Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas publicly stated his opposition to New York Gov. David Paterson Administration’s, and specifically the Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT), request that a wasteful and discriminatory project labor agreement (PLA) be required on the $100 million Lake Champlain bridge reconstruction project.

General contractor bids for the project were opened April 15, which means it is likely that Vermont leaders succeeded in protected their state’s construction firms and residents from the negative impact of this proposed PLA.

Here’s an excerpt from the Associated Press’ April 14 story (“Vermont Governor Against Labor Agreement for Bridge,” 4/14) via the Glens Falls Post-Star:

Vermont’s governor wants lawmakers to drop the idea of promoting a labor agreement to cover rebuilding the Lake Champlain bridge.

The state Agency of Transportation recently decided not to sign a proposed “project labor agreement,” which would have required all companies bidding on the bridge project to meet union standards for pay and benefits.

Vermont construction companies, which are mostly nonunion, had argued the agreement would cut them out of the work and in the process hurt Vermont residents’ chances to get work on the new bridge linking Crown Point, N.Y., and Addison, Vermont.

The Washington Examiner also picked up Gov. Douglas’ rejection of the NYSDOT’s PLA proposal (“Lake Champlain Bridge Linking Vermont and New York Caught Up in Labor Fight,” 4/18).  Here’s an excerpt:

Douglas said a draft project labor agreement would have required that 84 percent of the hundreds of engineers, iron workers, carpenters, teamsters, masons and laborers expected to find work on the bridge be union members at least for the duration of the project.

“I don’t think it’s fair,” the governor said. “It puts Vermont contractors at a disadvantage,” because most are nonunion, he added.

The day after Gov. Douglas’ announcement, the Burlington Free Press published an editorial (“My Turn: Politics Will Cost Vt. Bridge Jobs,” 4/15) by Mark Holden, ABC New Hampshire/Vermont chapter president, urging Vermont leaders to keep government-by-special interest handout out of their state.

Here are the highlights:

The bottom line is PLAs are special-interest handouts that deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve on public construction projects. At a time when the state is grappling with a significant budget deficit and crippling unemployment, wasting tax dollars and limiting opportunities for Vermont workers is simply too high a price just to reward New York union bosses for their connections.

To suggest that a nonunion contractor’s ability to compete is not impacted by this PLA is ridiculous. To present this PLA as an effort to create harmony and to establish a resolution to any potential disputes is misleading and promotes a procurement process that supports favoritism. At a time when a challenging economy is dependent on real solutions for job creation and accountability for every taxpayer dollar, the New York Department of Transportation should stop its consideration of this harmful PLA.

Get ready, citizens of Vermont. You may be about to get a taste of dysfunctional government — New York State style.

Now that general contractor bids are open and the project is clearly moving forward, it is less likely that the Paterson Administration will be able to secure this project for its Big Labor allies. Nevertheless, it is vital that Vermont residents – and its construction workers in particular – remain on the lookout for any final attempts to institute on PLA requirement for this project.

Vermont workers deserve the opportunity to work and taxpayers deserve the best project for the best price. A PLA requirement on the new Lake Champlain bridge would undermine both these goals.

We commend Gov. Douglas and his administration for standing up for the people of Vermont.

Vermont companies probably don’t want Vermont workers to be bitten by the union bug, but by participating in the bridge project, they would have to participate in a process that shows workers the benefits that unionization can bring. Meanwhile, the Douglas administration will be trying to negotiate an agreement to make participation in the project less onerous to nonunion companies from Vermont.

Just as Vermont has had to make allowances for the role of unions on the other side, New York must make allowances for Vermont and the way Vermont companies and workers have traditionally done business. If there is a PLA, it must reflect Vermont’s needs in a fair way.

First, you can’t have a PLA and “reflect Vermont’s needs in a fair way.”  PLAs are built on a foundation of unfairness against nonunion employers and employees. The Lake Champlain Brudge PLA specifically limits the number of nonunion employees a contractor can employ (16 percent of a trade’s workforce is the maximum). Because just 4.5 percent of Vermont’s private construction workforce is unionized, these special interest schemes designed to create jobs for unions are the wrong vehicle to achieve fairness.

Second, opposition to a PLA on the Lake Champlain Bridge by Vermont construction companies does not stem from the fear that workers will be “bittten by the union bug.”  Nonunion contractors object to the fact that a PLA would saddle businesses with excessive costs that make it difficult to compete against unionized contractors in the highly competitive bidding process. A PLA would ensure that unionized New York businesses will build this project while qualified nonunion Vermont firms and their skilled employees are essentially locked out.

