HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10012002 - D1 D.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
.Date: October 1,2002 Matter of Record
On this date,the Board called for public comment. The fallowing persons
presented testimony:
David Calder,519 Patterson Blvd., Pleasant Hill,regarding the
Crestwood Facility in Pleasant Hill;
Ralph Hoffman, 60 Saint Timothy Court, Danville,regarding poor
use of CCTV airtime and the FirstAmendment;
Eric Christen, Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction,
regarding County Project Labor Agreement.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) iVIIP+tUTE LIMT) CP
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
Complete this form and place it in the box 'near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: ERIC.. Chcr:&- 4 Phobe 91� 3 ' 9` 'S
Address: W71 Cwv <-, Cityr , ZIP Code: ' ',
I am spearing for myself or organization: � � �► is
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item## bate:
My Comments will be general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of C-0 On
I do not wish to speak on the subject but leave t ese comments for the board to consider:
RF,Q EST TO SPIrYAK FORM
(TI REE (3) A INUTE LIMIT)
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
Complete this form and place it if lthe berg near the speakers'rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: V t.,, l�.�12. Phone 5 015-1
Address;: , £' l2.rT**t5b,w _30yyCity! P4-9,4n 51 A I` t t u Zip Code: 4(5—Z 7
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organ zatioo)
CHECK ONE:
1 wish to speak on Agenda hein# Date:
My Comments will be general far against
I wish to speak on the subject gf .t Zt 5 7` urt7 vt c P1L4#**4-_T Kr_c c-
1 do not wish to speak on the subject but leave these comments for the board to consider:
t c
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM '
(TULLE (3) M NUTE LEW T)
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
Complete this forth and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board,
k
Name: J)a!!J� Phoney } '
Address:60 ' 1 6 Ay (Z't, City DrON/411't Zip Code: Y9� "
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda item# P" Date:
My Coninients will be general ' fir against _
` I wish to speakon the subject of Fool.
I do not wish to spear on the subject but Leave these comrrtents for the board'to consider:
Presidential Executive Order No 13202
Prese .. o i of Open
Competition and Government
Neutrality Towards
Government Contractors'
Labor Relations on Federal
and Federally Funded
Construction Projects
Issued February 17, 2001
Update: Executive Order 13208 amends Executive Order 13202
Since the printing of this booklet,the Bush Administration has issued a subsequent Executive Order
13208,which amends the original Order 13202 as follows.
Executive Order 13208,the amendment to E.O. 1 3202,was issued April 7,2001.. This amendment
will exempt certain projects that were already underway with a PLA in place.In order to qualify.for an
exemption,the amendment requires a signed PLA and a signed construction contract as of February
17,2001. The Executive Order continues to broadly prohibit any union-only requirement from being
imposed on any future federally funded or federally assisted project.Even if a union-only PIA had been
negotiated prior to February 17,2001.,the PLA cannot be imposed if no construction contracts had
actually been awarded under the PLA prior to February 17. It should also be noted that the amend-
mens does not require any federal agency head to approve continued enforcement of a pre-existing
union-only PLA.
This booklet was printed prior to E.0.13208,therefore information contained herein applies
to projects that were begun after February 17,2001. Please contact ABC Government Affairs at
(703)812-2000 orgainfoC abc.org if you have any further questions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
.AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 13202,PRESERVATION OF OPEN COMPETITION AND
GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY TOWARDS GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS'LABOR RELATIONS ON
FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States
of America,including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act,40 U.S.C.471 et sect.,and
in order to(1)promote and ensure open competition on Federal and federally funded or assisted
construction projects;(2)maintain Government neutrality towards Government contractors'labor
relations on Federal and federally funded or assisted construction projects;(3)reduce construction
costs to the Federal Government and to the tax-payers;(4)expand job opportunities,especially for
small and disadvantaged businesses;(S)prevent discrimination against Government contractors or
their employees based upon labor affiliation or lack thereof,and(6)prevent the inefficiency that may
result from the disruption of a previously established contractual relationship in particular cases;
thereby promoting the economical,nondiscriminatory,and efficient administration and completion
of Federal and federally funded or assisted construction projects,it is hereby ordered that Executive
Order 13202 of February 17,2001,is amended by adding to section S of that order the following new
subsection:
(c)The head of an executive agency,upon application of an awarding authority,a recipient of grants
or financial assistance,a party to a cooperative agreement,or a construction manager acting on behalf
of the foregoing,may exempt a particular project from the requirements of any or all of the provisions
of sections 1 and 3 of this order,if the agency head finds:(i)that the awarding authority,recipient of
grants or financial assistance,party to a cooperative agreement,or construction manager acting on
behalf of the foregoing had issued or was a party to,as of the date of this order,bid specifications,
project agreements,agreements with one or more labor organizations,or other controlling documents
with respect to that particular project,which contained any of the requirements or prohibitions set
forth in sections 1(a)or(b)of this order;and(ii)that one or more construction contracts subject to
such requirements or prohibitions had been awarded as of the date of this order.
