Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jeff Potvin, president of the Vermont Building and Construction Trades Council.
In these times of economic turbulence, it is truly disheartening to see respected organizations, such as the Associated General Contractors chapters in Vermont and New York, threatening to halt the Lake Champlain Bridge reconstruction with lawsuits and lies about Project Labor Agreements. As if the citizens of that region already haven’t had their lives turned upside down by the loss of a main transportation artery.
A pact between the owner and the contractors, Project Labor Agreements define acceptable terms and conditions of employment on a specific project. Wages, benefits, schedules, safety expectations and work rules are standardized up front to facilitate the smooth completion of the job on time and on budget. The agreements also foster a positive community impact by containing hire-local provisions, training and outreach programs. They are common around the country, and President Barack Obama endorsed their application on federal projects over $25 million in value – a threshold the Lake Champlain Bridge job far exceeds. There are well over 20 studies by academia that show PLAs deliver responsible economic development and do not drive up costs.
The Associated General Contractors’ assertion that Project Labor Agreements effectively exclude non-union businesses from bidding the job is patently false. In reality, any contractor – union or non-union – can bid a Project Labor Agreement job. Successful bidders must agree to abide by the agreement for that particular project, including paying workers a family-supporting wage and decent benefits. Non-union contractors on a Project Labor Agreement job are not forced to unionize, and can continue “business as usual” on all other non-Project Labor Agreement projects they are a part of.
An agreement does not take away a non-union contractor’s authority to negotiate with her current employees. The fact is non-union employers already have monopoly bargaining power over their workers, all of whom are “at will” employees and frankly have little negotiating leverage as it is. “At will” employees can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. What’s more, their terms and conditions of employment – including wages and benefits – can be altered for any reason, at any time, without notice. A Project Labor Agreement gives the worker much more stability and assures the public their money is being spent wisely.
Most alarming, the Associated General Contractor feels an agreement will cause contractors to hire from elsewhere. Quite to the contrary, signatories to a Project Labor Agreement are typically required to pull from the regional workforce. After all, local workers who earn fair wages and benefits will in turn invest money back into the community – a win-win for everyone. Where was the Associated General Contractor when the Richmond Bridge, Vermont’s first American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project, was built by an out-of-state contractor who was under no obligation to use local workers?
Clearly, the Associated General Contractor’s objections really imply that union wages and benefits are generally better than non-union ones and their contractors are simply unwilling to work under a framework that sets socially responsible labor standards for a publicly funded project. They seemingly want to keep wages artificially low and remove any expectation from the public and the workforce of equitable treatment. It is imperative we not let this one-sided philosophy derail lawmakers and project administrators from doing the right thing – especially with our sputtering economy still causing so much angst for working people.
Mr. Potvin
Well said. The scare tactics by the Associated General Contractors need to be challenged and their “facts” debunked.
I would like to hear from the candidates for governor on this issue. Are they willing to step up and take a position?
Jeff-
You are the mythmaker when it comes to confusing the public about PLAs and the public can smell your half-truths from a mile away. PLAs are special interest handouts that deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve from government. A PLA is nothing more than Big Labor’s tool to create a monopoly on a construction project such as the Champlain Bridge. Why else would you and the Vermont Building and Construction Trades Council be defending and promoting a PLA with such enthusiasm?
Stop distorting the truth to serve your agenda. Sure any company can technically bid on a PLA project, but under a PLA they must hire most or all of their employees from the union hiring halls. In Vermont, just 4.5 percent of the private construction workforce belongs to a construction union, according to http://www.unionstats.com. There are plenty of qualified nonunion contractors who have an existing workforce of skilled and quality nonunion Vermont employees who could perform this work IF not for the PLA. That’s why AGC and other groups are correct to question the use of these corrupt agreements.
Some PLAs permit a nonunion contractor to use a limited number of their existing nonunion employees, but those employees have to pay union dues for the life of the project and have to follow inefficient union work rules that drive up the cost of construction. In addition, a PLA denies these nonunion employees health and benefit contributions made by their nonunion employer during the life of a PLA project to Big Labor’s trust funds unless these employees join and become vested in a union. It’s a huge windfall for Big Labor and it victimizes Vermont’s nonunion workforce and their families from money they have rightfully earned.
Finally, this project is subject to government determined prevailing wage laws which essentially assures that employees who build this bridge are paid union-scale wages and benefits. A PLA has nothing to do with wages and benefits for this particular project, so stop trying to confuse issues and mislead the public.
No matter how you spin it, anti-competitive PLAs drive up construction costs for taxpayers because responsible contractors that do a quality job at the best price refuse to bid on projects when politicians require tham to sign these corrupt agreements. PLAs are not in the public’s interest.
The truth is that the public would best be served if elected officials eliminated the PLA and required a fair and open competitive bidding process for all Vermont contractors, regardless of whether or not their employees belong to a union.
C’mon Mr. Brogan
Your piece is right out of the anti-union / anti-worker playbook. Whenever we hear people talk about “Big Labor” it’s pretty obvious the writer is not playing straight.
Here is an example of your misleading presentation. You said “this project is subject to government determined prevailing wage laws which essentially assures that employees who build this bridge are paid union-scale wages and benefits.”
First, government does not “determine” prevailing wages; they reflect the wages being paid by private employers. This is critical because wages in a state with limited union presence (like VT) are much lower than states with strong unions.
For example, the statewide prevailing wage fot structural iron & steel workers is $16.67 per hour in VT. This is much lower than in surrounding states (e.g., NY prevailing wage for structural ironworkers is $26.50).
To suggest that prevailing wages are equal to union wages is a joke. And if it were true, how come virtually all unionized VT iron & steel workers have to go to NY and MA for work?
The bottom line is that you are obviously representing the interests of the contractors and could care less about the workers (or taxpayers). You say you want “fair and open competitive bidding” but what’s fair or competitive about the current system? It generally rewards contractors who pay the lowest wages. By setting project wages in advance, PLA’s level the playing field so contractors must compete based on factors other than wages.
You also said “PLAs are not in the public’s interest.”
The U.S. Supreme Court (hardly a radical organization) disagrees and has recognized the value of PLA’s in public sector projects (1993 Boston Harbor decision).
Finally, I always get a kick out of those representing business owners who refer to unions as “special interests.” Exactly what is the Associated General Contractors if not a special interest?