Meanwhile, nonunion employees object to the fact that they would be treated like second class citizens while working under a PLA on the Lake Champlain Bridge.

For example, with a PLA,  Big Labor Bosses shakedown nonunion employees for union dues for the life of the project.

PLAs also take away employee’s workplace rights:

Employees normally are permitted to choose whether to join a union through a card check process or a federally supervised private ballot election. PLAs require unions to be the exclusive bargaining representative for workers during the life of the project. The decision to elect union representation is made by the employer – when agreeing to participate in a PLA –  rather than the employees. PLAs are called pre-hire agreements because they can be negotiated before the contractor hires any employees or employees vote on union representation. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally prohibits pre-hire agreements, but an exception in the act allows for these agreements only in the construction industry. In short, government-mandated PLAs strip away the right of construction workers to a federally supervised private-ballot election or a card check election when deciding whether or not to unionize their workplace and/or seek union representation.  PLAs would deny employees a system of merit-based pay.

In addition, nonunion employees must follow unfamiliar and inefficient union work rules that hinder the ability of construction workers from gaining experience performing jobsite tasks across traditional trade jurisdictions. This also prevents contractors from efficiently utilizing labor and delivering the best possible product at the best possible price to taxpayers.

Finally, under a PLA, nonunion employees would forfeit fringe benefit contributions that their nonunion employers must pay into union benefit plans on their behalf.  Nonunion employees would essentially work without benefits for the life of a PLA project while Big Labor’s plans and its participants get a cushy windfall.

If these are the alleged ”benefits” of a PLA and union membership, it is no wonder Vermont politicians, construction businesses and employees oppose PLAs.

Of course, Vermont’s construction professionals are free to join a union and seek employment through union hiring halls with unionized contractors whenever they want, so the premise that construction employees have been denied union membership through some sort of nefarious plot is false.

Vermont’s construction workforce should be free to experience the benefits of union membership by exercising their own free will — not because the government is forcing them to play by union rules (in order to make a living) — as is the case with a government-mandated PLA.

An article in Saturday’s Burlington Free Press covered Friday’s Vermont Senate hearing that examinedVermont government’s objections to the PLA (“Controversy brews over Lake Champlain Bridge Labor Agreement,” 4/3). An article in today’s Rutland Herald has some nice quotes from Vermont officials too (“Unions: State wrong on bridge contract,” 4/5).

UPDATE: Mark Holden of Associated Builders and Contractors’ New Hampshire/Vermont Chapter tells the truth about the proposed Champlain Bridge PLA on the April 2 edition of the “Mark Johnson Show” on WDEV-AM in Waterbury, VT.

Download Mark’s interview here.

Now will New York State listen?

As regular readers of TheTruthAboutPLAs.com remember, the Champlain Bridge project is a $110 million joint effort between New York State and Vermont – with significant federal financial support – to rebuild a major thoroughfare between their two states.  The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has taken the lead on spearheading the project’s construction.

As we posted Mar. 23, the Albany Times Union reported that the NYSDOT is soliciting bids for the project without a PLA requirement.  Shortly after this article was released, acting NYSDOT Commissioner Stanley Gee issued a statement saying that no final decision had been made regarding a PLA mandate.

Despite Mr. Gee’s claim that no decision on whether to require a PLA, Vermont Agency of Transportation Director of Program Development Richard Tetreault apparently received NYSDOT’s draft PLA proposal a day later.

Then on Mar. 25, Mr. Tetreault shared his thoughts on the draft, which mirrors most PLAs throughout the country, in a letter to the NYSDOT (Our emphasis added):

Dear Mr. Dennison [Robert Dennison, NYSDOT Chief Engineer]:

We have reviewed the proposed Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the Lake Champlain Bridge project that you sent via email yesterday evening.  We have significant issue with the PLA, which precludes me from signing any amendment to the currently approved and advertised project’s PS&E if it includes the PLA.

Our concern focuses on one primary reason: The unionize labor provisions in the agreement essentially preclude every Vermont-based contractor in Vermont from participating as the General Contractor or Subcontractor on the project without overhauling their entire workforce and seeking employee approval through an obviously onerous process.  Any PLA included in the project with our concurrence must have significant changes to any unionized labor provisions to make them fair and unburdensome to Vermont-based contractors and subcontractors.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into trying to negotiate a PLA agreeable to all parties.  The bottom line, however, is that Vermont finds the proposed PLA unacceptable.

