Here is an excerpt from Associated Builders and Contractors Western Pennsylvania Chapter’s August 31 press release:

PENN HILLS PLAYS FAVORITES AT THE EXPENSE OF STUDENTS

Pittsburgh, PA – At a special meeting last night, the Penn Hills School Board members voted 8-1 in favor of placing a project labor agreement (PLA) on their upcoming $130 million construction project, which goes to bid in a few weeks. The only member to vote against using a PLA and protecting taxpayer money and student education was Margie Krogh. The Board voted without having the final version of the agreement present, neglecting any source of fact-finding. This follows Chief Executive Dan Onorato’s statement earlier in the month that it was “probably wrong” to place PLAs on school projects.

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of Western Pennsylvania expressed their grave concern over the Board’s decision to place a PLA on this project, and also for abandoning the information process. “This is what we’re fighting for – ensuring everyone is included in the process, which means minority and woman-owned small businesses,” said Eileen Watt, President of ABC. “Penn Hills has made it clear they want to push special interests behind closed doors, and this could result in a potential lawsuit if not rectified,” continued Watt. ABC confirmed they did not know about a PLA being discussed within Penn Hills School District.

“We have to trust school districts to use due diligence before signing agreements,” said Bob Glancy, Chairman of ABC and President of R.A. Glancy & Sons. “It’s unfortunate that Penn Hills is not serving their students and taxpaying citizens as positively as other districts, for example, McKeesport,” continued Glancy. Glancy is referring to a decision in July where the McKeesport Area School District rejected a PLA, 7-2, saving the taxpayers money and offering many opportunities to their diverse group of students, many of whom enter the construction industry and participate in ABC’s school-to-work program.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we are starting to sound like a broken record.  At a time where local officials are struggling with declining revenue and historic budget deficits, now is the worst possible time to waste taxpayer dollars on special interest handouts – like PLAs.

One other important point is that the press release above and accounts from the meeting indicate that Penn Hill School Board members didn’t get an opportunity to review the actual PLA their policy requires contractors to sign before working on the $150 million worth of projects.  In other words, the school board approved a requirement that contractors must sign a legally binding contract with Big Labor, but didn’t specify its terms.

This essentially gives Big Labor free reign to stack the PLA with any terms they want.  The contractors – both union and nonunion – have no recourse because the school board has required them to sign a PLA as a condition of working on the project.  If they aren’t willing to acquiesce to Big Labor’s demands, then union bosses refuse to sign the PLA and the contractors involved can’t work.  Situations like this are the primary reason many union contractors oppose PLAs.

Public construction projects should be about giving taxpayers the highest quality products at the best price.  Always.  PLA requirements make this objective nearly impossible to achieve.  Numerous studies show that PLAs increase construction costs by as much as 18 percent and discriminate against the 85 percent of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union.

If you live in the Penn Hill School District, contact your school board members and tell them NO to wasteful and discriminatory PLAs.

Project labor agreements limit competition, drive up costs and exclude a majority of Bay State tradespeople from working on a particular public construction project. No wonder the Patrick administration is fumbling around for a credible defense for requiring a PLA on an overhaul of the UMass-Boston campus.

The UMass Building Authority voted this week for a PLA to govern the university’s master plan – $750 million in construction projects over the next 10 years – and Patrick’s labor secretary told The Boston Globe that PLAs “do not cost any more money than an open-bid arrangement, and in fact are likely to present some cost savings.”

That doesn’t square with research by the Beacon Hill Institute, which found that PLAs drive up bidding and construction costs anywhere from 12 to 16 percent. But whatever!

Then came the suggestion by the building authority’s director that any added costs associated with a PLA are worthwhile because they guard against costly work stoppages (in exchange for the guarantee of union labor under a PLA, the unions agree not to strike).

So which is it?

They don’t cost more – or they cost more, but it’s worth it?

It’s a furious tap-dance by Patrick’s team as it does the bidding of organized labor, while trying to sell taxpayers on a bad public policy.

