The uprising is growing.
Voters
in California have made it clear that fair competition and the
betterment of local communities is more important than guaranteeing
work to unions, regardless of value or quality.
Voters in Oceanside and Chula Vista are the most recent cities to place bans on project labor agreements (PLAs).
The Wall Street Journal reported on the two cities rebeling against project labor deals that raise costs:
By
56% to 43%, Chula Vista voted in favor of Proposition G, which bans
project labor agreements. These rules let unions pre-emptively set the
terms for municipal construction projects, such as requiring the
contractors to consent to union representation, special benefits or pay
collectively bargained wage rates. Such agreements increase taxpayer
costs as competitive bidding between union and open shops is
suppressed. From Boston’s Big Dig to the San Francisco airport, if it’s
a project with egregious cost overruns, a project labor agreement is
probably involvedVoters knew firsthand how costly
and destructive this favoritism could be. In 2006, the developer
Gaylord Entertainment announced plans to build a hotel and convention
center in Chula Vista, only to cancel the project after two years in
part because of union intransigence. With unemployment somewhere in the
double-digits and cities statewide worried about bankruptcy, project
labor agreements were an indulgence Chula Vista could no longer afford.
A
recent $38 million water project in San Rafael considered placing a PLA
on the project, but after surveying the much higher cost impacts of a
PLA, decided to put the project out to competitive biding.
PublicCEO has covered both sides of the issue (Point-Counterpoint: The Case For Project Labor Agreements) yet I have yet to hear an opinion that truly makes the case for PLAs.
In
fact, I would like to invite anyone to give me a straight answer as to
how a project labor agreement is any different than a standard contract
entered into between two parties.
Everyday, individuals and
organizations bind themselves to provide goods and services through a
contract with specific terms and conditions. You don’t need a project
labor agreement that requires municipalities give public dollars to
union slush funds to ensure strikes don’t occur, local employees get
preference or that workers are paid prevailing wage. You just need a
good contract.
Why would any organization choose to shorten its
list of potential bidders when the goal should be to find the highest
quality of work at the lowest bid? The problem is, PLAs are more about
what the unions want.
I
would invite anyone to offer a reason why any government should give a
union a monopoly or preferential treatment at the expense of taxpayers
and other businesses, especially when there’s no real benefit in
return. I’d love to hear a single sound take on the matter at
jspencer@publicceo.com
So
I commend Chula Vista and Oceanside for standing strong in their revolt
against what is essentially big business looking to stronghold
communities.
There is simply no need for PLAs. Let’s hope more cities follow.
James Spencer can be reached at jspencer@publicceo.com