GEORGE W.BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE
April 6,2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 36/Thursday, February 22, 2001/Presidential Documents 11225
Presidential Documents
Executive Order 13202 of February 17, 2001
Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality
Towards Government Contractors' Labor Relations on
Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America,including the Federal Property and Adminis-
trative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq., and in order to (1) promote
and ensure open competition on Federal and federally funded or assisted
construction projects; (2) maintain Government neutrality towards Govern-
ment contractors' labor relations on Federal and federally funded or assisted
construction projects; (3)reduce construction costs to the Federal Government
and to the taxpayers; (4) expand job opportunities, especially for small
and disadvantaged businesses;and (5) prevent discrimination against Govern-
ment contractors or their employees based upon labor affiliation or lack
thereof; thereby promoting the economical, nondiscriminatory, and efficient
administration and completion of Federal and federally funded or assisted
construction projects,it is hereby ordered that:
Section 1. To the extent permitted by law, any executive agency awarding
any construction contract after the date of this order, or obligating funds
pursuant to such a contract, shall ensure that neither the awarding Govern-
ment authority nor any construction manager acting on behalf of the Govern-
ment shall, in its bid specifications, project agreements, or other controlling
documents:
(a) Require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors
to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations,
on the same or other related construction project(s);or
(b) Otherwise discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors, or sub-
contractors for becoming or refusing to become or remain signatories or
otherwise to adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations,
on the same or other related construction project(s).
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit contractors or subcontractors
from voluntarily entering into agreements described in subsection(a).
Sec. 2. Contracts awarded before the date of this order, and subcontracts
awarded pursuant to such contracts, whenever awarded, shall not be gov-
erned by this order.
Sec. 3. To the extent permitted by law, any executive agency issuing grants,
providing financial assistance, or entering into cooperative agreements for
construction projects, shall ensure that neither the bid specifications, project
agreements, nor other controlling documents for construction contracts
awarded after the date of this order by recipients of grants or financial
assistance or by parties to cooperative agreements, nor those of any construc-
tion manager acting on their behalf, shall contain any of the requirements
or prohibitions set forth in section 1(a)or(b)of this order.
Sec. 4. In the event that an awarding authority, a recipient of grants or
financial assistance, a party to a cooperative agreement, or a construction
manager acting on behalf of the foregoing, performs in a manner contrary
to the provisions of sections 1 or 3 of this order, the executive agency
awarding the contract, grant, or assistance shall take such action, consistent
with law and regulation, as the agency determines may be appropriate.
1
11226 Federal Register!Vol. 66, No. 36!Thursday, February 22, 2001/Presidential Documents
^� Sec. 5. (a) The head of an executive agency may exempt a particular project,
contract, subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement from the requirements
of any or all of the provisions of sections 1 and 3 of this order, if the
agency head finds that special circumstances require an exemption in order
to avert an imminent threat to public health or safety or to serve the
national security.
(b) A finding of "special circumstances" under section 5(a) may not be
based on the possibility or presence of a labor dispute concerning the
use of contractors or subcontractors who are nonsignatories to, or otherwise
do not adhere to, agreements with one or more labor organizations, or
concerning employees on the project who are not members of or affiliated
with a labor organization.
Sec. 6. (a) The term "construction contract' as used in this order means
any contract for the construction,rehabilitation,alteration,conversion,exten-
sion,or repair of buildings,highways,or other improvements to real property.
(b) The term "executive agency" as used in this order shall have the
same meaning it has in 5 U.S.C. 105, excluding the General Accounting
Office.
(c) The term "labor organization" as used in this order shall have the
same meaning it has in 42 U.S.C. 2000e(d).
Sec. 7. With respect to Federal contracts, within 60 days of the issuance
of this order, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall take whatever
action is required to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation in order
to implement the provisions of this order.
Sec, a.As it relates to project agreements,Executive Order 12836 of February
1, 1993, which, among other things, revoked Executive Order 12878 of
October 23,1992,is revoked.
Sec. 9. The Presidential. Memorandum of June 5, 1997, entitled "Use of
Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects" (the "Memo-
randum"),is also revoked.
