On Feb. 6, President Obama issued an executive order to promote the use of “Project Labor Agreements” or PLAs on “large scale” federal projects where the total cost to build is $25 million or more. PLAs are not new. They have been used for decades on large federally funded projects including the Hoover Dam and relied on in the past by companies such as Bechtel to successfully manage construction jobs.
Tracy Emblem is an attorney and a democratic candidate who is running for U.S. Congress, in California’s 50th District in 2010.
PLAs require all contractors working on a project whether they are union or non-union contractors to adhere to collectively bargained for terms of employment.
In a 2007 report,108 school projects were studied by Dr. Dale Belman (Michigan State Univ), Dr. Matthew Bodah (Univ of Rhode Island) and Dr. Peter Philips (Univ. of Utah), and they found no evidence that project labor agreements either raised or lowered the costs associated with the projects studied. In California, all construction workers on federal projects are required to be paid prevailing wages whether the contractor is a union or non-union contractor. This means project labor agreements do not drive up the cost of federal construction projects in California.
There are several benefits derived from using PLAs such as providing a stable highly trained work force. But the greatest benefit from using PLAs is to provide jobs and paid apprentice programs for those who live in the community.
Related Links: More by Tracy | More from “A more perfect union” | More politics
In the near future, there will be great numbers of construction workers needed to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. In highly dense urban communities like San Diego County, the goal should be to provide our own residents and youth with good paying jobs in construction careers rather than hire out-of-state workers for these projects.
When a hiring agreement occurs, the construction funds stimulate our local economy by hiring workers who live in the community. A simple premise supports the economic benefit. When local workers are paid prevailing wages, their income enters the stream of commerce. Workers who earn a livable wage in turn spend their income in restaurants, and at car dealers and other businesses. This generates income for our businesses and revenue for our cash-strapped local governments to pay for public services such as fire and libraries.
The use of PLAs on all federally funded and federally subsidized projects over $5 million should be further evaluated because they help create economic prosperity in urban communities. America can rebuild its economy by using common sense and putting people first. Because PLAs benefit our communities, state and other local governmental entities should also consider using them as frequently as possible when the projects are funded with taxpayer dollars.
Tracy Emblem is an attorney and a Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress, California’s 50th District.
Tags: President Obama, project labor agreements, SDNN
Comment by: Dave Ross Posted: October 22, 2009, 8:34 pm
Nice in theory, but it is very hard to assure that only local workers will be hired just because of the union-only requirement. Sure, most unions limit the number of “travelers” a contractor may put on a job, but when push comes to shove (when there is any sort of local labor shortage), the unions themselves will bring in out-of-towners. And many union contractors work hard to keep their core workforce assigned to important jobs, even when those jobs are across the county (or further).
PLAs are certainly good for the unions, since no matter where the workers live, the unions get more dollars (all the better to pay their attorneys). Union workers are, on average, better trained in their crafts, and there may be no cost disadvantage to PLAs on large projects. But the “stimulate the local economy” selling point is a bit of a phantom. After all, how many local non-union workers might be employed if there is no PLA in place?
Comment by: Silence Dogood Posted: October 23, 2009, 6:45 am
What a surprise. Another California politician pandering to Big Labor’s special interests. We have too many creatures of your kind in DC and this type of bad public policy is exactly why California government is broken and bankrupt.
Project labor agreements are special interest handouts that deny quality construction and fiscal accountability to all taxpayers by giving monopoly control of construction to Big Labor. The Belman, Bodah and Phillips studies are well-documented pieces of pro-union propaganda that ignore an overwhelming body of evidence that PLAs increase construction costs because of less competition from qualified nonunion contractors and inefficient and costly union work rules required by PLAs.
Promoting PLAs has little to do with promoting high wages (union prevailing wage laws already apply) or benefiting the local community (don’t the families of quality local nonunion employees deserve a chance to have their father or mother work on taxpayer funded projects without paying union dues and losing all health care and retirement benefits unless they join a union [yes, that is typical policy under PLAs] ). It is about payback.