Yes, for the next decade only those contractors who hire out of union halls will be allowed to bid on the UMass-Boston work. Open-shop workers will get to see their tax dollars spent on projects they are explicitly barred from working on. The inequity is breathtaking in prosperous times, never mind when unemployment is at record highs. Patrick’s team can’t settle on a strong rationale because there just isn’t one.

Here are the highlights:

Politics brought union agreement to the school district

As far back as 1999, construction union lobbyists were putting pressure on the San Diego Unified School District to require its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement. In November 1998, San Diego voters had approved a $1.51 billion bond measure called Proposition MM, and unions saw an opportunity to require contractors on this huge construction program to obtain all workers from unions and pay all employee benefits into union trust funds. In addition, if the agreement was implemented, contractors would have to obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs (often called Joint Apprenticeship Training Programs, or JATCs).

In part because of the opposition of local business groups, the board of education did not consider a Project Labor Agreement in the end, although the district did adopt an in-house “labor compliance program” that initially invited participation from volunteer investigators affiliated with union-oriented Labor Management Committees. Construction projects funded by Proposition MM were bid under fair and open competition, and contractors were able to provide on-the-job training under state law to apprentices from any eligible program approved by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

After the Proposition MM money was spent, the board of education placed a $2.1 billion bond measure called Proposition S on the November 2008 ballot to fund more school construction. The voter information for Proposition S mentioned nothing about contractors being required to sign a union agreement, and voters approved it. But one other significant change for the school district happened at that election: an incumbent school board member named Mitz Lee was defeated by her challenger, John Lee Evans. This gave construction unions a supportive majority of three votes on the five-member board of education to approve a Project Labor Agreement.

New school board implements union agreement

The new school board wasted no time in advancing the construction union plot to control future school construction at the San Diego Unified School District. At its Jan. 13, 2009 meeting, the board of education voted 3-2 to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement (now called a Project Stabilization Agreement) with construction unions in order to work on projects of $1 million or more. Despite the objections of Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors and numerous other community and business groups, the board of education approved a final Project Labor Agreement with the unions on a 3-2 vote on May 26, 2009. The board voted 3-2 again on July 28, 2009 to fix defects in the original agreement and adopt a new agreement.

In all three votes, board members Richard Barrera, John Lee Evans and Shelia Jackson supported the union agreement, while board members Katherine Nakamura and John de Beck opposed it. Apparently seeing the Project Labor Agreement as part of a fundamental structural change in local and national ideological identity, school board member Evans summed up the vote on May 26 this way: “I think the bigger picture that people are realizing — and this is what scares some people — is that San Diego is changing, the United States is changing … this is a different city … we are looking at a different community.”

Restrictions on apprentices in the Project Labor Agreement

What is the nature of this “different city?” It is a city in which unions have a monopoly on apprenticeship training and as a result have tremendous power over what kinds and how many people enter the construction work force. There is no competition among apprenticeship programs and no choice for young people considering a career in the construction trades.

There is no acknowledgement in Article XIV of the Project Labor Agreement that state-approved unilateral (non-union) apprenticeship programs exist, such as the programs affiliated with ABC. Nor is there acknowledgement that apprentices are enrolled in such programs.

The union agreement directs potential workers into “participation in such Joint Labor Management Apprenticeship programs.” It says that “the unions agree to cooperate with the contractor in furnishing apprentices as requested up to the maximum percentage.” A subcommittee of the Labor Management Committee oversees identification and development of programs and procedures leading to “the full utilization of apprenticeship programs.”

It is unclear what would happen if a contractor working at the San Diego Unified School District and signatory to the Project Labor Agreement actually had the gumption to request and accept an apprentice from a non-union apprenticeship program in order to fulfill the requirements of California law and regulations regarding apprenticeship training. An educated guess can be made based on the experience of a contractor who worked on a job at the Los Angeles Unified School District and signed the Project Labor Agreement in effect there.