Sec. 10. The heads of executive departments and agencies shall revoke
expeditiously any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies imple-
menting or enforcing the Memorandum or Executive Order 12836 of February
1, 1993, as it relates to project agreements, to the extent consistent with
law.
Sec. 11. This order is intended only to improve the internal management
of the executive branch and is not intended to, nor does it, create any
right to administrative or judicial review, or any right, whether substantive
or procedural,enforce able by any party against the United States,its agencies
or instrumentalities,its officers or employees,or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 17, 2001
[FR Doc.01-4622
Filed 02-21-01; 11:16 am]
Billing code 3196-01--F
History of Union-Only Protect
Labor Agreements on Federally
Funded Construction Projects
and Executive Order No. 13202
In 1992,President George Bush issued Executive Order 12818 prohibiting federal agencies
from permitting union-only project labor agreements on government construction projects.
Without any justification,President Clinton revoked the Bush Executive Order in 1993,as one
of the first acts of his new administration. Then in 1997,President Clinton issued a Memorandum
ordering federal agencies to consider implementing union-only project labor agreements on many
government projects,under a set of vague guidelines.
Since 1993,numerous studies and hard experience have shown that government-mandated
union-only project labor agreements discourage competition for government contracts and in-
crease costs to the taxpayers,without any appreciable benefits. A number of prominent govern-
ment-mandated union-only projects,such as the notorious"Big Dig"in Boston and the San Fran-
cisco Airport,have suffered:from significant cost overruns,construction delays,safety problems
and inadequate competition.Government-mandated union agreements have discriminated against
minority and small businesses and have engendered favoritism towards one sector of the construc-
tion industry at the expense of others. Finally,such agreements have departed from the long
federal tradition of neutrality towards private contractors'labor relations.
The new Executive Order No. 13202 has caused the federal government to stop interfering
with private contractual rights and to return to open competition in government contracting,
regardless of labor affiliation. This Executive Order immediately revoked President Clinton's 1997
Memorandum.. The Executive Order has further directed all federal agencies to ensure that bid
documents of any government contracts awarded,obligated or assisted by the federal government,
or financed through federal grants or cooperative agreements or other means do not"require or
prohibit"any government contractor or sub-contractor entering into or adhering to a union
agreement.
The twin guiding principles underlying this Executive Order are open competition and
government neutrality towards private sector labor relations. The government and its agents will
not require private contractors to sign union agreements as a condition of performing government
work,nor will the government or its agents prohibit contractors from signing such agreements if
they so choose,in accordance with applicable law.
The new Executive Order went into effect immediately,as did President Clinton's 1993 Order.
Federal agencies therefore must not approve or award government contracts containing mandated
union agreements after the effective date of February 17,2001.
3
President Bush's Executive Order an PLAs:
Whet It Means for Merit Contractors
By Maurice Baskin
On February 17,2001,President George W.Bush signed Executive Order No.13202,entitled
"Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors'
Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects.' This Executive Order
declares that neither the federal government,nor any agency acting with federal assistance,shall
require or prohibit construction contractors to sign union agreements as a condition of performing
work on government construction projects. The Executive Order puts an end to government-
mandated union-only PLAs on federal construction projects as well as federally funded or assisted
construction projects.
The Bush Executive Order is a great victory for the principles long supported by merit shop
contractors,i.e.,that construction work should be awarded and performed on the basis of merit
through open competition,without favoritism to special interest groups.The Bush Order revokes
the policies of the Clinton Administration that had encouraged government agencies to adopt
union-only requirements on government construction projects.President Bush has correctly
recognized that the government's proper role is to promote and ensure open competition on
government projects,while maintaining government neutrality towards construction contractors'
labor relations.In this way,the government can reduce construction costs,expand job opportuni-
ties and prevent unfair discrimination based upon labor affiliation or non-affiliation.
The Bush Order contains 11 sections,but the heart of the Order is established at the beginning.
Section 1 orders all federal agencies to ensure that neither they nor any construction manager
acting on their behalf shall require or prohibit bidders,offerors,contractors or sub-contractors to
enter into or adhere to agreements with any labor organization or otherwise
discriminate against anyone on this ground.Section 3 further requires all federal agencies to
ensure that no union-only requirements appear in any contracts awarded pursuant to federal
grants,federally assisted projects,or federal cooperative agreements.
The Executive Order took effect immediately upon its issuance on.February 17,2001 and
applies to all contracts awarded after that date.This should affect some projects where union-only
PI.As have previously been imposed upon successful bidders,in that any new contracts awarded
on such projects will no longer be permitted to contain a government-mandated union-only
requirement.