President Obama’s Executive Order promoting PLAs on federal projects is pure government corruption. It’s “Cash for Cronies” as Big Labor invested hundreds of millions of dollars to the Obama campaign and Democrat candidates in the last election cycle.
It is absurd that the Administration’s policy is to attempt to direct as many federal construction contracts as possible to their political patrons.
The last thing taxpayers need is expanding the scope of this bad public policy by lowering the threshold to $5 million or pushing PLAs on federally-assisted projects. PLAs would greatly compromise the government’s ability to attract quality contractors that would provide the best construction work at the best price.
Comment by: Al Shur Posted: October 23, 2009, 10:12 am
There is only 1 way to reasonably insure local hire. Hiring halls have been deemed legal by the Department of Labor. And it is legal to give a local hire preference to workers cleared through the “hiring hall” witch is what PLA’s do. No employer can legally restrict hiring to local workers without being signed to a hiring system certified by the DOL. A non-union employer may not like the fact that their workers will have a collective voice and real representation on a particular job but that is the American way. A PLA insures that, workers, local workers, will have a voice!!!
Comment by: Silence Dogood Posted: October 23, 2009, 11:30 am
Al Shur - You “Shur” don’t know what you are talking about.
Cities, towns, counties and other municipalities all over the country require “local hire” without costly and anti-competitive PLAs. Public agencies write it into bid-specs and contracts for specific projects or it is part of existing public contracting laws.
I am not aware of any legal case that says that a PLA is the only way a contractor or construction purchaser can mandate local hire. Can you provide some supporting case law or evidence?
To me it sounds like your remarks are another misreprentation of the facts in order to support these backroom deals that only benefit Big Labor at the expense of taxpayers.
Comment by: Al Posted: October 23, 2009, 2:46 pm
Mr. (or Ms or whatever) Dogwood:
YOU ARE WRONG! In fact the only legal “spec” is to specify that the “contractor” is based locally. To limit hiring would be discriminatory except through an exclusive hiring process in a agreement between an employer and a union, that is approved by the DOL. I realized that it takes a lot of time keeping your employees from joining a union but maybe you could squeeze a few minutes and do some research. If I’m wrong…. prove it with citations!
Comment by: Al Shur Posted: October 25, 2009, 1:11 pm
Well Dogwood, you’re no Ben Franklin!
Did you run away?? I hope not. I’m sure that it takes all of your time “tea baggen” and union “bustin’”.
I any case, Dogwood, we are all waiting for you to show everyone that “I don’t know what I’m talking about”.
Prove it!
Comment by: Silence Dogood Posted: October 27, 2009, 11:00 am
Al-
You made the following claim: “No employer can legally restrict hiring to local workers without being signed to a hiring system certified by the DOL.”
I believe that this statement is false. You should be able to provide case law or some other evidence besides your biased opinion that supports this claim.
The burden of proof is on you, the person making such a claim, not on me, the person questioning this claim.
There is an old saying that is applicable to this situation: “A negative cannot be proven because if something is absent it would not be there to prove its absence.”
Comment by: Silence Dogood Posted: October 27, 2009, 1:39 pm
Al-
After a brief google search, I found that the Washington D.C. Department of Employee Services (DOES) has a local hire program (it is called First Source) that does not include discriminatory and costly PLAs and it does not require affiliation with a union hiring hall (and/or via an agreement with the DOL) in order to only hire local employees.
Here is their website:
http://does.dc.gov/does/cwp/view.asp?Q=537680&a=1232
The program is legal and is designed to create local jobs for residents on applicable taxpayer funded construction projects.
In general, employers participating on private construction projects have always been allowed to freely hire workers from a specific locality if that is their preference. Unless their is conflicting public policy, the same goes for public construction projects.