Banning Project Labor Agreement Bans in California

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
The Sacramento Bee on Wednesday editorializes against Senate Bill 922, which, the editors note, was until just a few days ago "an innocuous measure that would have added tuberculosis to information that may be disclosed under the state's immunization system." But on Friday, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, the top Democrats in the Legislature, gutted and amended SB 922 into something far more insidious.

According to the Bee:

The amended SB 922 would bar city councils and county supervisors or even local voters from banning "project labor agreements," essentially agreements that require public agencies to use union labor for public works projects.

Pushed by the building trades union, the new SB 922 is a blatant attempt to forestall a campaign by nonunion contractors to ban PLAs on the local level. The nonunion contractors argue that such agreements deter them from bidding for public construction projects. When they do bid and win, they either have to make their nonunion workers join a union and pay union dues or abandon them and hire union workers out of a union work hall instead. By denying fair competition, PLAs, critics claim, end up greatly inflating the cost of public works.

Project Labor Agreements received a major boost from President Obama last year in April, when he signed an executive order effectively mandating them in federal contracts. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth explained in this RealClearMarkets commentary:

The executive order favors union labor over nonunion shops on large federal construction projects-those worth over $25 million each. The order will take effect on May 13.

According to the new rule, "every contractor and subcontractor engaged in construction on a construction project agrees, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations."

The language might make more sense when translated into German or French. Under project labor agreements, all employees have to receive union-approved wages and benefits, even if they do not belong to unions. This drives out small businesses from competing for these projects; raises their cost to the taxpayers; and funnels a larger stream of union dues from taxpayers' pockets to union treasuries.

In California, where Democrats are two votes short of two-thirds votes in both houses of the Legislature, bills giving organized labor an advantage are all but assured passage. The Bee's editors stop short of endorsing local PLA bans, saying only the wisdom of such policies "remains an open question." But they are positively incensed by the process, calling the gut-and-amend jam-down a "travesty."

In addition to SB 922, two other gut-and-amend bills--Assembly Bill 436 and SB 790--would apparently benefit PLAs by exempting local governments from some fees if they require contractors to adopt a project labor agreement and by requiring public utilities to pay into a union-controlled fund actively promoting such agreements. 

"Strongly supported by unions that bankroll the campaigns of Democratic legislators, these noxious measures are very likely to make it out of both houses of the Legislature," the editorial concludes. "In the interest of fairness and adherence to their own rules, we'd urge lawmakers to prove us wrong, and if they don't, we ask the governor to veto them."

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.publicsectorinc.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/452

Join the conversation

Related Entries:

Center for State and Local Leadership

PublicSectorInc.org is a project of the Manhattan Institute's Center for State & Local Leadership.
Copyright © 2013 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494