Editorials & Opinion Pieces

Union-only PLAs are opposed in America's Newspaper Editorials

“Fran Madigan is a third-generation contractor whose firm has been in Worcester for 71 years. He employs 30 people and pays taxes on two buildings. His workers are licensed and well-trained … Likewise, Jim Grasseschi runs the plumbing and heating business founded by his grandfather 68 years ago …”

“These men and others are victims of pro-union politics, in which elected officials bar qualified merit shops from construction projects by imposing restrictions that favor organized labor. We’ve seen them with Project Labor Agreements, which require that all workers on taxpayer-funded construction be union members. And we see it now with the so-called Responsible Employer Ordinance, which deters open-shop contractors from bidding for public work …”

“The issue is dry at first glance, and involves an REO provision requiring contractors to maintain “bona fide” apprenticeship programs. Union-only contractors can do that simply by being signatories to programs operated by the various trades. Consequently, open shops are barred …”

“The other victim of the REO is the taxpayer. As noted in a recent report by The Research Bureau, the REO drives up public construction costs because it results in fewer bidders for projects …”

“The deck is stacked for a special-interest minority that delivers money and votes for elected officials, who pander to unions at the expense of hardworking men and women in the city …”

“Like many open-shop contractors, Mr. Madigan said he is not anti-union and subcontracts work to union and nonunion workers. He’s not asking for special favors, but expects fairness. He should get it. The job of elected leaders is to ensure such equity, not erect stumbling blocks that hurt the taxpayer …”

- Union Shops Shouldn’t Have a Monopoly
Worcester Telegram, Worcester, Mass., April 3, 2008

“The Springfield City Council doesn’t want to save money on new school buildings. The council voted to adopt an agreement that would close out most contractors and the vast majority of construction workers in the state from participating in building (two new schools). Councilors, of course, would tell of their vote differently. They’d argue that they are protecting wages and providing jobs for minority workers and local contractors.”

“That might sound good, but the facts don’t in any way support those claims. By adopting what is known as a project labor agreement, the council effectively voted to increase the cost of the new schools by stifling competition, locking out as much as 80 percent of the potential work force …”

“Not only is that patently unfair, it is also needlessly expensive. And it may well be illegal, to boot …”

“Local union leaders say that project labors agreements would not keep non-union shops from bidding on the jobs. While that may be true in the most technical sense, PLAs effectively rig the bidding in favor of the unions … The project labor agreement has got to go.”

- City’s Pact on Labor is Bad Public Policy
The Republican, Springfield, Mass., Nov. 12, 2007

“The Fairfield City Council should do plenty more homework before it embarks upon the slippery slope of establishing project labor agreements with the Napa-Solano County Building and Trades Council that guarantee union workers on certain public works construction jobs.”

“If the council is interested, it can research communities where PLAs have been initiated. What normally happens: The number of bids for the projects diminish. The quotes for the work go up (anywhere from 10 percent to 20 percent).”

“PLAs appear to be nothing more than a sweet deal between council members who want to stay in the good graces of the trade unions and their own public employee unions.”

“The city should avoid them at all costs.”

- City Council Should Learn About Labor Agreements
Fairfield Daily Republic, Fairfield, California, February 4, 2007

 “Welcome to the world of the Joint School Construction Board (JSCB).  The board is responsible for providing oversight to the district-wide school reconstruction project about to be launched by the city of Syracuse.  The city plans to spend in excess of $900 million over the next 10 years.  Before launching the phase 1 portion, estimated to cost $225 million, the JSCB is considering whether to utilize a project labor agreement (PLA)…”

“Watching the JSCB in action is like watching the Theater of the Absurd.  There is a large cast of characters, plenty of motion, and countless studies filled with technical jargon.  But where is the questioning, the critical thinking?  The board must determine that a PLA will serve a proper business purpose, such as the project’s timely completion or a cost savings.  Other than a “potential” union threat to disrupt the project, there is no history of construction disruptions in our region.  As to cost savings, there is little evidence that PLAs generate any savings unless measured against a hypothetical project in which most of the work was governed by union agreements.  And is the bidding process really enhanced when non-union construction companies often decline to bid to keep the fox out of the henhouse?  Is it favoritism by default? …”

“The citizenry is relying on the JSCB to exercise sound judgment in deciding whether a PLA is beneficial to the school reconstruction project.  The board members are currently not fulfilling their responsibility either in rushing judgment or in not analyzing critically the PLA proposal.  There is still time to change the surreal nature of the process and logically decipher the best direction either by awakening the JSCB to its responsibility or by reconstituting the board with members unafraid to exercise independent judgment.  Without this change, the process smacks of merely providing cover for a political payback to the unions.”

