percent minorities and women, 23 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 11 percent minorities and women, 40 percent city residents.
* Steamfitters: 4 percent minorities and women, 14 percent city residents. Among apprentices, 9 percent minorities and women, 25 percent city residents.
* Laborers: 91 percent minorities and women, 73 percent city residents.

- Dave Davies

Pitiful.  Plus, the data cannot be independently verified and unions failed to accurately report their exact demographics. For example, nobody knows how many individual black AND local members are in the plumbers union. Two major unions, the IBEW local 98 and the carpenters local union, refused to turn over data. But somehow, it was good enough for the City Council.

Politics Stifled Real Reform
Eventually, the city was pressured by Gov. Ed Rendell to cut a deal. The unions were given their anti-competitive PLA and the city received its unenforceable minority and local hiring ”goals” on the Convention Center. Unions were forced to make their best efforts to hire a Convention Center workforce in which 50 percent of workers were Philadelphia residents, 25 percent were African American, 10 percent Hispanic American, 10 percent women and 5 percent Asian. Of course, the Convention Center  exceeded the $700 million estimated cost by more than $86 million when it was completed in late February 2011.  Union abor costs have been blamed for the Convention Center’s difficulty in attracting customers. It is no surprise that reducing competition and mandating archaic union work rules through a PLA produces results like this. And it is unclear if Philly’s trade unions met the controversial hiring goals.

The deal also led to the creation of a new taskforce to address City Council’s concerns. The Mayor’s Advisory Commission on Construction Industry Diversity (MACCID), packed with union members and Big Labor cronies, was formed and tasked with creating a report that would produce solutions to fix the diversity problem festering within Philadelphia’s construction trade unions.

The MACCID produced this report in March 2009, which glossed over the fact that the power and culture of Big Labor is primarily responsible for preventing minority and local residents from obtaining new construction jobs. It offered few real and effective solutions and did not acknowledge Ferrick’s findings, which documented how the nonunion workforce boasted better diversity and local hire numbers. The report did not offer a cost-effective and viable solution: Philly should open competition from nonunion contractors, creating market pressure on unions to diversify faster and enact real reform.

The report and creation of the MACCID was mainly political window dressing offered to constituents less powerful than Big Labor to create the appearance of government addressing their complaints.

Have Philly Unions Suddenly Diversified?
That brings us to Mayor Nutter’s sudden appetite for government-mandated PLAs.

Have Philly’s trade unions produced measurable improvement in terms of putting minorities and local residents back to work?

Did Philly trade unions meet their hiring goals for the Convention Center?

Have unions really allowed the victims of discrimination to become members, despite record levels of construction industry unemployment, which peaked at 27 percent in Feb. of 2010?

Have the disenfranchised actually been hired by contractors, or are they toiling on union hiring hall out-of-work benches.

If there has been positive results, where is the data?

Why are local nonunion contractors and their skilled employees treated like second-class citizens in Philly?

Why did Mayor Nutter suddenly reverse course? How much money did the building trades contribute to his campaign in the last election cycle?

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.

Unfortunately, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) has decided to make union favoritism a key criteria for selecting vendors for their 2012 convention, particularly for construction and renovations in and around the convention site – the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, NC.

The DNCC’s Sept. 13 request for proposal for construction managers and event architects states that the DNCC will enter into a labor agreement with the construction manager, who will be obligated to ensure that nearly all work at the site be covered by union collective bargaining agreements to the “maximum extent possible.”

Republican candidate for Mayor of Charlotte Scott Stone wants to see exactly what is in these agreements.  He issued a letter requesting the DNCC release the actual project labor agreements and also issued the following press release on October 26:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mayoral Candidate Calls for Release of DNC Vendor Project Labor Agreement

Scott Stone Calls on DNC Host Committee to Release Project Labor Agreements

Charlotte, NC (October 26, 2011) – Republican mayoral candidate Scott Stone today called on the DNC Host Committee to release the project labor agreements that vendors will be required to sign. At a press conference in Charlotte, Stone presented a formal letter addressed to Mayor Foxx and the DNC Host Committee asking for the labor agreements to be made public.

Stone expressed his concern that at a time when other states around the country are outlawing project labor agreements, Charlotte and North Carolina – at the hands of the DNC – are heading toward them and down a slippery slope. “As project labor agreements are going away in Michigan, here in the Right-To-Work state of North Carolina they’re actually popping up.”

Now that the contracts have been awarded, Stone said it is time for the DNC host committee to release the project labor agreement that the vendors will be required to sign. “The contracts have been awarded and the DNC and Mayor Foxx cannot continue to put off these important questions about the extent to which organized labor will be used for the convention,” said Stone. “We understand that the DNC is going to use union labor and we think it only fair that they be transparent about how much union labor they will use.”

Page four of the DNC’s request for proposal indicates that the construction manager will be required to sign a project labor agreement.

###

Scott Stone is a licensed civil engineer with decades of experience managing national building projects. Stone is the founder of the NC Heroes Fund and served on the City of Charlotte’s Business Advisory Committee from 2006 to 2010. Stone lives in Charlotte with his wife and two daughters. Stone is the Republican candidate for Mayor of Charlotte.

 

There are a couple problems here, one obvious and the other a little less so.  First, these labor agreements are designed to keep the 97.5! percent of the local construction workforce that chooses not to join a union from working on these projects.

Why would the DNCC want to exclude so many hard working Americans in this economy, when unemployment in the construction industry is higher than 13 percent?

It is because the Democratic National Convention is being held in a Right to Work state, with no union hotels and as a result, some construction unions are threatening to boycott the event.  The Democrats have a political problem and are solving it by cutting North Carolina’s construction workers out of the project.

The other problem with the Democrats’ decision to require project labor agreements at their convention site is less obvious, but more significant for American taxpayers.  The major political conventions are funded in large part by taxpayer dollars.

That’s right Americans, you are footing the bill for this one too!

As reported by the Washington Examiner (“GOP and Dems get taxpayer subsidies for conventions,” 6/22/11), taxpayers pick up the bulk of the tab for these events:

The PECF money goes into the main bank accounts of the Democratic National Convention Committee and its GOP counterpart. For instance, in 2008, the DNCC’s $16.8 million budget came almost entirely from its $14.9 million check from the U.S. Treasury. So, taxpayers, covered the committee’s $26,000 bill at the Ritz Carlton and six-figure cost for housing convention staff, plus plenty more.

The PECF is the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which is funded by the $3 check-off option on the standard IRS tax forms that gives taxpayers the option of sending $3 of their federal taxes owed to fund presidential election activities.

In other words, taxpayers are picking up the cost of this political handout to Big Labor.  Again.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we thank Mr. Stone for working to get to the bottom of this mess.

Media Round-up

Charlotte Observer: “Stone Presses Union Jobs Issue,” 10/27/11

Red State: “Dems Dodge Questions On Discriminatory Union PLAs For DNC Convention,” 10/27/11

Liberty Watch: “Dems Dodge Questions On Discriminatory Union PLAs For DNC Convention,” 10/28/11