Don't fear the PLA
School district is right to negotiate with unions on Prop. S projects
When San Diego voters went to the polls last November, they were faced with a choice of five candidates for three open seats on the local school board. In one district, Richard Barrera was unopposed; in the other two, incumbent Shelia Jackson won with 61.1 percent of the vote, and John Evans beat incumbent Mitz Lee with 54.5 percent.
If they’d paid any attention at all, voters would know that all three winners were ideologically aligned with labor unions, and they might even know that Barrera and Evans are aspiring progressive politicians who in the past had either run for, or considered running for, other elective offices.
So it should have come as no surprise at all when Barrera, at the urging of the San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council—the umbrella union for local skilled workers—proposed a project labor agreement (PLA) between the school district and the people who’ll be doing the work on the projects funded by the recently passed school-facilities bond measure, Prop. S.
Does a PLA benefit the unions? Absolutely. But, frankly, that’s part of what voters were asking for when then cast their ballots for Barrera, Evans and Jackson, who cast the three votes that directed school district staff to begin negotiations with the unions on specific PLA language. Moderate Katherine Nakamura could have gone either way, but we were surprised that liberal John deBeck took such a strong stand against a PLA.
Noting that he’s normally a union guy, deBeck said at the district’s Jan. 13 board meeting that his primary objective as a board member is to keep construction costs low, not to advocate for union jobs over non-union jobs, and he said that, logically, if PLAs mandate union-quality benefits, it only follows that contractor bids will be higher than they otherwise would. We won’t argue that point. We also won’t take issue with charges from opponents that a PLA is a way for the unions to increase their market share of local workers.
But, in our view, that’s a good thing. Bringing more workers into the union fold would raise wage and benefit standards overall. How can anyone be opposed to that, considering how wages for years have stagnated while costs have risen dramatically? We can understand why the building contractors would be opposed to a PLA—when it comes to competitive bidding, it might eat into their profits as they’re forced to find efficiencies in places other than wages and benefits.
DeBeck raises an interesting question, though: Is it the job of the school board to engage in such social engineering? We say yes. While it could be argued that the district and taxpayers might get a little more bang for each buck on the front end if these jobs attract lower bids, it doesn’t do the district’s students any good in the long run if lower bids results in lower wage and benefits standards. After all, the children of these workers attend public schools, and poverty-stricken children with no access to good preventative healthcare are less likely to be prepared to learn and excel.
Sure, even without a PLA, public-school projects pay prevailing (union) wages, but, reportedly, contractors can deliberately misclassify types of non-union workers, turning an “electrician” into a “laborer,” for example, allowing them to pay lower wages. A PLA is a way to truly ensure payment of prevailing wages, as well as higher workplace standards. It’s also the only way to mandate healthcare benefits for workers doing public-sector jobs. PLA workers don’t have to be union, but they do have to be hired out of the union hall, and while they’re doing PLA jobs, they get union-style treatment.
Again, union critics will howl about mandating private-sector benefits, but we’ll repeat our position that taxpayer-funded projects should be role models of sorts in how workers should be fairly treated, and it continues to amaze us how into short-term gratification these fiscal hawks can be. You don’t get anything for free: If taxpayers don’t pay on the front end, they pay on the back end in the form of services such as emergency-room care, not to mention other societal costs associated with lower-income communities.
All that said, PLAs are used all over the place, including by other local public agencies and school districts elsewhere, and the world hasn’t come unglued. It’s simply a way for agencies that need work done to establish the workplace environment for the people who’re doing the work. We’re certain that they won’t mind the higher standards.
Comments
It’s amazing… City Beat gets it and understands the real value of the proposed Project Stabilization Agreement and
San Diego’s daily, full time; “newspaper” with many times City Beats resources is in left field, again. If people
would only ask; “why is it that in cities with agreements such as these do they renew them over and over? The
answer is that there is real VALUE to the community and the local workforce and that value should be returned to the
local tax payer, not just the fly-by-night contractors.
It's amazing. City Beat and Al Shur from the IBEW just "don't"get it.