The Executive Order also extends to contracts awarded by construction managers acting on
behalf of government agencies.Because they are acting on behalf of the government,the Executive
Order forbids such construction managers from requiring any contractor or subcontractor to sign a
union agreement as a condition of performing government work.
At the same time,the Executive Order is careful to state that nothing in its terms prohibits any
contractor or subcontractor from voluntarily entering into PLAs or other labor agreements,There
is thus no danger of the Executive Order's interfering with labor agreements protected by the
National Labor Relations Act(NLRA).The NLRA does not apply to government-mandated union
agreements,nor does the NLRA restrict the federal government from choosing not to impose any
union requirement on government contractors.
Obviously,the Executive Order is good news for merit contractors,government contracting
officials,and taxpayers.No longer will they have to suffer from the increased costs and reduced
competition of government-mandated union-only PLAs on federal or federally funded construction
projects.
Mr.Baskin is a partner with the Washington,D.C.office of Venable, LLP,ABC's General Counsel.He
represents construction industry employers in all aspects of labor and employment law.
4
____;.;;;._.__ _ a..z+:nnue:^:3:I:Ei:':P`!!igf -3N6 `•:IIID 31 ,3iiiku 31tii 31.aa :.9iM Nib a+m..
Frequently Asked Questions
On February 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order No. 13202,
entitled"Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Gov-
ernment Contractors' Labor Relations and Federal and Federally Funded Construction
Projects." The following are frequently asked questions regarding this Executive Order
and the effects of it.
Q:Which projects are affected by the Executive Order?
A: The Executive Order puts an end to government-mandated union-only PLAs on federal
construction projects,as well as federally funded or assisted projects.It does not apply to projects
with only state, local, or private funding.If there is any federal funding under a contract signed
after February 17,2001,then this Executive Order applies.
Q:Why was the Executive Order necessary?
A: President Bush has correctly recognized that construction work should be awarded and
performed on the basis of merit through open competition,without favoritism to special interest
groups.The Bush Order revokes the policies of the Clinton Administration that encouraged govern-
ment agencies to adopt union-only requirements on government construction projects.
Q:When does the Order become effective and to what contracts does it apply?
A: The Executive Order took effect immediately upon its issuance on February 17,2001 and
applies to all contracts awarded after that date.This should affect some projects where union-only
PLAs have previously been imposed upon successful bidders,in that any new contracts awarded
on such projects will no longer be permitted to contain a government-mandated union-only
requirement.
Q: How does it affect construction managers acting on behalf of government
agencies?
A: The Executive Order extends to these construction managers as well.Because they are
acting on behalf of the government,the Executive Order forbids such construction managers from
requiring any contractor or subcontractor to sign a union agreement as a condition of performing
government work.
Q: Does the Executive Order outlaw the use of Project Labor Agreements?
A: The Executive Order is careful to state that nothing in its terms prohibits any contractor
or subcontractor from voluntarily entering into PLAs or other labor agreements.However,it no
longer requires the parties to enter into a PLA.There is thus no danger of the Executive Order's
interfering with labor agreements protected by the National Labor Relations Act(NLRA).The NLRA
does not apply to government-mandated union agreements,nor does the NLRA restrict the federal
government from choosing not to impose any union requirement on government contractors.
Q:Is anyone exempt from the Executive Order?
A: No specific exemptions have been granted to any project,geographic area or political
subdivision.The only exemption recognized by the Order is where a federal agency head certifies
that an"imminent threat"to public health or safety exists or by reason of national security. The
possibility of a labor dispute is not a permissible ground for exemption under the Executive Order.
5
MYTH VS FACT
The Truth about Union-Only
Project Labor Agreements
Myth. Union-only PLAs reduce costs to those who use them for construction.
Fact:Union-only requirements have exactly the opposite effect.Imposing a PLA limits the
number of bidders to only union contractors or those few open shop contractors who are willing
to become signatory to the PLA for the duration of the project.This process inevitably leads to
higher costs,due to a lack of competition.Open shop employers'ability to deploy workers,use
less skilled workers for jobs requiring lesser skill,and the lack of costly work practices,make open
shops more cost efficient-even when paying the same prevailing wage as the unions,which is
required on all publicly funded projects.Boston's`Big Dig"and San Francisco's airport are two of
many examples of union-only projects which have suffered from significant cost overruns.
Myth. Using union-only PLAs ensures use of local workers.
