|
| Project Labor Agreements |
|
|
| Greenmail |
|
|
| Open Competition Language |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CFEC Key Points |
 |
|
How PLAs Affect People
How PLAs affect the worker
 >
Under a standard PLA:
Merit shop workers are forced to register with a trade union in order to work on the project.
The merit shop worker cannot work on the job without approval, which usually goes to senior members of the union, leaving him or her temporarily out of work.
Merit shop members can lose valuable health coverage and be forced to change medical plans and doctors when they are forced to transfer to union sponsored plans.
Employer paid benefits go to the unions and are lost unless the employee stays in the union for 10 YEARS!
Merit shop workers are significantly shortchanged under PLAs (see chart below). In order to prevent harming the worker under a PLA, open shop employers have to pay twice into duplicate funds (the current employee's plan and the union's) for pension and medical benefit coverage. For example, one contractor estimated a PLA would cost the company an additional $80,000 per month for pension coverage, and an additional $50,000 per month to keep employees covered under current medical benefits.
Merit Shop Worker on Open Bid Job
* Employer pays $41.55 wages/fringes per hour
* Worker takes home $27.50 per hour
* $14.42 per hour goes towards fringe benefits for the worker.
* All $14.42 goes directly to worker funds.
Merit Shop Worker on PLA Job
* Employer pays $41.55 wages/fringes per hour
* Worker takes home $27.50 per hour
* $14.42 per hour goes towards fringe benefits for the worker.
* Of the $14.42, $5.20 is for the worker -- $9.22 now goes to union funds.
Apprentices
Merit shop apprentice programs covering various trades are operated throughout California by numerous associations. These programs have graduated and currently have enrolled in them thousands of young people looking forward to a future in the industry. Under a PLA, however, only union apprenticeship programs (Joint Labor/Management Programs) are recognized.
How PLAs affect Contractors
The following list contains just a few examples of how contractors are affected by PLAs:
PLAs subvert existing collective bargaining agreements for unionized companies.
Contractors are not allowed to negotiate the PLA. Only union representatives are allowed at the table with the owner.
Adoption of restrictive work rules that clash with both existing union and merit shop rules. Contractors' existing work rules are innovative, flexible, and negotiated to allow for maximum efficiency on the job. Under a PLA all new rules are set.
PLAs use only union job classifications.
PLAs force union arbitration and grievance procedures on all contractors.
Few merit shop contractors would alter their operations or impose union requirements on their employees in order to be awarded a bid. Many union contractors will not expose their employees to work rules and new jurisdictions that they had no hand negotiating. Because of these provisions PLAs reduce competition and drive up costs for owners.
For more information and a printable flyer of how PLAs affect Contractors please click here.
How PLAs affect parents and our children
Increasingly school districts around the state that pass school construction bonds are being asked to consider PLAs. However, if PLAs are such great construction tools, why have so few school districts ever agreed one?
Consider this:
Out of more than 1000 school districts in California, exactly 19 have EVER adopted a PLA. Another 25 have been rejected or done away with. (See table below.)
From 1996 to 2006, California voters approved nearly $100 billion in school construction bonds at the state and local level. 450 school districts sponsored 731 general obligation bond elections. 54% of the 731 passed. Only TEN of these almost 400 successful bonds had a PLA placed on them!
39 school districts asked for additional funding on February 5, 2008. 30 of the 39 passed for a total of approximately $3.9 billion in approved local school construction funds. Only THREE had a PLA placed on the work!
33 school bond measures were on the June 2008 ballot. 26 passed; 7 failed. NONE had PLAs placed on them.
Ninety-six (96) school bond requests were on the November 4 ballot and eighty-seven of these were approved. Altogether, $22 billion in debt was incurred in the 87 school districts where bonds were approved. TWO have PLAs, one has rejected a PLA, and one is considering a PLA!
Below is the list of school districts that use PLAs.