One question you may ask yourselves is why does organized labor push so hard for PLA's? If they are inclusive for all contractors and workers - both union and non-union - why does labor lobby so hard to obtain PLA's, and why are non-union contractors and workers so opposed to these controversial agreements?
The answer is simple. There are two and only two reasons why labor pushes for PLA's:
1. They want union workers to perform all the work.
2. They want all money including union dues and fringe benefit payments going into their coffers.
This is fact. On several occasions, labor has been offered a fair or neutral PLA; one that has "every" provision of a typical PLA except the two above (a contractor can utilize any employee whether they come from the union hall or not, and the money follows the man). Labor has always reject the fair PLA.
To their credit, organized labor is smart enough to know that the true reason for pursing a PLA will not sell on its merits. They have formulated misleading arguments to throw the public off the scent of why they pursue such agremeents - money and market share.
To address Mr. Shur's question, the reason multiple cities adopt such agreements is that labor has financed many politicians' campaigns and in turn are sympathetic to their agenda.
PLA's increase construction costs; they do not provide value. The disappointing part is that your writers did not do all their homework before writing the article. They could have easily exposed the discriminatory and money-wasting nature of PLA's.
It always amazes me when I read articles and realize how little effort the author makes to research their facts. Being the son of a History professor, I was always taught to know the facts and to stick to them. How can you state "considering how wages for years have stagnated while costs have risen dramatically?" Carpenter Prevailing Wages in San Diego County for example, 13 years ago were $22.86 per hour. The wage now is $41.88 per hour with another scheduled raise of $2.00 per hour to come July 1st to $43.88. Do you really think more than doubling a wage in 13 years is stagnating?
I am a carpenter myself and take more pride in being a carpenter than I do being a contractor; however $87,000 a year is a pretty darn good wage for a carpenter. My wife went to College for six years to gain a masters degree in nursing. She is a registered nurse and worked for the San Diego Unified School District making only $64,000 per year. I am also a huge believer in the importance of our trade’s people and believe that they all should make a good living. Vocational training is something this whole country needs to get back to, but just where do the wages stop? Can we afford to build schools if labor gets to $72.00 per hour like auto workers and their failing industry?
Do you really think that there are no Union Contractors that fudge on their certified payrolls, do you think it is only non-union contractors? The Unions are constantly checking non-union contractors for payroll compliance, yet the Unions do not check their own. I believe that over all, both Union and non-union contractors that do work in the "prevailing wage" arena are honest and true. I also believe that there are a few contractors out there that do try to cheat the system. These contractors need to be sought out and not allowed to bid on Public Works, whether they're Union or non- union.
I don't believe a PLA will solve any problems, it will cost the School District and tax payers roughly $600 million dollars more if the PLA is approved. I do agree though, that all contractors whether Union or non-union should be required to pay the prevailing wage rates and contribute to the employee’s pensions, health insurance and welfare . Most non-union contractors working with Prevailing Wage projects already do contribute to pensions and health.
The only reason PLA's are really ever needed is to solve labor disputes. The only contractors that ever have labor disputes are Union Contractors. San Diego County is the strongest "Open Shop" county in the state, we don't need the PLA, and we have the Prevailing Wage laws that will protect all parties involved. We tax payers don't need a PLA that will do nothing....yet cost more than a half a billion dollars.
smm
I’m going to try to answer the ravings of smm & PSS above:
Why does organized labor push so hard for PLAs? The way the system works now working people are cheated on regular bases. I know this to be fact because we talk to them every day. No city or school district would continue to renew these agreements if they didn’t work for the district, for the community, of for the local citizens that work on these project. You only have to read recent news articles about former LA gang members entering union careers and leaving the streets and the gangs behind.
PLA’s increase the costs?? HOW? The wages are the same only the guarantee of quality skills is added for the contraction. That hasn’t raised costs; it’s raised the quality of construction. That’s one of the real reasons these agreements are used over and over.
