Press Room - Article

Palmdale Water District Considers Union-Only Agreement

PALMDALE - Union or no union: Palmdale Water District directors =ust decide whether to strike a deal with labor leaders who want a foot =n the door at the public agency or to send them off without a union =ontract.

The issue came before the water board Wednesday night for at =east the third time in as many months in testimony from supporters and =pponents of project labor agreements, which would require any contractor doing = business with the water district to employ only union members.

Representatives from the Associated Builders and Contractors, a = national organization that favors an open-door hiring policy, =xplained their reasons for opposing project labor agreements, but a union =eader from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction =rades Council disputed those arguments before a group of residents and =nion members who packed the water district board room.

In the end, PWD Board President Dick Wells ordered the =ormation of an ad hoc committee to research labor agreements and asked Director =aul Figueroa to serve on it with him.

Wells appeared receptive to the concept of the labor contract, =s did Board Vice President Dave Gomez, a construction union member.

Figueroa and Director Gordon Dexter have said they don't see =ny need for the union contract and saw no benefit in creating an ad hoc =oard committee, saying water district staff could research the issue.

The ad hoc committee will report back its recommendation to the =ull board, but no date was set for the report.

Folks on both sides of the issue testified Wednesday night =efore the water board.

Randy Monette, executive committee chairman for the local =hapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said labor =greements could help local construction workers and their families. He =eferred to them as stakeholders in the Palmdale Water District.

But Kevin Dayton, state government affairs director for =ssociated Builders and Contractors of California in Sacramento, said the =greements have the effect of reducing the number of companies that bid for a = particular project and lessening the competition that tends to =eeps costs low.

"Why do we think project labor agreements are bad? They cut our =embers off. Most local governments want to maximize the number of =idders," Dayton said. "Projects, particularly in your district, use a mix =f union and nonunion (workers)," Dayton said. "Where you don't see that =ix is when PLAs are in effect."

Dayton said project labor agreements stipulate that any =pprentices used on a job must belong to the union apprenticeship program, =liminating apprentices from nonunion programs, of which Dayton said there are =ine in the Los Angeles area.

Dayton cited construction projects where he contended costs =scalated once a project labor agreement was in place, like work on a power =lant in Pasadena where the cost went up 15%. When the Oakland Unified =chool District approved a project labor agreement, the number of bidders =ropped from eight to three and the lowest bid increased 24% from the =riginal price, he said.

Richard Slawson, executive secretary of the Los Angeles/Orange =ounties Building and Construction Trades Council, an AFL-CIO affiliate, =enied Dayton's assertions.

Escalating and over-budget project costs reflected marketplace inflation rather than the union contracts, he said. He said =eports and complaints against project labor agreements come from "anti-union, = right-wing (groups), bought and paid for by industry."

Slawson said the agreements benefit workers, 130,000 of whom =elong to his organization. When they require medical care, he said, "our =embers don't go to the county after a construction job is over. They go =o their personal doctors," paid out of a union trust fund.

Joe Hummel, a nonunion electrician, told the board should =etain the choice "to hire union or nonunion. There's bad apples in both."

Hummel said he was a union member for five years in Ventura, =orked there three years, paying his union dues.

"When I left, I got nothing," Hummel said. "I wasn't vested. I =idn't get a dime."

Former PWD board member Nolan Negaard told the board he =onsidered the labor agreement unnecessary.

"I was a union member 25 (or) 30 years. I got exactly no =enefit. I got to pay my dues and an insurance policy while I was in the =lassroom," Negaard said.

He added: "I don't understand what has happened to the =onfidence of the board in our administrative staff. Why invite another level =nto the contract? Why invite someone else in to do your business?"

Dexter told fellows board members he saw no benefit to the =ater district from a project labor agreement.

"A project labor agreement is a contracting tool, like any =ther contracting tool," he said. "What will they offer us? That they =on't strike? A PLA is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

"In the interest of full disclosure, I am a union member, not a =rade union," he added. "I'm not prounion. I'm not against union."