Los Angeles Unified School District - Proposition BB, Measure K, Measure R, Measure Q
West Contra Costa Unified School District - Measure E, Measure M, Measure D
Vallejo City Unified School District - Measure A
San Mateo Union High School District - San Mateo High School Modernization Phases I and II
East Side Union High School District (San Jose) - Measure G, Measure E
Oakland Unified School District - Measure A after February 2004 (adopted by administrator)
Pittsburg Unified School District - All Work Over $1 Million/Measure E
Albany Unified School District - Measure A
Compton Unified School District - Remainder of Measure I
Sacramento City Unified School District - Remainder of Measures E and I, All Projects More Than $1 Million - Four-Year Renewal
Mt. Diablo Unified School District - Pilot Project - Prototypical Classrooms 2006 Groups 1 and 2, Certain Projects Over $2 Million for One Year, Classroom Projects and HVAC Work
San Leandro Unified School District - Measure B
San Francisco Unified School District - Proposition A (2006)
John Swett Unified School District - Measure A
San Mateo Union High School District - Half of Measure M
San Diego Unified School District - Proposition S (Original and Revised Versions)
Alum Rock Union Elementary School District (San Jose) - Measure G
Fremont Union High School District - All Outdoor Athletic Facilities
Hayward Unified School District - Measure I
Below is the list of school districts that considered PLAs but did not use them or did away with them.
Alisal Union School District (Salinas) - New High School, Measure A (2006)
San Juan Unified School District - Measure C
New Haven Unified School District - Measure A
Konocti Unified School District - Measure G
Natomas Unified School District - Measure D
Napa Valley Unified School District - Measure G
Jefferson Union High School District - Measure N
Sweetwater Union High School District - Proposition O
Grant Joint Union High School District (Sacramento)
San Jose Unified School District - Measure F
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District - Measure C after February 2004
Berryessa Union School District
Rialto Unified School District - Measure H (used a PLA several years ago, has not used since then)
Washington Unified School District - Measure Q
Chino Valley Unified School District - Measure M
Montebello Unified School District - Measure M
Del Norte Unified School District - New and Modernization Projects
South Bay Union School District-Proposition X
Santa Ana Unified School District-Agreed to PLA in 2000 then allowed it to expire in 2005
So why have so few school districts agreed to a PLA? What happened in the Oakland Unified School District gives you a striking reason.
Oakland Unified School District - Spring 2004
A Construction Bond was passed for $300 million in order to rehab and modernized old schools.
Bids went out for a rehab project which received EIGHT bids. The lowest responsible bidder came in at $1.8 million which happened to be from a merit shop contractor.
After the bids came in, the district decided to re-bid the contracts for the rehab projects as they had recently had a PLA placed on all work. The result was to go out to bid again and this time there were only THREE bids with the lowest this time coming in at $2.2 million dollars. The projects cost actually increased by 24% which is between the 10-30% typically estimated as the cost of a PLA.
IRONY - the district had to close down 13 schools due to budget cuts. The savings to the district for each closure was about $437,000 or the cost of signing a monopoly clause for unions.
How PLAs affect minority and women construction company owners and workers
Minority and women-owned construction businesses have been discriminated against for well over a decade in California. The following list contains just a few of the projects where women and minority-owned construction businesses have been discriminated against.
Contra Costa Countys Regional Medical Center
Total size of the project: $48,305,069
Total minority-owned business participation: $2,935,436 or 6%
Total woman-owned business participation: $651,514 or 1.34%
In sum: These numbers are far below Contra Costa minority participation goals
San Francisco International Airport
Asian Americans represent 20% of the San Francisco population and 14% of the construction industry in SF
Only 4% of the construction workers on the project were Asian
Instead, 88% of the construction workers on the project came from outside of SF!
When the case of discrimination was taken to the California Supreme Court, they just turned a blind eye and sided with Big Labor!!!!
Sacramento Sump 2 Improvement Project
Total size of the project: $31 million
Total minority participation: .5%
Total woman participation: .4%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
