Its gut and amend season in the California Legislature. More like shuck and jive and obfuscate.
Last week, I received information that another bill had been gutted of its original intent, and new language added to greatly benefit labor unions. By the end of the day, two additional bills were uncovered that had also been grossly amended on behalf of labor unions.
Sure enough, three bills are all about union Project Labor Agreements: SB 922, originally authored by Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino. AB 436 by Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana. And SB 790 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.
Why should we care?
Because PLAs inflate the cost of construction significantly, and cost taxpayers more money on public projects. Critics say that the extra funds help beef up the coffers of the highly politicized labor unions in the state.
To understand the impact these three bills will have on the state if passed, first the innocuous-sounding Project Labor Agreements must be dissected.
Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are collectively bargained contracts that establish working conditions and management rights. They have been used by both public and private entities since the 1930?s, the National University Institute for Policy Research explained in a recent study. In the debate over the use of PLAs, one of the most prominent areas of disagreement is whether these contracts effect construction costs. Supporters argue that PLAs save public dollars because contractors with highly skilled workers are more likely to participate in construction projects, resulting in higher worker productivity and fewer change orders. Proponents also contend that special provisions in PLAs enhance job site cooperation and ensure quick and effective resolution of labor disputes that would otherwise result in delays that could either increase costs or create severe operational disruptions.
A study by the National University Institute for Policy Research, an independent research firm verified by University of Southern California, showed that Project Labor Agreements on school construction in California increase costs by 13 to 15 percent. The study found, Measuring the Cost of Project Labor agreements on school construction in California, the presence of a PLA is associated with costs that are $28.90 to $32.49 per square foot higher.
And thats just school construction projects. Other construction projects cost increase by as much as 30 percent.
SB 922 was taken over by new authors, the Democratic leaders in the Legislature: Sen. Pres. Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez, both former union leaders. It started out as a bill about immunizations and tuberculosis screening. But it was gutted and amended on September 2, and now would end fair and open competition policies, and would terminate any PLA bans enacted by city and county governments.
Labor unions appealed to Democratic state legislators to override local governments in a plan to nullify existing PLA bans enacted by these local governments. If the local government refuses, SB 922 would cut off state funding to local governments.
AB 436, by Solorio, was amended August 30, but started out as a prevailing wage bill for public works projects. AB 436 has turned into a labor compliance bill and would now require local governments to pay Labor Compliance Program fees to the state, unless they already require contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements.
SB 790, by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, has been amended seven times, most recently on August 30. SB 790 would hold up permits for power plants using the states overreaching California Environmental Quality Act laws, until the developer or public utility agrees to sign a Project Labor Agreement a thuggish strong-arm tactic.
The Truth About PLAs
Explained the Truth About PLAs, a project of Associated Builders and Contractors, SB 790 now includes an obscure and unrelated amendment that authorizes payments in Project Labor Agreements covering utility infrastructure construction to mysterious union slush funds managed by top construction union officials. The most prominent of these trust funds, the California Construction Industry Labor-Management Cooperative Trust, had $3 million in the bank last year and mailed letters dated August 5 to elected officials throughout the state promoting Project Labor Agreements.
Associated Builders and Contractors is an association of non-union contractors.
Eric Christen with the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction reports, Heres the scheme protected by Senate Bill 790: hold up the permit for a power plant by exploiting environmental laws until the developer or public utility surrenders and signs a Project Labor Agreement. Include a provision in the PLA requiring payments to a mysterious union slush fund. Use the slush fund to fund pet projects, contribute to election campaigns, and support other political activities. When the scheme is exposed, get the state legislature to declare it legal in the Public Utilities Code!
The three bills are exactly whats wrong with California, said Christen. And Christen predicts that the bills will sail through the Legislature. Hes pinning his hope on Gov. Jerry Brown to veto the bills.
Brown many not be a fan of nanny legislation, but so far, hes been a best friend to unions.