Mr. Tetreault isn’t the only Vermont public servant to express their displeasure with PLAs to the NYSDOT.  On Mar. 26, the Vermont General Assembly House and Senate Transportation Committee chairs signed a joint letter stating:

The Committees would oppose any Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with terms that would have the effect of imposing higher costs on non-union contractors or subcontractors relative to the costs of union contractors or subcontractors, or otherwise would have the effect of putting any Vermont contractors or subcontractors at a competitive disadvantage.  Moreover, the Committees would oppose any PLA with terms prescribing that Vermont contractors or subcontractors hire outside their usual labor pool, or specifying that they preferentially hire outside their usual labor pool before hiring within it.

We have obtained a copy of the proposed draft PLA and Mr. Tetreault is exactly right.  This PLA is almost identical to the PLAs that we see all over the country.  If mandated, this PLA will make contractors recognize the union as the sole representative of their employees, require employees to pay union dues, forces contractors to hire out of the union hiring halls and requires them to pay into union pension and health trust funds, from which their nonunion employees will never see a penny worth of benefit.

In addition to increasing construction costs by as much as 18 percent, this PLA will lead to many of the discriminatory effects the House and Senate Transportation Chairmen mentioned in their letter.  Job opportunities for this project will only be open to the less than 5 percent of Vermont’s construction workforce that is unionized.

The ultimate result is that Vermont’s nonunion construction workforce need not apply thanks to New York’s construction union bosses and their connections to elected officials.  From the Albany Times Union’s March 29 coverage:

Officials on both sides of the argument say NY DOT isn’t thrilled with a PLA, but Gov. David Paterson’s top aides want one. DOT officials say they won’t discuss negotiations. Nor will they give the Times Union the DOT-funded consultant’s report on the feasibility of a PLA.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we urge leaders in both states to scrap the proposed PLA.  It is bad public policy that will cost taxpayers and the vast majority of construction workers dearly.

We also encourage anyone interested in this project to review ABC National’s Feb. 17 statement to the Vermont Senate Transportation Committee on the proposed Champlain Bridge project PLA.

Lake Champlain Bride project news wrap up:

Albany Times Union, “Bridge Deal Irks Vermont”

Burlington Free Press, “Vermont Rejects Labor Agreement for Champlain Bridge Project”

Battleboro Reformer, “Labor Trouble Looms Over Champlain Bridge Project”

Rutland Herald, “VT Possibly Shut Out of Work”

Vermont Today, “Labor Rules Pose Problem for State in Building Lake Champlain Bridge“

The Plattsburgh, N.Y. Press Republican published an Op-Ed today opposing the Lake Champlain Bridge PLA by Becky Meinking, president of ABC Empire State (“Spoils system in bridge project,” 2/27).

The spoils system is an unfortunate practice in American politics in which a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs and contracts to its supporters. It is fitting that the term was derived from the phrase “to the victor belong the spoils” by New York Sen. William L. Marcy, referring to the victory of the Jackson Democrats in the election of 1828, because the spoils system is alive and well in Albany today.

Consider a proposed anti-competitive scheme orchestrated by the New York Department of Transportation and Big Labor’s political allies in the governor’s administration and Albany that will create jobs for New York’s well-connected construction union members and stifle competition from qualified New York businesses for construction contracts on the Lake Champlain Bridge project between Crown Point and Chimney Point, Vt.

DOT is evaluating whether a project labor agreement (PLA) is appropriate for this $75 million project, of which 10 percent is being funded by the state of New York, 10 percent by the state of Vermont and 80 percent by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration.

The Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors is opposed to these special-interest handouts that deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve from government. A PLA is nothing more than Big Labor’s tool to create a monopoly on a construction project such as the Lake Champlain Bridge.

Why else would the New York Construction Trades Councils and elected officials benefiting from Big Labor’s campaign contributions promote a PLA with such enthusiasm?

There are plenty of qualified nonunion contractors employing an existing workforce of skilled and quality nonunion New York employees who could perform this work, if not for the PLA.

The truth is that while any company technically can bid on a PLA project, these agreements thwart competition from qualified New York firms by requiring companies to hire most or all of their employees from union hiring halls.

