- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
2,640
1,140
PLA argument political
The Daily Republic’s article (March 7, “SCC trustees hear options on labor agreements”) on the Solano Community College board’s discussion on the pros and cons of project labor agreements was factual and biased to neither side. That’s how newspaper reporting should be. Being present at the meeting, here’s my take on its highlights.
The big guns on each side made their arguments – some hyperbole – which ought to be checked out before the board decides. There followed more than a dozen speakers, mostly employees of unionized and nonunion contractors. Workers on both sides clearly preferred their employment conditions. So it appears that job satisfaction is not an issue.
Project labor agreements usually come with a number of conditions that tend to dissuade nonunion contractors from competing for projects. Among these are mandatory hiring through a union hiring system, so that a nonunion contractor’s employees might not even get to work on the project; and required payments to union health and pension funds, even though the nonunion workers will get no benefit. On top of that, California law requires “prevailing wage” – union scale – be paid to all workers on public projects regardless of their labor affiliation.
These requirements nearly always drive up bid prices, which in the case of public projects means that taxpayers pay more.
My perception is that the PLA argument is almost entirely political. Many politicians owe their seats to union backing and at least some will return the favor. Federal and state governments have made laws clearly favoring unions. Despite the fact that, excluding public sector (government) employees, only one in 10 workers is in a trade union, unions are able to exert considerable influence in public decisions.
Bottom line, imposing PLAs benefits primarily union leaders, it’s their jobs at stake, by tilting the bidding process in their favor. If public officials really want a “level playing field” and to be good guardians of taxpayers’ dollars, they will not impose PLAs on their contracts.
John Takeuchi
Fairfield
Discussion | 1 comment
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Rick WoodMarch 11, 2013 - 2:35 pm
There is nothing wrong with PLAs as long as they are designed by the public agency using them and not the labor unions. What happens usually is the unions get the votes and then push through their model PLA. There is no negotiation or meaningful discussion by other interested parties, let along the represented public. PLAs can ensure that responsible contractors get the work, meaning, in large part, that employees get proper pay and benefits. What is not needed are "zinger" PLA provisions that virtually exclude non-union contractors. There are certainly non-union contractors out there that are "bad actors" in how they treat their workers. Union-promoted PLAs keep those contractors out, but overreach and keep out a lot of good non-union contractors too. A public agency can protect itself from a sudden political adoption of PLAs by taking the initiative.
Reply |