Fact:Less than 20 percent of construction workers choose to belong to a union.When partici-
pation on a construction project is limited to union members,all non-union workers who live in an
area are either prohibited or discriminated against in employment on a project,thus restricting the
availability of workers.As a result,union-only PLAs have the exact opposite effect of often forcing
employers to bring in workers from outside the state to obtain sufficient numbers of union mem-
bers to work on a job.
Myth.Union labor is necessary for large, complex construction jobs, so union-only
PLAs don't make a difference.
Fact:Since many of the largest and most successful projects are completed every year on time
and within budget without resorting to union-only requirements,the union label is not needed for
construction to be of top quality.
Myth. Union3obsites are safer for employees, and ultimately employers, than open
shop sites.
Fact:OSHA records show that open shop sites have better rates for serious accidents with
fatalities than do union sites.Several of the most prominent union-only projects,such as the Boston
Harbor and Milwaukee's Miller Park,have suffered from safety disasters including worker fatalities.
Myth. Union only requirements have been upheld by courts and are a legal way of
doing business.
Fact:While the U.S.Supreme Court has upheld the legality of union-only requirements under
federal labor law,the Court did not look at whether union-only PLAs violate open competition
requirements under competitive bidding laws.In fact,many state courts have held them to violate
public bidding laws when signed for public construction projects.
Myth. Union-only requirements are necessary to maintain labor peace on a project.
Fact:Unions use the threat of labor unrest to coerce construction users into signing a union-
only agreement.This is a particularly disingenuous argument that is tantamount to extortion,since
labor unions themselves cause many project delays through strikes,work stoppages,jurisdictional
disputes and illegal organizing.Several prominent union-only projects,from San Francisco to Maine,
have featured significant work stoppages.
6
PLAs Widely Viewed as Di orimmminatory
"PLAs amount to de facto segregation ... African-American workers are significantly
underrepresented in all crafts of construction union shops ,..this problem has been persistent
during past decades and there appears to be no type of improvement coming...PLAs are anti-free-
market,non-competitive,and,most of all,discriminatory."
National Black Chamber of Commerce
"WCOE opposed federally mandated project labor agreements—PLAs will disproportionately
impact small business,particularly those owned by women and minorities."
Women Construction Owners&Executives, USA
"Bay Area Black Contractors Association has been a strong advocate for merit shops in the
Oakland/San Francisco Bay Area and we are opposed to project labor agreements„
Bay Area Black Contractors Association
"We believe PLAs make it more difficult for minority-owned contractors to compete—they
effectively work against the goals of increasing the number of projects awarded to minority-owned
businesses by placing roadblocks in our way."
Latin Builders Association, Inc.
"(PLAs)are bad for business,especially small businesses which constitute most of our member-
ship.They impose undue restrictions on our ability to compete,increase the cost of doing business,
reduce employee benefits,and interfere with the free negotiation process between employee and
employer.They are patently unfair to small businesses who do not have the resources to comply
with yet another government mandate."
United States Pan-Asian-American
Chamber of Commerce
"The ultimate effect of the San Francisco Airport PLA is clear—once a PLA was implemented,
minority business enterprise prime contract participation dropped 91.9 percent and subcontract
participation dropped 34.4 percent.This PLA has been a disaster for minority-owned businesses"
American Asian Contractors Association
"(PLAs)are not good business for small business in general,and particularly for women and
minorities in business--the impact on women and minorities trying to compete in federal procure-
ment would be devastating."
National Association of Women
Business Owners
7
The Nation's Press and Union-Only
Project Labor Agreements
"Union project labor agreements are a clever mechanism to help unions secure more work for
their contractors while attempting to exclude everyone else.They give union members first crack
at thousands of construction jobs because their leaders have brought heavy political pressure to
bear on contracting agencies,school boards and other public decision makers"
Engineering News Record,February 26, 2001
"For years,unions have intimidated and badgered power plant builders to employ only the 25
percent of California's construction workers who hold union cards.These demands by construe-
tion unions for bans on non-union labor have both delayed and driven up the cost of new power
plants in the state.Putting some legal restraints on the abuses of project labor agreements would
not only enhance worker freedom,but might just get some new power plants in California built
faster."
The Tull Street Journal,February 15, 2001
"PLAs are rationalized on the basis that they buy labor peace and lead to on-time and on-budget
projects.But the largest PLA ever granted,the rebuilding of San Francisco International Airport,
belies that. It is now $259 million over budget,six months late and has already suffered strikes by
electricians and carpenters"
The Tull Street Journal, February 15, 2001
"Taxpayers,who will have to bear the burden of more expensive projects,will lose,too.
