Do Project Labor Agreements Ensure Compliance with Labor Laws?

3 November 2, 2010  School Construction, State & Local Construction, Uncategorized

In defense of President Obama’s controversial pro-project labor agreement (PLA) Executive Order 13502,  Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and Director of the Middle Class Taskforce, made this misleading claim about PLAs in a White House blog post on 4/12/10 (read more on Bernstein here):

PLAs also help ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing workplace safety and health, equal employment opportunity and labor and employment standards.

It is a myth that anti-competitive government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) — schemes public officials beholden to Big Labor’s special interests execute to funnel lucrative public construction contracts to unionized contractors and union members in return for continued political support — ensure compliance with labor and employment laws and regulations.

For example, The Los Angeles Business Journal reported on an independent audit that uncovered numerous state or federal labor code violations by 55 contractors building a school in California  (“Failing Grade for PLA School Job? Nonunion builders report many union violations” 11/1/10):

An audit commissioned by the nonunion contractors alleges violations by 55 contractors working on a $150 million Los Angeles Unified School District high school under construction in San Fernando. The alleged violations include failure to pay prevailing wages and inadequate supervision. Four of the contractors had expired or suspended licenses….

…“This audit shows that contractors in a project labor agreement don’t meet any of their promises any better than contractors on a non-PLA project and may even be worse,” Chase said…

LAUSD’s Valley Region High School No. 5

Numerous violations

The audit, conducted by San Mateo-based Contractor and Compliance Monitoring Inc., focused on Valley Region High School No. 5, a 218,000-square-foot school in San Fernando that is expected to open in September and serve more than 2,000 students. The nonunion contractors chose the school for the audit because they see it as a typical large project.

Contractor and Compliance Monitoring found that 55 contractors working on the project had state or federal labor code violations.

The alleged violations include: underpayment of prevailing wages, failure to pay overtime or “premium pay” for work done on weekends and holidays, classifying workers as apprentices instead of higher-paid journeymen, failure to pay the required level of contributions to training programs, and failure to submit certified payrolls and benefit statements for each week worked on the project. Some contractors also submitted incomplete paperwork.

The audit was based on payroll records that were provided by the school district after a request under the state’s public records act.

Deborah Wilder, president of Contractor and Compliance Monitoring, said the audit showed underpayment of wages on the project totaled about $20,000. But that figure, she noted, represents only a small amount of the total violations; it does not include any misclassifications of workers or pay that was not documented because paperwork was incomplete or missing.

Kevin Korenthal, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors’ California committee, said he believes that the total amount of unpaid wages and benefits on the project will end up being in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including potential penalty assessments by state agencies.

“These are major, major violations, especially the cases where workers were classified as apprentices instead of journeymen,” Korenthal said.

Wilder said this audit was typical of what her firm had found on other large contracts throughout the state, in both PLA and non-PLA construction. She said the number and degree of the labor code violations on this project were similar to the rates at projects without PLAs.

“It doesn’t matter whether the project is under a PLA or is an open-shop contract, the level of violations appears to be about the same, and this audit is just another example of that,” said Wilder, an attorney at a firm that handles employment law.

She added that neither she nor her auditing firm has ever taken a position in the dispute between unions and nonunion contractors over PLAs.

“All I want to make sure is that everybody plays by the same rules,” she said.

The audit will be presented to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the California Department of Apprenticeship Standards to verify the audit findings in coming months. TheTruthAboutPLAs.com will report on their findings. The school district and project contractors could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and back pay if the agencies verify the audit.

This is one of many PLA projects that have failed to comply with labor laws and regulations.

When PLA proponents spread the myth that PLAs ensure compliance with labor laws and regulations, use this evidence to bust that myth. When PLA proponents tell the myth that PLAs help comply with OSHA and lead to a safer worksite, bust that myth with the evidence that PLAs do not guarantee a safer workplace in this post.

Read the entire article after the jump.

Failing Grade for PLA School Job?

Nonunion builders report many union violations.

By Howard Fine
Los Angeles Business Journal
Monday, November 1, 2010

Nonunion contractors who oppose union-friendly agreements on public works projects have a fresh argument to strengthen their campaign to ban such agreements.

An audit commissioned by the nonunion contractors alleges violations by 55 contractors working on a $150 million Los Angeles Unified School District high school under construction in San Fernando. The alleged violations include failure to pay prevailing wages and inadequate supervision. Four of the contractors had expired or suspended licenses.