The contractor requested apprentices from the applicable International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union program, but then requested apprentices from the non-union program run by the Los Angeles/Ventura Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors after the IBEW program failed to dispatch apprentices. The ABC program provided 17 apprentices, who received the appropriate on-the-job training on the project. Subsequently, the IBEW and its related trust funds sued the contractor in federal court, contending that the contractor should have paid journeymen wages and benefits to the apprentices because they were not dispatched from the applicable union apprenticeship program as specified in the Project Labor Agreement.

On Nov. 3, 2009, a district court judge ruled that the Project Labor Agreement required apprentices to come from union programs. The judge awarded the union $272,738.63 in underpaid trust contributions, including interest of $55,940.34, along with liquidated damages of $55,940.34 and additional auditor fees of $7,177.50. The contractor was given a rude lesson about signing a Project Labor Agreement and then bucking the unions.

ABC has responded to this threat and others with a “10 in 2010” program to ensure fair and open competition and freedom of choice in training in the 10 most populous cities in San Diego County.

Here is the status of the campaign as of May 1:

City	Population (2008)	Status
1. San Diego	1,337,000	On Nov. 18 San Diego citizens filed a notice of intent with the city clerk to circulate petitions for a ballot initiative amending the city charter to guarantee fair and open bid competition. Signature gathering is winding down and the initiative will be on the Nov. 2 ballot. For more information, visit reformsandiego.com.
2. Chula Vista	231,000	On Sept. 1, the Chula Vista City Council voted to place a proposed ordinance on the June 2010 ballot guaranteeing fair and open bid competition. The initiative will be on the June 8 ballot. For more information, visit fairnessforchulavista.com.
3. Oceanside	179,000	On Dec. 16, the Oceanside City council voted to place a proposed charter on the June 2010 ballot that includes a section guaranteeing fair and open bid competition. The charter will be on the June 8 ballot. For more information, visit passthecharter.com.
4. Escondido	143,000	Voters in most of these cities and their elected city council members are overwhelmingly supportive of getting the best quality construction at the best price though fair and open bid competition. Visit thetruthaboutPLAs.com for regular updates about policies concerning fair and open bid competition in these seven cities.
5. Carlsbad	104,000
6. El Cajon	98,000
7. Vista	96,000
8. San Marcos	83,000
9. Encinitas	64,000
10.National City	61,000

And as a bonus, don’t forget about the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, who unanimously approved an ordinance guaranteeing fair and open competition for county-funded construction on March 2.

This op-ed not only breaks down the sad history of PLA-related political payback in California, but also dives into how PLAs negatively affect nonunion apprentices.  PLAs are often a blatant attempt to keep these well-trained professionals from competing for public construction work in their own communities.

Additionally, residents of the San Diego County cities of Chula Vista and Oceanside will have the opportunity to say NO to these union handouts at the polls next Tuesday.  We strongly encourage voters in these cities to support Proposition G (Chula Vista) and Measure K (Oceanside).

Read Kevin’s full op-ed after the jump.

http://www.sddt.com/news/article.cfm?SourceCode=20100601crg

NEWS – SAN DIEGO

ABC Fights to Preserve Apprenticeship Training Opportunities for Future Construction Work Force

By KEVIN DAYTON, ABC of California

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Construction contractors working at the San Diego Unified School District now have to sign a contract with construction unions affiliated with the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council. This contract is commonly called a Project Labor Agreement, although supporters of the controversial agreement have dubbed it with the more pleasant-sounding name of “Project Stabilization Agreement.”

As demanded by the unions, the agreement includes provisions that restrict the ability of contractors to train apprentices. It takes away the rights of many apprentices to obtain on-the-job training on San Diego Unified School District construction projects.

How did this agreement come about, and what implications does it have for training the future construction work force of San Diego County?

Politics brought union agreement to the school district

As far back as 1999, construction union lobbyists were putting pressure on the San Diego Unified School District to require its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement. In November 1998, San Diego voters had approved a $1.51 billion bond measure called Proposition MM, and unions saw an opportunity to require contractors on this huge construction program to obtain all workers from unions and pay all employee benefits into union trust funds. In addition, if the agreement was implemented, contractors would have to obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs (often called Joint Apprenticeship Training Programs, or JATCs).