-Joint School Construction Board (JSCB) Provides Theater of the Absurd
The Central New York Business Journal, Syracuse, New York, October 27, 2006

“I always took for granted that [union-only PLAs] would raise the costs of construction … now I have a study done by a couple of economists at the Beacon Hill Institute of Suffolk University, in Boston, based on the experience of 117 school districts in New York state, from 1996 to the present, showing that project labor agreements raised construction costs by 20 percent.”

“The question is, why in the world would a school district, or a nonprofit theater, or a library enter into such a deal?”

“The real reason, of course, is just that the unions have political clout, which local governments deeply respect. And so what if a school or a library winds up costing a couple million dollars more than it needs to?”

“The cost gets distributed among a lot of people, the proverbial taxpayers. It doesn’t come out of the pockets of the school board members or the city councilmen who vote on these things, except for a couple of dollars, and it’s easy to spend other people’s money.”

-The View From Here: Study Finds Union Deals Drive Up Costs
The Daily Gazette, Schenectady, New York, August 8, 2006

“In order for the downtown arena to happen, Democrats on the Metro Council and their union friends must abandon the unacceptable labor provisions they inserted at the last minute into the city financing agreement … It's odd, given how often the Democratic Party and organized labor claim to represent ‘working people,’ that they would combine to sabotage a major construction project that could put some 3,500 people to work … (Council Democrats) say they just want a seat at the table. Well, that's not true. They want to be positioned to control what's done at the table.”

“Although elected by no public ballot, and thus accountable to no public constituency, they nevertheless want to control the allocation of contracts and impose on non-union firms whatever work rules they consider appropriate.  They want to make this controversy a test of loyalty to unions, but the council's loyalty must be to the larger public it serves.  That's why so many who ordinarily stand with organized labor are opposed in this instance to the ‘project labor agreement’ ploy. Surely, fairness and good sense will eventually prevail.”

– Rejecting A Power Play
Louisville Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, July 20, 2006

“To reinvent a popular expression: It’s the PLAs, stupid!  That’s Project Labor Agreements, and they look as if they will cost Fall River’s taxpayers a whole heap of extra cash as the city endeavors to construct five new schools … They are anti-competitive, anti-quality and, most importantly, anti-taxpayer … Persuading the unions to abandon the PLAs won’t be the easiest thing (Mayor Lambert’s) ever done, but if (he) doesn’t attempt to get out of the new agreements he may as well get used to a new meaning for the acronym. PLA? Public Loses Again.”

– Labor Disagreement
The Herald News, Fall River, Massachusetts, April 2, 2006

“Franklin County commissioners are considering an unnecessary and expensive agreement that would give trade unions the power to choose which companies would build a new county courthouse and baseball stadium.  It’s called a project labor agreement … The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that handing unions this exclusive decision-making over construction projects is constitutional.  But legal doesn’t equal efficient or wise.”

“… non-union contractors don’t tend to bid on jobs governed by such agreements because (they) generally force companies to hire union workers, follow union rules and contribute to union pensions and health-care plans.  That narrows the pool of prospective bidders, limiting competition and driving up the price … Such a lack of flexibility is not in the public interest … For Franklin County to adopt this agreement is like selling flood insurance to people living on a mountaintop.  That peace of mind is a waste of money for no return.  Commissioners should leave well enough alone.”

– Unnecessary Restriction: County Commissioners Shouldn’t Put Hiring In Unions’ Hands
  Columbus Dispatch, April 13, 2006

"[A union-only PLA] is another anti-competitive construction policy … PLAs for local school projects ought to be banned by state officials stretching scarce resources to cover a voracious local appetite for shiny new classrooms."