Estimates vary,but projects built by union shops can cost from 5%to 26%more than projects built
by nonunion shops."
Investors Business Daily,August 15,1999
"[P]ubhc 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, Buffalo,New York,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 a PIA,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."
The 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.
"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
"Few federal projects have included Project Labor Agreements to avoid strikes.But now the
Clinton Administration has`strongly encouraged'agencies to implement them.
"That wouldn't make sense in Maryland,where 85 percent of highway work is already handled
by nonunion companies. A PLA could effectively exclude those companies from winning Wilson
Bridge contracts,giving out-of-state contractors a bonanza."
The Baltimore Sun, September 20, 2000
"This is troubling doublespeak.Yes,open shop contractors can bid for PLA jobs—but only if
they abide by the hiring terms set out by the unions.Yes,non-union workers can get work on PLA
jobs—but only if they pay dues to the appropriate unions. This is the essence of coercion—forcing
people to live how others would like them to live,not as the individuals so choose!
The Orange County Register,June 6, 2000
"Officials of Cianbro Corp.and McLean Contracting,which industry experts say are capable
of working on the [Wilson Bridge] project,say flatly that they won't bid on the job if it includes a
project labor agreement.
"`If that PLA requires us to sign an agreement with the union,we're not going to do it'said
Richard S.Hoffman,president of McLean.`We're employee-owned and we don't choose to be
union:
"Added Cianbro's Hewett: `We would not be able to bid if the PLA is like any other PLA we've
ever seen:
"They and other nonunion contractors say such an agreement would force them to operate
under inefficient and unfamiliar union work rules and,depending on how it is written,could drive
up their costs by requiring the companies to pay into union pension and health insurance funds.
"Morrill said nonunion companies have to decide for themselves if they want to bid on the
bridge work and the administration is not concerned that some say they will opt out."
The Baltimore Sun, October 11, 2000
"The often-repeated claim that PLAs result in cost savings to the public and fewer delays in the
construction project is not supported by any empirical evidence.WECA reports that it is refuted by
the statistics that do exist.
"The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,San Francisco International Airport and the Port of
Oakland were constructed using PLAs and are over budget or have experienced labor strife.'
Daily Pacific Builder,March 5, 2001
9
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS
AND CONTRACTORS,,INC
Associated Builders and Contractors
1300 North 17th Street
Rosslyn, Virginia 22209
(703) 812-2000
www.abc.org
r
www.gmpla.org
8/20/02
Supervisor Gerber,
4n Tuesday, May 14, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
awarded the Powers Childcare Center contract to W.A. Thomas. The bid
specifications for this$4 million contract indicated that the general
contractor and subcontractors on the project would be required to sign a
Project Labor Agreement(PLA)with the Contra.Costa Building and
Construction Trades Council. However, due to union intransigence we are
now told there will not be a PLA on this project. More recently we have
learned that the same is true for the county's animal shelters.
Because the PLA was placed in the bid specifications(effectively and
predictably reducing competition)and then not signed once the project
was awarded,we would request that the county do away with this useless
policy immediately. The board had the option on:May 14'x'; indeed it was
suggested at the time, to throw out the bids on the Powers project and re-
bid the project. We make the same request today for the PLA in general,a
PLA that also invites legal action because of its violation of federal law
(Boston Harbor).
Finally,because there are federal funds involved with the Powers project
please be advised that you are in direct violation of Executive Order No.
13202. E013202 specifically forbids any federal funding from being used
on a project with a PLA on it. This order was recently upheld by the
Washington D.C. Court of Appeals and is now in effect. We have
contacted the Department of Health and Human Services about your
inclusion of a PLA in this project's bid specifications and your misuse of
funds in general.
Regrettably,
d}
Eric Christen
Executive Director
Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction
Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction 3131 52nd Avenue,Sacramento,California 95823 Phone 9161399-6205 Fax 916/428-4136
BI . ss
ne
,,:;, imes
`'` serving the +Cr*ater Fest Bay Reglan
VOL.4,'NO,36 � " May'37+ 2002' S 1,50
Project Lor Disagreement
The project labor;agreement saga has
slipped into the reale of the absurd; labor
opposing a PLA and contractors complaining
because a PLA,wasn't signed.The first con_
struct3.on project approved since the Contra
Costa Board of Supervisors began requiring
project labor agreements will be built without
a PLA.Union reps—the proponents of`PLAs
—won't sign the agreement for the powers
ChAdcare Center in Richmond The disagree-
meat has left supervisors sctambling to save
£aoe and construction industry reps crying
foul and threatening legal action.The Contra
Costa Building and Construction 'I?ades
Council told supetviisors it would not sign a
PLA on the S4.4 million child care tenter
because of disagreements over hiring.