In part because of the opposition of local business groups, the board of education did not consider a Project Labor Agreement in the end, although the district did adopt an in-house “labor compliance program” that initially invited participation from volunteer investigators affiliated with union-oriented Labor Management Committees. Construction projects funded by Proposition MM were bid under fair and open competition, and contractors were able to provide on-the-job training under state law to apprentices from any eligible program approved by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

After the Proposition MM money was spent, the board of education placed a $2.1 billion bond measure called Proposition S on the November 2008 ballot to fund more school construction. The voter information for Proposition S mentioned nothing about contractors being required to sign a union agreement, and voters approved it. But one other significant change for the school district happened at that election: an incumbent school board member named Mitz Lee was defeated by her challenger, John Lee Evans. This gave construction unions a supportive majority of three votes on the five-member board of education to approve a Project Labor Agreement.

New school board implements union agreement

The new school board wasted no time in advancing the construction union plot to control future school construction at the San Diego Unified School District. At its Jan. 13, 2009 meeting, the board of education voted 3-2 to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement (now called a Project Stabilization Agreement) with construction unions in order to work on projects of $1 million or more. Despite the objections of Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors and numerous other community and business groups, the board of education approved a final Project Labor Agreement with the unions on a 3-2 vote on May 26, 2009. The board voted 3-2 again on July 28, 2009 to fix defects in the original agreement and adopt a new agreement.

In all three votes, board members Richard Barrera, John Lee Evans and Shelia Jackson supported the union agreement, while board members Katherine Nakamura and John de Beck opposed it. Apparently seeing the Project Labor Agreement as part of a fundamental structural change in local and national ideological identity, school board member Evans summed up the vote on May 26 this way: “I think the bigger picture that people are realizing — and this is what scares some people — is that San Diego is changing, the United States is changing … this is a different city … we are looking at a different community.”

Restrictions on apprentices in the Project Labor Agreement

What is the nature of this “different city?” It is a city in which unions have a monopoly on apprenticeship training and as a result have tremendous power over what kinds and how many people enter the construction work force. There is no competition among apprenticeship programs and no choice for young people considering a career in the construction trades.

There is no acknowledgement in Article XIV of the Project Labor Agreement that state-approved unilateral (non-union) apprenticeship programs exist, such as the programs affiliated with ABC. Nor is there acknowledgement that apprentices are enrolled in such programs.

The union agreement directs potential workers into “participation in such Joint Labor Management Apprenticeship programs.” It says that “the unions agree to cooperate with the contractor in furnishing apprentices as requested up to the maximum percentage.” A subcommittee of the Labor Management Committee oversees identification and development of programs and procedures leading to “the full utilization of apprenticeship programs.”

It is unclear what would happen if a contractor working at the San Diego Unified School District and signatory to the Project Labor Agreement actually had the gumption to request and accept an apprentice from a non-union apprenticeship program in order to fulfill the requirements of California law and regulations regarding apprenticeship training. An educated guess can be made based on the experience of a contractor who worked on a job at the Los Angeles Unified School District and signed the Project Labor Agreement in effect there.

The contractor requested apprentices from the applicable International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union program, but then requested apprentices from the non-union program run by the Los Angeles/Ventura Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors after the IBEW program failed to dispatch apprentices. The ABC program provided 17 apprentices, who received the appropriate on-the-job training on the project. Subsequently, the IBEW and its related trust funds sued the contractor in federal court, contending that the contractor should have paid journeymen wages and benefits to the apprentices because they were not dispatched from the applicable union apprenticeship program as specified in the Project Labor Agreement.

On Nov. 3, 2009, a district court judge ruled that the Project Labor Agreement required apprentices to come from union programs. The judge awarded the union $272,738.63 in underpaid trust contributions, including interest of $55,940.34, along with liquidated damages of $55,940.34 and additional auditor fees of $7,177.50. The contractor was given a rude lesson about signing a Project Labor Agreement and then bucking the unions.

What is ABC doing to preserve freedom of choice in training programs at state, local levels?