A construction union spokesman rejected the findings of the audit. Richard Slawson, executive secretary and treasurer of the Building Trades Council of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, said that there are more violations on most any job involving nonunion contractors.

The trade group representing nonunion contractors has forwarded the audit to two state agencies for further review. If the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Department of Apprenticeship Standards verify the audit findings in coming months, the school district and project contractors – including New York-based general contractor Turner Construction Co. – could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and back pay.

“This audit is very disappointing and even shocking,” said Chris Chase, president of Triple C Electric, a Valencia-based nonunion electrical contractor that refuses to bid on projects with these union-friendly agreements.

Chase added that he was particularly outraged at the apparent lack of oversight on the high school project at the center of the audit.

“It sounds like everyone just said, ‘Oh, they are all union workers, so they can just monitor themselves,’” he said. “You know that if a nonunion contractor was in there, there would be such extensive monitoring that violations like this would not be allowed to go unchecked.”

The district placed this project and most of its other major school construction projects under a seven-year-old “project labor agreement” negotiated with local building trade unions. Under a PLA, contractors must hire workers from local union hiring halls and pay into the union benefit funds; in exchange, the unions promise not to strike, and to maintain compliance with all labor and safety codes.

Nonunion contractors have fought against PLAs, claiming the agreements freeze them out of lucrative public works contracts requiring them to pay into special funds jointly administered by union and contractor officials. These payments are in addition to any benefits they already offer employees. They are using this audit as ammunition in their campaign to halt the spread of PLAs; the campaign might include one or more local ballot measures in 2012 banning such future agreements.

“This audit shows that contractors in a project labor agreement don’t meet any of their promises any better than contractors on a non-PLA project and may even be worse,” Chase said.

A spokeswoman with the facilities division of the school district said the agency could not comment on the audit or any steps it had taken to address the audit’s findings because “this matter appears to involve third-party legal issues on which we will not comment.”

Spokeswoman Shannon Haber said the third party was “another entity” besides the general contractor, but declined to comment further.

Slawson of the Building Trades Council, which has signed most project labor agreements in its jurisdiction including this LAUSD agreement, said violations cited in the audit appeared to be minimal and below the level that would bring substantial sanctions from state regulators.

Slawson also attacked the nonunion contractors who called for the audit, represented by Associated Builders and Contractors. He said their contractors are routinely cited for a disproportionate amount of labor code violations.

“The ABC should be monitoring its own affiliated contractors,” he said. “They look like they are the chronic wage and hour violators in California.”

Numerous violations

The audit, conducted by San Mateo-based Contractor and Compliance Monitoring Inc., focused on Valley Region High School No. 5, a 218,000-square-foot school in San Fernando that is expected to open in September and serve more than 2,000 students. The nonunion contractors chose the school for the audit because they see it as a typical large project.

Contractor and Compliance Monitoring found that 55 contractors working on the project had state or federal labor code violations.

The alleged violations include: underpayment of prevailing wages, failure to pay overtime or “premium pay” for work done on weekends and holidays, classifying workers as apprentices instead of higher-paid journeymen, failure to pay the required level of contributions to training programs, and failure to submit certified payrolls and benefit statements for each week worked on the project. Some contractors also submitted incomplete paperwork.

The audit was based on payroll records that were provided by the school district after a request under the state’s public records act.

Deborah Wilder, president of Contractor and Compliance Monitoring, said the audit showed underpayment of wages on the project totaled about $20,000. But that figure, she noted, represents only a small amount of the total violations; it does not include any misclassifications of workers or pay that was not documented because paperwork was incomplete or missing.

Kevin Korenthal, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors’ California committee, said he believes that the total amount of unpaid wages and benefits on the project will end up being in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including potential penalty assessments by state agencies.

“These are major, major violations, especially the cases where workers were classified as apprentices instead of journeymen,” Korenthal said.

Wilder said this audit was typical of what her firm had found on other large contracts throughout the state, in both PLA and non-PLA construction. She said the number and degree of the labor code violations on this project were similar to the rates at projects without PLAs.

“It doesn’t matter whether the project is under a PLA or is an open-shop contract, the level of violations appears to be about the same, and this audit is just another example of that,” said Wilder, an attorney at a firm that handles employment law.