Some PLAs permit a nonunion contractor to use a limited number of its existing nonunion employees, but those employees must pay union dues for the life of the project and must follow inefficient union work rules that drive up the cost of construction.

In addition, a PLA denies these nonunion employees health and benefit contributions made by their nonunion employer during the life of a PLA project; instead, these contributions are redirected to Big Labor’s trust funds and permanently forfeited unless the employees join and become vested in the union. This creates a huge windfall for Big Labor while victimizing New York’s nonunion workforce and their families.

The Lake Champlain Bridge project is subject to a federal government-determined prevailing-wage-and-benefit-rate under the Davis-Bacon Act, which essentially guarantees that employees who build this bridge are paid New York union-scale wages and benefits — rendering arguments that PLAs are needed to guarantee high wages and benefits irrelevant to this project.

Taxpayers should be concerned that a PLA will discourage competitive bidding from New York’s nonunion contractors, who employ more than seven out of 10 members of New York’s private construction workforce and dominate the construction market in the Champlain Bridge’s surrounding Essex and Washington counties.

Further illustrating the effect of inefficient union work rules and reduced competition on the price of public construction projects as a result of PLAs, a 2006 study by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute found that PLAs on New York schools add an estimated $27 per square foot to the actual cost of construction, representing an almost 18-percent increase in costs over the average non-PLA project.

Considering the potential added costs and discrimination against New York’s nonunion construction industry, the public would be best served if the NYSDOT required a fair and open competitive bidding process for all New York contractors, regardless of whether they participate in Albany’s pervasive spoils system.

New York taxpayers would benefit from local responsible contractors and residents delivering a quality Lake Champlain Bridge project at the best possible price.

It will take a lot of courage for Albany to reject the PLA and ignore its deep-rooted spoils-system heritage, but at the heart of good government is preserving the ability for everyone — not just a select few — to fairly compete for government jobs and contracts.

On Feb. 12 the Vermont Senate Transportation Committee held a hearing on the Lake Champlain Bridge PLA where Associated General Contractors of Vermont testified against the PLA and ABC National submitted this statement against the Lake Champlain Bridge project PLA. ABC Empire State also issued this press release.

On Feb. 17, the Vermont House referred a joint resolution opposing the Lake Champlain Bridge PLA, J.R.C. 40, to the committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs.

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is evaluating whether a PLA is appropriate for this $75 million project, of which 10 percent is being funded by the state of New York, 10 percent by the state of Vermont and 80 percent by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

New York Executive Order 49 on PLAs
A 1997 New York executive order (E.O. 49), signed by Gov. George Pataki, requires all state agencies to consider a PLA for state-funded projects but they must show a proper “business purpose” and they must follow “the interests of the State’s competitive bidding statutes” established in AGC v. NY State Thruway Authority.

“…agencies should be mindful that, in the past, the courts of the State of New York have struck down any such agreement wherein a contracting entity was unable to show a proper business purpose for entering into such agreement.

No project labor agreement shall be approved by an agency unless the decision to enter into a project labor agreement has, both as its purpose and likely effect, the advancement of the interests of the State’s competitive bidding statutes.”

A consequence of Executive Order No. 49 is that public agencies considering the use of PLAs prior to large public works projects authorize “studies” in order to determine the cost-effectiveness of a PLA. The studies often justify the need for a PLA and have been criticized by the construction community because they tend endorse the use of PLAs without any accurate analysis of costs, labor market forecasts, construction density and other factors that may vary from region to region. The arguments of PLA opponents are rarely acknowledged or addressed in these studies.

Frequently, firms with an existing bias in favor of PLAs, and/or a clientele of construction labor unions, union contractors and union-only construction owners produce these studies – which adds yet another reason to question their objectivity and importance in determining sound public policy (not to mention the added cost to taxpayers of a farcical study with a pre-determined outcome).

Lake Champlain Bridge PLA Feasibility Report
The NYSDOT hired Arace & Company of Warwick, NY to draft a feasibility report on the PLA for the Lake Champlain Bridge project. As you can see from their website, they strongly support PLAs.

A reader recently sent TheTruthAboutPLAs.com a Jan. 27 version of the report (it is unclear if it is a final version and if it has been submitted to the NYSDOT yet) and not surprisingly, it recommends a PLA.  The draft we reviewed contains numerous errors, faulty logic and baseless assumptions that support the author’s assertion that PLAs offer cost savings to taxpayers.