Project Labor Agreements at local governments are not the only tool used in California to restrict apprenticeship training opportunities in the construction trades. An ongoing political battle continues at the state’s California Apprenticeship Council (CAC) over the approval of new apprenticeship programs and the approval of existing apprenticeship programs to expand into new geographical jurisdictions. Unions routinely manipulate state laws and regulations to block approval or expansion of apprenticeship programs that would compete against their own programs.

The situation is so reprehensible that the U.S. Department of Labor has removed the authority of the state of California to regulate apprenticeship for federal projects because of the discriminatory “needs test” enacted into law as part of Assembly Bill 921, signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis in 1999 (his first year in office). Commonly referred to as “derecognition,” this drastic federal action was initiated in 2002 and finalized in 2007.

In 2005, a federal administrative law judge ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor has the right to “derecognize” California’s authority to regulate apprenticeship on federal projects. The decision noted that the “needs test” in the California Labor Code used by unions to prevent new or expanded apprenticeship programs “does not promote competition among programs, does not consider the needs of individuals seeking apprenticeship training and limits training opportunities for apprentices.” That’s a concise and accurate description of how state law discourages competition and choice for apprenticeship training in the construction trades.

On the local level, construction unions in San Diego County are aggressively trying to monopolize apprenticeship training by encouraging local governments to require contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements that contain language similar to Article XIV of the union agreement for the San Diego Unified School District. For example, on April 28, union representatives asked a committee of the San Diego City Council to require contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements to work on city public works projects. The committee chose not to proceed with a Project Labor Agreement, but the threat remains.

ABC has responded to this threat and others with a “10 in 2010” program to ensure fair and open competition and freedom of choice in training in the 10 most populous cities in San Diego County.

In the meantime, there will be elections for seats on the San Diego Unified School District board of education in November 2010 and November 2012. ABC has conducted or obtained several polls indicating that about 90 percent of San Diego County residents want fair and open bid competition, and 80 percent would consider voting against a candidate if he or she supported policies that required contractors to sign union agreements.

For the apprentices deprived of opportunities to learn a construction trade at the San Diego Unified School District, there is hope because the people are with you — not with the special interests that want to control the training programs for the future construction work force.

Here is the letter to the editor:

Project Labor Agreements Hinder Banks Work

May 25th, 2010, 12:20 am

Why do our city and county governments continue to indulge the building trade unions by negotiating for a project labor agreement (PLA) on the Banks construction? So far, the project has been proceeding on time, under budget, and is aligned closely with the project’s goals for minority and women inclusion. I know because we are one of the contractors who have worked on the Banks project. These projects currently fall under the federal, state and local prevailing wage programs ensuring an equal compensation and benefit package.

A project labor agreement will accomplish nothing to achieve the goals of the city and county as the project owners. By limiting the work to union contractors only, there will be far fewer bidders, thus increasing costs as a result of less competition. Our company will not bid on this work if there is a project labor agreement. Our co-workers have chosen not to belong to a union. Our efforts in hiring local residents, partnering with minority firms will be eliminated from future projects. The same is true of the other open shop contractors who have had or currently have contracts to work on the Banks.

Project labor agreements are nothing more than a gift to the unions – they are bad public policy and should not be considered for any of the remaining construction on the Banks. It is time for our local elected officials to recognize that and do the right thing to keep taxpayer costs down and to keep the work within our community.

Robert J Strobel

President

Lithko Contracting, Inc.

Well put.  PLAs often have a negative impact on economic development.  Ask our friends from Gaylord Hotels.

As this article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal demonstrates, union agreements allow unionized employers to request union travelers from other union halls for specific projects, resulting in non-local travelers taking jobs from local union members (and nonunion employees too) (“Ironworkers union settles dispute over traveling,” 5/15/10).

Ironworkers Local 433 has to publicly denounce the practice of denying job referrals to members of other locals who seek work in Las Vegas, according to a pending settlement of a labor dispute.

The agreement being completed by Local 433 and the National Labor Relations Board responds to a San Diego man who claims the Las Vegas local broke the union’s labor agreement by ignoring “traveling” members with higher qualifications in order to steer work to its Las Vegas members during the present slow construction market. 

