Posted on July 26, 2016 by PLA Analyst 3

Stockton Has Its Bankruptcy Exit Plan in Place – Time for Project Labor Agreement!

The City of Stockton filed a petition for chapter 9 bankruptcy relief on June 28, 2012, and the petition was accepted on April 1, 2013. Its bankruptcy Plan of Adjustment (bankruptcy exit plan) became effective on February 25, 2015.

That means there’s taxpayer money to give to construction trade unions. On July 26, 2016, the Stockton City Council will vote on requiring construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement on city contracts. To hide the identity of the union deal, the city is calling it a “Community Workforce Training Agreement.”

According to the staff report, “The attached Agreement (Attachment A) is a project labor agreement (PLA) that generally provides for union recognition and the use of union hiring halls for City public works projects with a contracted valued at $1 million or more.” The staff report also notes that “The Agreement was sponsored by the San Joaquin Building and Construction Trades Council.”

It’s the most foolish decision by the Stockton City Council since the secret $1 million Neil Diamond concert.

Stockton’s Path to Bankruptcy and the Secretive $1 Million Neil Diamond Show

ITEM 15.1

16-2896 CONSIDER IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY WORKFORCE TRAINING AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF STOCKTON

RECOMMENDATION OF THE LEGISLATION/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE

It is recommended that the Council consider the revised Community Workforce Training Agreement (Agreement).

Legislation Text

Attachment A – CWTA Agreement

Attachment B – CWTA Agreement Redlined

Attachment C – CWTA Agreement – Additional Staff Recommended Edits

Posted on July 18, 2016 by PLA Analyst 3

Fremont Unified School District Board Votes July 20 on Final Negotiated Project Labor Agreement

On July 20, 2016, the Fremont Unified School District elected board of trustees will vote on a Project Labor Agreement negotiated with the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County for future construction contracts funded by Measure E, a $650 million bond measure approved by 61.2% of district voters in June 2014.

During the campaign to pass Measure E, the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County endorsed the bond measure:

Measure E in Fremont —a $650 million Bond Measure for the Fremont Unified School District. “If this bond measure were to pass, coupled with a Project Labor Agreement, it would mean significant hours for our members,” said BTCA Secretary-Treasurer Andreas Cluver. The BTCA is organizing a Precinct Walk for Measure E on Saturday, May 31 at 9 am.

Discussions about Project Labor Agreements held by Fremont Unified School District board members at public meetings in 2015 (on March 15, August 12, and October 28) indicates that none of them have genuine interest in maintaining fair and open bid competition on district construction contracts. All of them appear to be keen to use their power to require all of their construction contractors to be signatory to a union agreement and require all employees of those contractors to be represented by a union and pay mandatory union dues and initiation fees. To hide the motivation for the union deal, the school district is calling it a “Project Stabilization Agreement” rather than a “Project Labor Agreement.”

The Project Labor Agreement includes “construction building material delivery truckers, trucking companies and trucking brokers.” No trade worker who steps foot on a Fremont Unified School District job site escapes the Project Labor Agreement.

Staff Report – Review and Approval of Project Labor Agreement – Fremont Unified School District – July 20, 2016

Project Labor Agreement for Fremont Unified School District

Posted on July 13, 2016 by PLA Analyst 3

Napa County Begins Negotiations for Its First Project Labor Agreement Mandate on a Construction Contract

On July 12, the Napa County Board of Supervisors fulfilled a vision sought for at least six years by the Napa-Solano County Building and Construction Trades Council. The board voted 5-0 to begin negotiations for a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on a jail project.

In December 2015, while discussing “local hire” (often used as a pretense for PLAs), Napa County County Supervisor Mark Luce raised the issue of PLAs and how they might help facilitate the goal of increased “local hire.” As a result of this meeting, County staff was asked to conduct a ($90,000+) review of the local labor market to see if there is even a need for a “local hire” requirement. Staff hired Craft Consulting Group to conduct the study.

In its final report to the board, Craft Consulting Group provided an analysis of the local labor market but did not include one key component: the breakdown of union vs. non-union firms in the county. Obviously this information is critical to determining the impact a PLA may have on County bids.

Nevertheless, the staff report to the board made it clear that a PLA does not in fact increase “local hire.” Why? Because it is illegal to require contractors to hire people from one area over another, and therefore PLAs cannot impose such a requirement. All PLAs do is include vague language that sets goals when it comes to hiring “local.”

As suspected, the Napa County Board of Supervisors ignored the staff’s report and bowed to the demands of union lobbyists for a Project Labor Agreement. Project Labor Agreements are not about logic: they are about politics.