The report was circulated with this “Standard Project Labor Agreement” by the New York Construction Trades Council.  The the sample PLA contains provisions that force union representation on nonunion workers without a secret ballot election, prevent nonunion employers from hiring most of their existing workforce on the PLA project, and mandates that employers contribute benefits to labor and management run union health and pension plans that nonunion employees will never benefit from unless they join a union. All of these provisions discourage competition from merit shop contractors as outlined in more detail at ”Project Labor Agreement Basics: What is a PLA?” 4/24/09.

Article 4
SECTION 1
PRE-HIRE RECOGNITION

The Contractors recognize the Unions as the sole and exclusive bargaining representatives of all craft employees who are performing on-site Project Work, with respect to that work.

SECTION 2
UNION REFERRAL

A. The Contractors agree to hire craft employees for Project Work covered by this Agreement through the job referral systems and hiring halls established in the Local Unions’ area collective bargaining agreements (attached as Schedule A to this Agreement). Notwithstanding this, Contractors shall have sole right to determine the competency of all referrals; to determine the number of employees required; and to select employees for layoff (subject to Article 5, Section 3). In the event that a Local Union is unable to fill any request for qualified employees within a 48-hour period after such requisition is made by a Contractor (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excepted), a Contractor may employ qualified applicants from any other available source. In the event that the Local Union does not have a job referral system, the contractor shall give the Local Union first preference to refer applicants, subject to the other provisions of this Article. The Contractor shall notify the Local Union of craft employees hired for Program Work within its jurisdiction from any source other than referral by the Union.

B. A Contractor may request by name, and the Local will honor, referral of persons who have applied to the Local for Project Work and who meet the following qualifications:

(1) possess any license required by New York State law for the Project Work to be performed;
(2) have worked a total of at least 1000 hours in the construction field for the Contractor during the prior 3 years; and
(3) were on the Contractor’s active payroll for at least 60 out of the 180 calendar days prior to the contract award.

C. No more than twelve per centum (12%) of the employees covered by this Agreement, per Contractor by craft, shall be hired through the provisions of this paragraph B. Under this provision, name referrals begin with the eighth employee needed and continue on that same basis.

Learn how the following pension provision in typical PLAs harms nonunion employees and employers here and here. 

Article 11
SECTION 2
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

A. The Contractors agree to pay promptly contributions on behalf of all employees covered by this Agreement to those established jointly trusteed employee benefit funds designated in Schedule A (in the appropriate Schedule A amounts).

B. The Contractor agrees to be bound by the written terms of the legally established jointly trusteed Trust Agreements specifying the detailed basis on which payments are to be paid into, and benefits paid out of, such Trust Funds with regard to Project Work done under this Agreement for those employees to whom this Agreement requires such benefit payments.

If the NYSDOT evaluates the feasibility report and finds it sufficient to justify a PLA and comply with existing state law, the NYSDOT will have Big Labor draft a similar PLA for this project, approve the PLA and then present the study and the draft PLA to the FHWA to make sure the PLA complies with federal competitive bidding laws and other federal strings attached to the FHWA’s federal assistance.

But the report and PLA will meet fierce opposition and perhaps a legal challenge according to some of the recent media coverage listed below and in a recent article in The Post-Star (Glens Falls, NY) (“Lawsuit Could Delay Bridge Construction,” 2/19).

General Contractors President AJ Castelbuono said the goal is to prevent a PLA from being mandatory on the $75 million job.

“If this is such a great document and if a union contractor wants to sign it then great, but if a non-union contractor thinks he doesn’t need it that’s great, too. Why impose it on everybody?” he said.

Although Castelbuono said the people in and around Crown Point are in a dire need of a fix for their transportation woes, he said he can’t let the project move forward if a PLA is going to be used.

“A lot of the bridge builders in the community and surrounding communities happen to be non-union, open shop. This effectively means they really can’t bid the job without changing their labor policies and without giving up their crews. After all that’s how contractors bid work, based on their historical productivity of their crews,” he said.

…Castelbuono wouldn’t release his source, but said he received a copy of the study and said it recommends a PLA for the bridge project.

“I literally personally negotiate the labor agreements that cover that bridge and the consultant never talked to me about the agreement or the cost of the agreements. He’s only spoken to organized labor. The study is skewed and vacillated from fantasy to fabrication,” he said.