She added that neither she nor her auditing firm has ever taken a position in the dispute between unions and nonunion contractors over PLAs.

“All I want to make sure is that everybody plays by the same rules,” she said.

Oversight failure

What stood out most in this audit, Wilder said, was the failure of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s own contract compliance monitoring program to ferret out these labor code violations.

“That’s their job and it appears, for whatever reason, they didn’t do that job effectively,” she said. “The violation rates were very similar to what I’ve found on projects without any labor compliance monitoring program.”

On other projects where public agency labor compliance monitoring programs have failed to catch labor code violations, Wilder said some agencies lacked the resources to monitor effectively, while others left the task to unions.

Wilder said in her discussions with the district after the completion of the audit, compliance officers there had told her that they had found other labor code violations by contractors on this project that were not uncovered by the audit. She claimed those compliance officers told her that the district had taken steps to discipline some of the contractors involved.

District facilities spokeswoman Haber said the agency could not comment.

Part of the responsibility for ensuring compliance with all applicable labor laws and safety codes also falls on the general contractor, which for this project is Turner Construction, a company with global operations and more than $8 billion in revenues last year.

In a recent press release, Turner said it has managed LAUSD school construction projects totaling more than $600 million. In September, the LAUSD selected Turner to manage the construction of three more schools, totaling $102 million.

In a statement to the Business Journal in response to the audit of the San Fernando school project, Turner said it used “numerous measures” to monitor contractors’ compliance with labor laws. Those included meetings with contractors to highlight their contractual obligations, labor compliance assistance and review of certified payrolls. Turner also secured affidavits from its contractors verifying compliance with labor laws.

Turner acknowledged that about a dozen of its contractors were asked to address issues relating to labor laws. But the company said those issues were not significant.

“These issues were often found to be either data entry issues or other minor issues that were resolved in subsequent payroll periods,” the statement said.

Nonunion contractors said the project labor agreement itself is a major reason for the high number of violations at this project, since it limits competition.

“PLAs lock out more than 80 percent of the total work force that’s nonunion,” said Bart Hacker, president of the Los Angeles and Venturachapter of Associated Builders and Contractors of California. “If you had more companies bidding on these contracts, there would be much more incentive for the winning bidders to be responsible contractors, since they could be more easily replaced.”

Hacker and other nonunion contractors are considering the launch of a campaign to ban additional project labor agreements in one or more cities in Los Angeles County. Palmdale’s water board voted to ban PLAs last week. Earlier this year, voters in Oceanside and Chula Vista approved bans on PLAs in those cities; this week, voters in San Diego County face a similar choice.

“Audits like this take away one of the points unions use to sell PLAs, that they have better safety and compliance records than projects without PLAs,” said Don Briscoe, president of Bergelectric Corp., a nonunion electrical contractor based in Los Angeles.

This post was written by and tagged Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to Do Project Labor Agreements Ensure Compliance with Labor Laws?

Tweets that mention Do Project Labor Agreements Ensure Compliance with Labor Laws? | The Truth About PLAs -- Topsy.com November 3, 2010 at 10:05 am

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Truth About PLAs, BertromavichEdenburg. BertromavichEdenburg said: Do Project Labor Agreements Ensure Compliance with Labor Laws?: The audit, conducted by San Mateo-based Contractor… http://bit.ly/96Ly7V […]

Sharon Toji January 29, 2011 at 8:40 pm

We were the signage contractor on the VRHS 5. Our problem is that we can’t get apprentices, since there are no apprentice programs for architectural signage installation — (mostly for ADA compliance), and even if we could, we really don’t need more than one person working at a time. We spend an inordinate amount of time complying with very stringent labor controls by both the GC (in this case Turner) and the LAUSD. I don’t know how anyone cheats. They must be bigger than we are, because it takes every ounce of our effort to both do a good job on fabricating and installing signs, and reporting every little movement. Now I know why we have just had to spend many hours complying with an LAUSD labor audit. Now I know who the culprit is — it’s ABC! And by the way, we are not union in Southern California, and have no problem getting these jobs. Almost all our work is on government jobs.

Kevin D. Korenthal April 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Sharon Toji: I am just seeking your comment for the first time. To the best of my recollection, your firm was not indicated to have violated any Prevailing Wage or Apprenticeship laws. Is that correct?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.