San Diego Union Tribune: Project labor agreements are just costly union schemes

What is a project labor agreement, and why are public officials in California so fond of them?

For example, take Proposition 2. This statewide measure is a $10 billion bond for construction and modernization of school facilities. This week, the executive director of the California Teachers Association said this spending is needed “remove or replace asbestos, mold, lead paint and lead pipes” from school buildings.

You might expect that Proposition 2 would contain language that specifically directs the bond funds to these high-priority needs.

You’d be wrong.

Instead, Proposition 2 awards “points” to “a school district project that includes the use of a project labor agreement.”

A project labor agreement is a “prehire” collective bargaining agreement for a construction project. It’s binding on all the subcontractors brought in to work on that project as well as the general contractor. As explained in a 1998 report on PLAs by the U.S. government’s General Accounting Office, “The National Labor Relations Act generally prohibits prehire agreements, but an exception in the act allows the agreements only in the construction industry.”

According to the GAO report, proponents of project labor agreements say there are economic advantages to a PLA, such as preventing labor unrest and work stoppages, uniform rules for different craft unions, and access to a skilled workforce “through the union referral systems.”

But opponents say PLAs, particularly in the public sector, “discourage competition by favoring union companies” and “result in higher costs due to the restricted number of bidders, higher union wages, and the imposition of union work rules.”

To read the entire column, please click here