Derek Dixon, a black union ironworker from San Diego who has worked here periodically over the past four years, went to the labor board in January, alleging Local 433 had failed to dispatch him to a job in the summer 2009, even though Schuff Steel Co., at work on the new Veterans Administration hospital in North Las Vegas, had requested Dixon by name.” [snip]

Dixon has worked around the nation and in Puerto Rico, since many nationwide steel erecting companies call for him by name at the union halls nearest their construction sites.

When construction activity is high, union hiring halls often call on other union halls to send travelers to staff a construction project. Under PLAs and typical union hiring hall rules, these union travelers have preference over qualified local nonunion workers – who frequently compose more than 80 percent of the local construction workforce.  So don’t let Big Labor get away with claims that PLAs guarantee a local workforce. Yet another pro-PLA argument debunked by TheTruthAboutPLAs.com.

It is worth noting this case has an element of racial discrimination too.

As a result of Dixon’s charge, Local 433 and the labor board are completing a settlement that requires the union to pay him three weeks of lost wages and to post in its hall a notice that “we will not restrain and coerce Travelers by making intimidating statements to them or by telling them that they will not receive dispatch referrals by Local 433 because they are Travelers.”

Dixon objects to the settlement because it minimizes the economic hit he took, and because it ignores his theory the union also passed him over because he is black. The 46-year-old contends that after the dispatcher failed, per Schuff’s request, to call for him by name at the hall, the union later that day gave the job to a white traveling member.

“There was a mob mentality in the (union hall’s) day room,” is how Dixon recalled the July day he confronted Robbie Conway of Local 433 about its failure to dispatch him to the site.

Dixon claims Conway entered the room and said, “‘As long as I’m the B.A. (business agent), no … “boomers” (traveling members) are going to go to work.’ The local guys were like, ‘Yeah, that’s our B.A.’ The boomers, they were just quiet. There wasn’t that many of them.”

In the proposed agreement, Local 433 does not admit it violated federal labor law. But if it had not agreed to the settlement, the National Labor Relations Board was ready to go before a judge with its complaint on Dixon’s behalf.

The San Diego man has said he intends to sue Local 433 for racial discrimination and recovery of six months more in wages, which is how long he thinks Schuff would have kept him on the job if the union had dispatched him back to the hospital job. Dixon had already worked on the VA project for several months before the ironwork temporarily halted, due to a mandatory stoppage for concrete to cure.

Sadly, racial discrimination in union hiring halls is not uncommon. The National Black Chamber of Commerce has long maintained that the institution of construction unions discriminates against black businesses and their employees – and so do PLAs:

It is the policy of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc. to oppose Project Labor Agreements. This opposition is based on the fact that African American workers are significantly underrepresented in all crafts of construction union shops. This problem has been persistent during the past decades and there appears to be no type of improvement coming within the next ten years.

- NBCC Policy Statement on Project Labor Agreements

The May 14 edition of the Marietta Times has a great breakdown (“Council Rejects Labor Pact, 4-3,” 5/14/10) of how this seemingly inevitable PLA requirement was defeated.

Here are some excerpts, our emphasis added:

But some council members expressed concern that the agreement favored union workers and would give union shops an unfair advantage over non-union contractors in the project bidding process due to the requirement that 50 percent of any contractor’s employees be registered with a union.

“The biggest concern I’m hearing is that union membership is a major deterrent to this agreement,” Councilman Jon Grimm, R-3rd Ward, said Thursday.

“If this is something we absolutely have to do, my request would be to remove the mandatory union membership from the agreement – is that a possibility?” Grimm asked city law director Roland Riggs III.

“I don’t believe the folks from the building trades council would be interested in signing the agreement if that was removed,” Riggs answered.

[snip]

But Councilman David White, R-1st Ward, read from an impassioned statement blasting the proposed agreement.

“This measure is purely, simply and overtly discrimination,” he said. “If we were to award contracts requiring a certain percentage of African Americans, or white, or perhaps Asian workers, it would immediately be denounced as racist.”