Supervisor John Gioia told me the board
went ahead and awarded the contract to W4
Thomas Co.arc.;etw.•tase fa l er PU.regvd-
atsons would delay the project and jeopardize
federal fund N.That has Government Affairs
Director of the Golden Gate Chapter of
Associated Builders and Contractors Inc.
Devin Dayton fuming."it doesn't matter if
there are federal funds involved or not.They
have to fulfill the bid spxafications or re-bid
the project;he says.,The group has its legal
bt Ins looking at the issue because, Dayton
says,manycontractors thought theywould be
bound by a PLA.and chose not to bid on the
project.'
1 7r n7 0 7 9>nW
v ?9 a�
12
w El
HOHg aye �q
C.w �,/� .�
a,, o,oXi � � ayro
m a? A f 67tY'D :�X d It y
Ci N
0bfe amilk
i
d ISa
m O_ m etl x.5,0 O j a L
_ r S4 c. w �
.. 1a v
0 SO
pm
a g 660
u a m
asi yFS {U 47 ZI
0 0 y,,�c•m�� ��. C�p m �y� a � �
•.�,.dq�O. X01 O�'�i7� 3! .�% G �V' :.
78 461,
y
� 1 $
��, � _�•�o
►' 0.5 C
®
E. it Q.
r: .'; a cr�fi ori hAV M17 -r7 •Qnh
Clause "There's never been
a contract labor
FROM PAGE 29
tractors an opportunity toshipIn agreement in
employees from outside the area, Contra Costa with
which rum counter to the pro- core workers and
jest labor agreements' goal of
promoting local employment. there never is going
"There's new been a 000blact
labor agreement in Contra Costa to be.
with c i ore workers and there Gtag Foere,Cama COM BUIlding
never is going to be Feere said. and ConstnictionTtades Council
KerAn Dayton,government af-
fairs director for the Associated
Builders and Contractors Golden
Gate Chapter,said the unions are members from bidding and
demonstrating their true desire awarding contracts without-the
to muscle out competition.The agreement.
chapter represents 100 nonunion Me right ding to do is re-*
contractors in the East)Bay those prajects,* Dayton said.
The core woriter prwfton rep- 'There are a lot of contractors who
resents the**aspect of the pro- were left out of the process who
ject labor agreement pollicy that would have liked to participate."
promotes fair competition,Day- in the next two months,the
ton said.Without it,contractors board will consider avrwling con-
must send their employees to struction contracts for two pro-
union hiring halls with no guar- Jetts
Richmond and one in An
antee the union dispatchers will Hoch that would wire a labor
send those workers back, Agreement,said Laura LodmW,
Most importantly,Associated Contra Costas director of capital
Builders and Contractors builders fakilitieS and debt management.
are concerned about common Superviso r Gayle Uilkems of
agreement conditions that force Lafayette, the lone dissenter.
nonvi3ion contractors to PAY into against the PEA policy; said
the I union pension fund in addi-. union unioertaintypostponed the
tion to,pay4 they normal em- shelter projects, pushing the
ployee benefits. county close to a deadline to re-
*Our mernbers are enthubias- bid the work.
tic about ending this unfair PIA The board's labor order calls
policy;and if that requires a law- for a yearly re-evaluation of the
suit,we are prepared to go for. policy.During that review,board
ward."Dayton saJd., members will assess whether the
WithcI
Agreements are helping the'
salved,
theironcerns unre-the labor council is boy-, county achieve its project effi.
cotting PIA negotiations until, deny goals,DeSaulnier said.
county leaders revile the new As I understand it,the PLA
policy, Nevertheless, the Board can be a good thing,providing
Of Supervisors last month ap- work for local people and stabi-
provea a contractor for the Pow- Ling the work fora e,'
d Said."But if whet the opponwats
say turns am to be true,we're go.
' fh on"
ch �07
re 00 r L
;x ected t
ers "v ca
and Is p
build,r3 for animal shelters in ing to have to change the policy.-
Martinez and Pinole thi3 week.
Dayton said the board is act- Reach Peter FedsenteLd at,925-
ing unfairly,adopting a PLA re- 977-8.506 or pfelsenfeldOcc-
quirement that prevents his times.com
7 A n 7 07 9 n w
CENTRAL AND EAST COUNTY
-ME
CON RA COSTA TI S
TlxursefW,June 13,2= votume o►.N~la 23 cents plus tart.