— Cahill: Say No To PLAs,
The Boston Herald, September 15, 2005

"Give PLAs a hearty heave-ho and open the process to true competition. After all … if union labor really is more productive, and if union work rules really don't hike costs, union firms should be able to win their share of contracts without PLAs."

— The Unfair Price of Union Labor,
The Boston Globe, May 20, 2005

"PLAs can differ in form and degree, but their purpose is always the same: to bar all but union contractors from working on public construction projects. For Sacramento City schools, such a policy would be an expensive disaster. The practical effect of a PLA is to reduce competition and drive up costs … Nor is there any proof that a PLA actually benefits workers … Perhaps most important, a PLA also would break faith with voters … Reducing competition, as PLA agreements inevitably do, hardly works to lower costs."

— Editorial: Big Decision For Schools, Will Board Back Unions or Public Interest?
The Sacramento Bee, April 21, 2005

"Are Democratic office-holders in this town acting in the public interest or just in the interest of unions that pull their strings?... At City Hall, a heavily Democratic City Council rejected the low bid of a non-union earth-moving company after union operatives objected. The decision could cost taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars more. To produce results for members, construction unions have started to talk more about PLAs on public projects."

— Yepsen: Jail Labor Plan Would Benefit Unions, Not Public,
The Des Moines Register, March 29, 2005

"Wilmington shouldn't allow unions to dictate project bid procedures."

— Laws Are Clear,
The News Journal, Wilmington, Delaware, September 27, 2005

"Mayor Tony Williams has said that he wants to ensure D.C. residents are hired and given apprenticeship opportunities, and that he wants to boost participation by minority-owned businesses. But as ABC President Debra Schoonmaker told us yesterday, 'a union-only PLA does nothing to advance those goals.' We agree."

— Alarming Stadium Developments,
The Washington Times, November 30, 2004

"Construction trade unions have been among Gov. McGreevey's staunchest supporters and campaign contributors. In return, they have received more jobs, thanks to project labor agreements"

"The state and local school districts can't afford to spend $1 more than they should for any project. If McGreevey is at all serious about watching state spending, he should abandon these agreements. Government jobs should go to qualified contractors, both union and nonunion. The competition will help drive down the cost."

— The High Cost of Labor Rules,
The Asbury Park Press, Neptune, New Jersey, June 14, 2004

"As a practical matter, PLAs may be a necessary evil. That's because public projects usually need legislative approval to get the authorized funding. Politicians who rely on labor money may never approve a public project without them."

"But that doesn't eliminate the basic injustice ingrained in PLAs, which often force contractors to lay off experienced and productive workers to employ people that unions foist off on them."

— The Buffalo News, June 28, 2000

"One thing is certain: PLA is rooted in blackmail. The unions say the agreement ensures uninterrupted construction. Translation: If you don't have PLA, we may see to it that there will be interruption."

"This utterly immoral arrangement is kept alive by spineless politicians who kowtow to the unions because much of their campaign contributions come from organized labor."

— Sunday Telegram Worcester, Massachusetts, September 26, 1999

"The essence of competitive bidding laws is to enhance competition. Project labor agreements violate this basic principal by effectively eliminating a whole class of competitor -- the nonunion contractors."

"One of the major justifications for PLAs is to preserve labor peace. But even in the San Francisco Airport case upheld by the California Supreme Court, there was a wildcat strike that disrupted the project for several days. The PLA was supposed to guarantee labor peace. It did not, undercutting one of the strongest arguments in favor of PLAs."

"Competitive bidding laws also are designed to avoid political favoritism in public bidding. But PLAs favor union contractors and, by extension, unions. Thus, public officials adopting a PLA are currying favor with, and possibly political campaign contributions from, unions. This is just the kind of cronyism the competitive bidding laws seek to avoid."

"We believe that all bidders should be treated equally when bidding on public works projects. Where a union contractor is the lowest qualified bidder, it should be awarded the contract. The same should go for the nonunion contractor. There should be no artificial, government-imposed barrier, like a PLA, to either side. With a level playing field, all workers will have equal cause to celebrate on Labor Day."

— Engineering News-Record, September 6, 1999