In the end, Grimm said he had exhausted all avenues to change the proposed agreement and motioned to suspend the final reading, originally scheduled during a special council session today, and to vote on the measure Thursday.

Grimm, White, and Councilmen Andy Thompson, R-at large, and Harley Noland, D-at large, cast votes against the measure.

Councilwoman Kathy Shively, D-at large, and Councilmen Tom Vukovic, D-4th Ward and Mike McCauley, D-2nd Ward, supported the legislation.

The measure’s defeat was a bit of a surprise as in earlier meetings pertaining to the issue, Noland had expressed support for the proposed agreement.

He explained his change of mind following Thursday’s vote, saying he had lost some sleep wrestling with the decision.

Noland compared the issue with another decision by the local recreation commission (of which he is a member) to allow women to participate in community sports leagues traditionally reserved for men.

During one recreation commission meeting, he said, Riggs had advised that the municipal ball parks were city property and Ohio law prohibits discrimination when using community facilities.

“I woke up one night and it came to me – this issue is the same thing,” Noland said. “Whether we’re talking about race, sexual orientation, religion or unions and non-unions, this would be discrimination.

“How could I in good conscience approve a measure that would force Marietta taxpayers to join a union and pay dues just to obtain work?” he asked.

The important point is this story is that the majority of councilmembers recognize that this PLA is nothing more than pure discrimination against the vast majority of the Ohio construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union.

This position is reinforced by Mr. Riggs’ quote from above, that the “folks from the Building Trades wouldn’t be interested in signing the agreement” if the discriminatory provisions were removed.

Make no mistake, this proposed PLA was not about putting local people to work.  As was reported in the The Marietta Times story investigating this PLA (“Union Workers Lobby City Council Over Jobs,” 5/13/10), the PLA restricted work opportunities to only union members at the expense of the over 75 percent of Ohio construction employees who choose not to join a labor union.

On taxpayer funded projects like this, the public deserves the best construction projects at the best price.  In order to get this, all construction workers must have the opportunity to compete, not just those that give political donations to the right elected officials.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we commend the Marrietta City Council for standing up for the construction workers in your community that can now work on this project thanks to your courage.  In an industry with a national unemployment rate of nearly 22 percent, every opportunity to work is appreciated.

This event is part of their Save the Endangered Species campaign to educate the public on the true impact of PLAs.

TheTruthAboutPLAs.com’s Ben Brubeck is on the scene to tell the truth about PLAs and I am here to liveblog the event.

Read the minute by minute after the jump:

10:05am: Churchill Strategies’ Jeff Coleman introduces the ABC Keystone chapter as the sponsor of the event and complements them for their commitment to putting Pennsylvanians back to work.

10:06 Coleman reminds attendants about the Endangered Species campaign to protect Pennsylvania’s construction workforce.  Remember the great video?

10:10 Coleman introduces David Tuerck from the Beacon Hill Institute.  His research repeatedly found that PLAs increase bid prices and final costs throughout the northeast.

10:13 Tuerck makes a great point.  The highest profile project to be built in America with a PLA may be the Big Dig in Boston.  This is not exactly the model for successful and cost efficient construction.

10:15 Another great point.  Tuerck points out that there were zero cost overruns or construction delays during the previous administration to justify the Obama executive order encouraging PLAs.  This strikes at the heart of President Obama’s argument for the order and shows that PLAs are unnecessary on large-scale construction work.

10:18 Coleman introduced Ben Brubeck from ABC National and TheTruthAboutPLAs.com to lay out the political history of presidential executive orders encouraging and prohibiting PLAs.  Brubeck points out that the PLA E.O. was one of the first actions taken by President Obama.  Two wars and an economic crisis, but he found time to do that?

10:20 Brubeck explains that Democrat leaders support anti-taxpayer PLAs because “they know what side their bread is buttered on.”

10:23 Brubeck: “It’s true that nonunion contractors can bid on PLA jobs, but they are put at such a disadvantage…it just doesn’t make sense to bid.   Sure, everyone can apply to Harvard, but that doesn’t mean they can get it.”