Mimials
Defective umon dea
ARUFR THIS year the Contra Costa County
Beard of Supervisors voted 4-1 to bestow a gen-
erous gift upon afavorite special interest:The
Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades
Council.The gift was a requirement for the
county to uniformly require project labor agreements
(PLAs) on large county projects.
'litany,Pi-m require that alt contractors who work on a
project,inducting non-union contractors,hire through union ^,
hiring halls,pay union wages and benefits,and adhere to the
conditions of union collective bargaining agreements_
PLAs effectively close out non-union contractors who
could do the work for less cost to taxpayers'.Some non-union
contractors said they won't bid on county projects because
they would have to pay for workers benefits twice,,once to
the union and once into their own flims'benefit plans:
However in thea efforts to favor union interests over those
of the public,the supervisors slipped on their own legal ba-
nana peel,Included in the FLA deal is a provision allowing
non-union subcontractors to retain a core work force without
resorting to the anion hiring hall.Qualitybng employees must
be on the company's active payroll for 64 of the preceding 100
days_That means non union workers would still be able to
participate in county projects under the PLA process in some
cases.Not surprisingly,the building trades council is irate.
Trades council CEO Greg Feere``is adamant about the
core worker provisions and wants it removed.As eat-
aect+ed;builders are pleased,saying the core worker provi-
sion is the only part of the PLA policy that promotes fair
competition.They are right.
There is plenty of evidence nationwide that PLAs add con-
siderable casts to government projects.They guarantee wages
on construction projects will be paid at unison rates,which of-
ten are considerably higher than noxa-union rates.ALA union
work rules can be cumbersome and add to the cost of projects.
Contra Costa County is facing tough economic times with
tight budgets and little help from Sacramentowith a mas-
sive state budget shortfall,counties can anticipate even less '
assistance.The biggest mistake the supervisors made was in
'approving any PLA in the first place.At the very least they
should retain the core worker provision.Better stili,supervi-
sors should drop the PLA political deal altogether.
f, r) M hI JAIACC 1 7ifiC1 C7• 9"N
Contra. .
Costa
C..nWs hm homeless -
still Iwai four new shelter ,lt
■OffiCi&delay lay CojatraCt based Amoroso Construction to-
bund a new facility on county-
1s they waft for more owned land in Martinez:on
&tgb on the agreeMent Imhoff Place,just blocks from
the existing shelter.
ih tt d"pmjW County leaders are also mov
with MaTtinez ing forward on plants for a new
Pinole shatter haat i>trvolrres a land
By Peter Felse tfeld swap with the city's redevelop
MI"STA"watrm meat agency.
Contra Costa's four-footed The board decided to treat the
residents will have to wait one two projects as one-,package and
=areweek before elected offi- held off on its vote because
c ia'is choose a coroactor Cray their Pinole and+county officials need
new shelters. more time to trail;down details
The Board of Supervisors.de- on their agreement
laved awarding a$7.6 mi Horn
contract'Tuesday to San Rafael- See SHELTER,Mage 4
tJ► ► prove'the construction projects
without the union-friendly op-
FRt7M PAGE 3 ulations contained fin aso-culled
"project labor agreement"now
,we don't want to award the sought In all county construction
construction contract'before we projects valued at more than$1
own the land on which the con- million.That's because tate Con-
struction will occur,"said Laura tra;Costa Building and Com
Lockwood, Contra Costa's di- struction'Trades Council failed
rector of capital facilities and to reach a labor agreement with
debt management. Amoroso,and refused to partite
Concord-based Robert L. ipate in arbitration,according to
Brown Construction's$1.3 trail- a county staff report.
lion bid represented the lowest County'officials hope to fi-
offer'for the Pinole shelter,which nahze the contract in time to al
will"-!rouse fewer animals and low workers to complete AVO-
programs than the Martinez fa- icant work before the rainy
cility. The new,shelter will be season.The Pinole and Martinez
built on Sari Pablo Avenue)at bids are only valid until Jane 20
Sunnryview Drive,just a short and June 26,after which time of-
walk from the Pinole Shores ficials would have to put the pro
Chive facility. ject out to bid again.
Combined,the new buildings The county is leasing the ex-
will be able to house up to 250 'isting Martinez shelter from the
dogs,or about tilt)more than the Central Sanitation District,which
present capacity, said Michael wit1 buy the property upon com-
Ross,the county's animal ser- pletiton of the new facility.Those
vices director. lease rates increase significantly
The board is expected to ap- in 2004,Ross said
Win 41 t 7nn7 07 9r,W