The wages costs are the same, with or without a PLA only the “standards” improve and workers have real rights. That is what scares the beJesus out of some contractors. I would offer and bet if these agreements didn’t require everyone to be union (and they don’t) and if no union dues were required. Only, every worker on the job had real representation rights by a union these same contractors would be whining and crying louder than they are know. Once their workers have a real union, a voice, and real union training they’ll never go back!
If we can keep this thread going, I'll post a discription of some of the "cheats" done by non-union contractors on school projects over the last few years. I'll only discribe the cheats done by contractors still in business and I'll start with the first ones by some of the contractors that are the most vocal/active against this proposed agreement.
Get ready for (true) storytime......
#1: We got “quality”…
First the law; in California all electrical workers working for electrical contractors must be enrolled in a certified apprenticeship program or be “certified” to work as electricians. On school projects they must be paid as either certified/registered apprentices or as “certified” journeymen.
One electrical contractor, active against the PLA, has (or had until recently when he was caught) been working uncertified (unlicensed) electrical workers on projects that our teachers, our families, our students, and our safety depends on. He is currently working on a number of school projects and would still have these unqualified workers on the job today if he hadn’t been caught. These workers have been shifted to other projects (still illegal) but out of view.
Next up…. “We got benefits” (we have lots of these stories, stay tuned…)
#2: We got benefits!
One anti-pla non-union contractor has a fantastic “benefit” for his employees. He calls it a “supplemental unemployment benefit” and it works like this: Ever week a portion of the employee hourly wage is deducted and put into a fund. If the employee meets certain qualifications he/she can draw on this fund when he/she is unemployed.
Now we read the fine print…. There is a substantial “administration fee” that is deducted from this fund to cover the cost of holding all of that nasty money for the worker. We all know how hard it is to hold and spend someone else’s money and we know that there should be a charge for that hard work (in addition to and interest that the money earns.
Now that is a real benefit! But for who?????? Any wonder why so many non-union contractors oppose these agreements or refuse to bid on them? Every time I think of these great benefits that are provided by many “merit” contractors I think of the Bush private contractors in Iraq playing football with the bound stacks of hundred dollar bills. What a “game”!
Next: #3 we got even more creative benefits…
It looks like any debate has withered? When the truth is told the lies cannot stand the light of day?
BTW: Today President Barack Obama has issued an executive order backing the use of PLA agreements for large-scale federal construction projects.
These agreements have added value to projects for decades. There have been hundreds of Federal projects successfully built with these agreements, under budget and ahead of schedule. It’s time we started spending our money wisely and protecting workers and the public in San Diego!
I’ve got lots more stories and company names to share… Where are the anti-PSA guys (& gals)?
Some of us don't have the time for useless banter.\\smm
That's true.... cheating your employees is hard work and it takes all of your time.
Here’s a little story especially for you, smadsen. First some information for the uninformed: The term “vesting” means that a benefit is earned that can never be taken away. Most union plans have a 5 year vesting for their pensions. With union plans the same benefit is earned no matter which union employer that you work for. For example with the union electricians plan there are more than 150 local employers. A worker can work at XYZ Company for a year and then go to ZYX and not lose a dime or the time it takes to “vest” (5 years).
There is one non-union (anti-PLA) contractor that has a pension plan (6 year vesting) that is DYNOMITE! Unfortunately VERY few of their workers ever get a real retirement. The fine print in their pension rules state that to qualify for a retirement benefit, a worker must have 6 years of continuous employment with that company. Unfortunately construction employment can be intermittent and with that employer it is almost always “intermittent” for most of their workers at least once in 6 years. We have records of employees getting “laid off” for a short period and then rehired within weeks but their “vesting” period starts anew. Promises broken are one thing but these benefits are paid for by the employee themselves. Envision boss #1 going out for a long one and boss #2 has his hands around a stack of bundled hundred dollar bills. And when the unrepresented employee retires he can spend all of his time watching the game AFTER he gets off of work with his new employer. DYNOMITE, what a game!
We've got a lot more of these "pension" stories to enjoy.... stay tuned, it's only halftime!