In a Feb. 12 letter to FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez, Associated General Contractors Chief Executive Officer Stephen Sandherr asked FHWA “to deny New York’s request to mandate a project labor agreement” on the Lake Champlain Bridge project.

ABC, AGC, and their respective chapters in NY and VT, concerned taxpayers, construction employees and other groups will continue to oppose a special interest government-mandated PLA and promote free and open competition on the Lake Champlain Bridge project. We want this project built immediately by local employees and qualified companies that can build the best possible quality project at the best possible price.

Additional coverage:
ABC Empire State’s press release opposing the Lake Champlain Bridge PLA
The Times of Ti (Contractors oppose possible union deal on bridge,” 2/23).
WNZB.com (“Senators, Organizations Spar over Bridge Project Labor Agreement,” 2/22).
North County Gazette (“Myths Dispelled About PLAs & Champlain Bridge,” 2/20).
The Press Republican (“New Champlain Bridge Could See Lawsuit,” 2/16).
Albany Times Union (“Threatened lawsuit could delay Champlain Bridge rebuild,” 2/15).
Albany Times Union (“Blowup over a blowup,” 12/28/09).

“These agreements will not prevent any Vermont contractor from successfully bidding on this project. We stand committed to putting Vermonters to work at decent paying jobs,” the trio said.

Adopting such an agreement for the $75 million Lake Champlain bridge replacement project, according to Cathy Voyer, executive vice president of Associated General Contractors of Vermont, would force contractors to play by union rules, and effectively preclude this state’s non-union shops from bidding on the work…

 

…”If you’re not a union contractor, then you have to agree to change your employment practices to either become a union contractor or allow the union to take control of your employees,” Voyer said. “It basically requires contractors to grant union officials monopoly bargaining power over all their employees.”

Don Wells, president of DEW Construction in Williston, says Vermont firms likely won’t participate in the high-dollar infrastructure project if a PLA is implemented.

“People that run open shops take a lot of pride in what they do and the services and benefits they provide to their employees. Typically what happens in a Project Labor Agreement is you lose your right to negotiate with your own employees.”

Andrew Martin, of Pizzagalli Construction in South Burlington, VT, explains how PLAs harm nonunion employees and put nonunion contractors at a disadvantage in the competitive bid process as PLAs raise costs for nonunion firms.

[Martin] said the PLAs may require non-union workers to pay into union benefit packages from which they won’t reap any rewards.

“You’re going to have to pay as an open-shop contractor into those benefits set up in the PLA, but you’ll [nonunion employees] never see any of those benefits if you’re not in the union.”

In NY, Becky Meinking, president of ABC Empire State, had this to say about PLAs in a 2/12 press release.

“Special interest PLAs result in increased costs and reduced competition,” said Rebecca Meinking, President of the Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC). “PLAs deny taxpayers the accountability in public works projects they deserve from government.”

“We are disappointed that the New York Transportation Department, at the behest of Big Labor is considering use of a PLA on the Champlain Bridge project”, said Meinking. “This area of New York State, Essex and Washington Counties, and the State of Vermont are largely served by nonunion contractors. More than 70 percent of the construction workforce in this area of New York and 95 percent of Vermont’s construction workers do not belong to a construction labor union, according to government data.

The use of a PLA will actually mean that the majority of local labor will be shut out of the opportunity to work on this bridge replacement project in a time when the unemployment rate in the construction industry is 24.7 percent nationwide, and even higher in the areas where this bridge project is located.”

Yesterday The Albany Times Union reported that a member of AGC NY is considering a lawsuit against the PLA, which may delay the project and deny badly-needed jobs to VT and NY workers unless Big Labor’s political cronies are willing to drop the PLA and bid this project using fair and free competition (“Threatened lawsuit could delay Champlain Bridge rebuild,” 2/15).

“I think I’ll be able to delay that project,” said A.J. Castlebuono, president of the 600-member New York State Associated General Contractors. “We will seek injunctive relief in state and maybe federal courts.”

Castlebuono said he’s meeting with lawyers today because the state Department of Transportation appears to be leaning toward requiring “project labor agreements” on the bridge contract that would mean workers would have to be hired out of the union halls or paid union rates. He said the DOT has hired a consultant to do a feasibility study on the use of PLAs on the project, and the secret report likely suggests that savings can be realized by requiring prevailing wages.

Despite the controversy, the media has failed to mention the existing studies on the anti-competitive nature and added costs of government-mandated PLAs on New York construction projects.  Certainly VT, NY and the federal government can’t afford to be wasting tax dollars on special interest giveaways.  