10:24 Brubeck tells crowd that some communities – especially in southern California – are standing up and rallying together against special interests.

10:25 Coleman shows Big Labor’s ad in Chula Vista. Very misleading.  Presents their argument in 30 seconds.  This ad will be available as part of the video of the PLA forum.

10:27 Brubeck: “There are nonunion employees that rely on a fair shot at building public projects, same as the union workers.  Nonunion workers just don’t want to be shut out.”

10:28 Coleman Skypes-in Sam Foley from the National Association of Minority Contractors in Philadelphia.

10:29: Foley: “This issue is front and center as a civil rights issue.”

10:30 Foley states that there are two different types of unions.  One has supported upward mobility for minorities.  That is not the building and construction trade unions.  The Building Trades have systematically discriminated against women and minorities in the construction industry.

10:32 Foley: “The trade union movement discriminates against women and people of color.”

10:33 Foley to Lt. Gov candidates: “Put the interests of the majority above the interests of the few.”

10:34: Foley essentially tells the audience to get into politics or get out of business.

10:36: Coleman introduced Jeff Lawrence of Forefront Construction, the face of the Save the Endangered Species billboards.  Awesome story.  Started his business so he could make his own decisions, spend time with his son and help the industry through being a true minority contractor.

10: 40: Lawrence “I don’t need a ‘Jeff’ labor agreement’”.  He goes onto say that he is fine with contractor prequalification, but is not sure where the other side gets the idea that nonunion firms cannot do the job.  “I am safe and get the job done.  It’s ludicrous to say you need a PLA to get safe, on time, on budget projects.”

10:42 Lawrence: “Exclusion for any reason is discrimination.  How do I look at my employees and say that I’ve got a great job, but you can’t work because the PLA says I need to hire from the unions.  We’re fortunate to get opportunities from people that believe in free enterprise.  We’re very happy about that.”  Really great points.

10:44 Coleman introduces strong supporters of Pennsylvania taxpayers against Big Labor and their demands for government-mandated PLAs.  State Rep. John Bear points out that they’re still in the educational phase.  “To a person, when people learn about PLAs, they ask what the heck is going on.  It is Big Labor’s dirty little secret.”

10:46 Coleman introduces State Sen. and former contractor Lloyd Smucker.  Sen. Smucker points out that they’re talking about equal opportunity.  He also mentions that “if competition goes down, then price goes up.”  It’s econ 101.

10:48 Coleman introduces local contractor John Kinsley.  His company was started by his father in the early 60s and has expanded to general construction.  Kinsley tells the crowd that PLAs hurt nonunion employees, many of whom are loyal, no matter the size of your company.

10:50 Kinsley: “PLAs force you to lay workers off to hire union workers.  It’s terrible to employees that may have been loyal for years.  And to say that nonunion workers are less qualified to do the work is ridiculous.”

10:51 Kinsley: “We’ve got 50 years of history completing jobs on time, on budget with a good safety record.  We wouldn’t be in business if we didn’t.  Penn DOT prequalifies contractors already, even without PLAs, then why do we need them?”

10:54 Kinsley: “How unions do things is outdated.  It is not the same modern benefits that nonunion workers get through their employers.”

10:58 Coleman closes the forum.

The PLA forum is over.  We’re about to move onto the Lt. Governor debate.

We will post video of this event as soon as it is available.

Leave your thoughts in the comments.

The interview is available here.

Mike addressed both the Obama Administration’s release of rules to implement Executive Order 13502, which encourages the use of PLAs on federal projects costing more than $25 million, and also proposed Baltimore City legislation to require PLAs on city-supported projects costing more than $5 million.

This interview took place just as the ABC Baltimore chapter released a new radio ad pointing out how the proposed Baltimore City bill would set aside much needed construction jobs for out of state workers at the expense of city residents.  The ad is available here.

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.

The ad is right on point. This bill won’t create jobs for Baltimore residents; it will just set aside work for union members from other states.

Listen to the ad here.

If you live in Baltimore City, we urge you to contact your council members and urge them to say NO to wasteful and discriminatory PLAs.