A 2006 study conducted by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University found that the use of PLAs on school construction projects in New York increased the cost of the projects by 20 percent.

As for measuring the impact of PLAs on competition, a 2001 Ernst & Young study, commissioned by Erie County in New York to analyze a PLA on a public construction project concluded that

“bidder participation was diminished because the county chose to utilize a PLA. Further, the use of PLAs adversely affects competition for publicly bid projects to the likely detriment of cost-effective construction… the use of PLAs strongly inhibits participation in public bidding by non-union contractors and may result in those projects having artificially inflated costs.”

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com will keep a watchful eye on this developing story.

TheTruthAboutPLAs will provide additional coverage on this story soon.

February 12, 2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Meinking 315-463-7539 or meinking@abcnys.org

ABC SAYS CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE PROJECT IN JEOPARDY:
CONTRACTORS SAY ANTI-COMPETITIVE PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT WILL INCREASE COSTS, HURT LOCAL WORKERS

(Syracuse) The Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) today charged that state and federal politicians along with representatives of Big Labor are jeopardizing the speedy and economical completion of the Champlain Bridge project. The bridge project could be stymied and taxpayers harmed by the insistence of Big Labor and their political allies in government that a project labor agreement (PLA) be required on the $75 million bridge replacement project.

A PLA requires that virtually all labor working on the project be hired from the union hall. This special interest mandate effectively eliminates nonunion contractors and their employees, like those represented by ABC, from competing to win work on this project.

“Special interest PLAs result in increased costs and reduced competition,” said Rebecca Meinking, President of the Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC). “PLAs deny taxpayers the accountability in public works projects they deserve from government.”

“We are disappointed that the New York Transportation Department, at the behest of Big Labor is considering use of a PLA on the Champlain Bridge project”, said Meinking. “This area of New York State, Essex and Washington Counties, and the State of Vermont are largely served by nonunion contractors. More than 70 percent of the construction workforce in this area of New York and 95 percent of Vermont’s construction workers do not belong to a construction labor union, according to government data. The use of a PLA will actually mean that the majority of local labor will be shut out of the opportunity to work on this bridge replacement project in a time when the unemployment rate in the construction industry is 24.7 percent nationwide, and even higher in the areas where this bridge project is located.”

“Hard-working taxpayers who are tired of special interest politics and tired of government waste must hold their elected officials accountable, particularly Congressmen Scott Murphy and Bill Owens, as well as Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, who have pushed this special interest PLA behind closed doors,” said Steve Fuller of Fuller Excavating out of Keeseville, NY.

“Like the Global Foundries chipfab plant in Malta, a PLA on the Champlain Bridge project will guarantee that labor is imported from far away since there isn’t enough local union labor to meet the ambitious time schedule on the bridge,” said Ted Luck of Luck Brothers, Inc., a family-owned heavy highway contractor out of Plattsburg, NY. “Proponents say they want to insure local labor is working on the bridge when exactly the opposite will occur. Why should my employees at Luck Brothers be denied the right to participate in this project just because they are nonunion?”

“Employees and their families lose under PLAs,” said Jeff Luck, also of Luck Brothers, Inc. “Nonunion employees are required by PLAs to pay dues to a union and their existing benefit contributions from their employers are funneled into union pension and benefit funds even though nonunion employees will never receive any benefits as they aren’t members of a union. A PLA is a big windfall for Big Labor, and they are the ONLY beneficiaries of these kinds of agreements”.

“Public contracting should be about the best quality work at the best price – always,” said Meinking. “It is time to give this PLA the heave-ho and restore taxpayer accountability on the Champlain Bridge project by ending special interest kickbacks and ensuring an open, fair and competitive bidding process for all contractors and their local employees.”

***********

About the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.Associated Builders and Contractors is a national association representing nearly 25,000 construction general contractors, specialty contractors, suppliers and construction-related firms across the U.S. ABC promotes open competition and free enterprise in the U.S. construction industry where more than 7 million people are normally employed and another 2 million are self-employed. Construction makes a major contribution to the nation’s economy with more than $1 trillion in construction projects put in place each year.

The Empire State Chapter of ABC, headquartered at 6369 Collamer Drive in East Syracuse, serves nearly 700 members throughout New York from its central office, and from branch offices in Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and Long Island/Metro NYC. For more information visit www.abc.org.