Sweetwater Union High School District Board in Chula Vista to Vote on Project Labor Agreement

The board of the troubled Sweetwater Union High School District in Chula Vista is voting on June 27, 2016 on a Project Labor Agreement for its facilities construction funded by proceeds from bond sales authorized by voters in November 2006 as Proposition O. According to the staff report for the agenda item, the district modeled its Project Labor Agreement on the union deals instituted at Los Angeles Unified School District and San Diego Unified School District.

Yes, after ten years this district still has money to spend from its $644 million bond measure. And now unions will have a monopoly on the contract construction workforce funded by it.

This Project Labor Agreement even includes construction funded by Mello-Roos taxes for Community Facilities Districts associated with the school district. No contract will escape the grip of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council.

In June 2010, 56% of Chula Vista voters approved Proposition G, an ordinance that outright PROHIBITED the City of Chula Vista from entering into contracts that required companies to sign union agreements as a condition of work. Since then, the union-controlled elected board of Southwestern Community College District in Chula Vista implemented a Project Labor Agreement and the union-controlled boards of Sweetwater Union High School District in Chula Vista and Chula Vista Elementary School District voted to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement. Unions don’t like it when the people say NO.

Staff Report: Sweetwater Union High School District Project Labor Agreement Staff Report 1st Reading – June 27, 2016

Project Labor Agreement: Sweetwater Union High School District Project Labor Agreement 1st Reading – June 27, 2016

Posted on June 2, 2016 by PLA Analyst 3

Sending a Message: Press Conference on San Diego Chargers Stadium Project Labor Agreement

Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction - San Diego Chargers Project Labor Agreement June 1 2016 Press Conference

With just about every news outlet in San Diego present, the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction held a press conference yesterday making it loud and clear that a PLA on the proposed Charger stadium, and the discrimination it represents, will be fought aggressively.

Joined by scores of construction company owners, workers, apprentices, and employees, those assembled laid out exactly why they stood opposed to the San Diego Chargers plans for a new $1.8 billion stadium/convention center. Among those speaking at the event were Ron Smith, owner of Interpipe Contracting who is also a Chargers season ticket holder, Loren Waldapfel of HPS Mechanical, Rolf Wachter, a fourth year apprentice in the Associated Builders and Contractors Apprenticeship Program, and Hasani Fields, a third year apprentice with the ABC program. All spoke passionately about why the insulting manner in which the Chargers had announced how this project would be built using only union labor was not going to stand.

KUSI, FOX, NBC, CBS, CW, Univision and the San Diego Union-Tribune all covered the story in their broadcast last night and CFEC’s Eric Christen was featured on the Carl DeMaio radio show on KOGO yesterday afternoon. You can watch KUSI’s segment HERE. Read the Union-Tribune story:

New Opposition to Chargers Initiative: Non-Union Construction Workers Frustrated with Plan for Project Labor Agreement – San Diego Union-Tribune – June 1, 2016

Here’s Eric Christen on The DeMaio Report, Carl DeMaio’s radio show on KOGO 600 AM:

Campaign Launched to Oppose Chargers Stadium Initiative – The DeMaio Report, KOGO – June 1, 2016

Bonus: You can watch the intense altercation that took place after the press conference when local union boss Tom Lemmon decided to crash the party HERE.

Thank you to all the workers, apprentices, and contractors who participated in our press conference. You’ll hear much more from us as we move forward!


Video of Press Conference – June 1, 2016

Eric Christen, Opening Remarks

Ron Smith, Interpipe Contracting

Rolf Wachter, Associated Builders and Contractors 4th Year Apprentice

Loren Waldapfel, HPS Mechanical

Hasani Fields, Associated Builders and Contractors 3rd Year Apprentice

Eric Christen, Closing Remarks

Eric Christen, Questions and Answers for News Media

San Diego Contractors, Workers, Apprentices Oppose San Diego Charger Stadium Scheme

Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction - San Diego Chargers Project Labor Agreement June 1 2016 Press Conference

PRESS RELEASE
June 1, 2016
Contact: Eric Christen, (858) 431-6337

Local San Diego Contractors, Workers, and Apprentices to Announce Opposition to Charger Stadium $1.8 Billion Scheme

Billionaire Chargers Owner Expecting Taxpayers to Pay for Stadium While Discriminating Against Local Workers in the Process

San Diego, CA – Today local contractors, workers, apprentices and contractor associations will hold a press conference to formally announce their opposition to the San Diego Chargers effort to build a $1.8 billion stadium/convention center in downtown San Diego. The reasons the group is opposing the Chargers’ ill-conceived scheme will be laid out at the press conference.

The Chargers have announced that they plan to put an initiative on the ballot that would, if passed, raise the city of San Diego’s hotel room tax to 16.5 percent to pay for construction of a $1.8 billion complex. The initiative will likely require two-thirds voter approval because of the tax hike. The Chargers billionaire owner has pledged to only put in $350 million of his own money effectively leaving the vast majority of the cost for this project to be shouldered by taxpayers.

At the same time the Chargers have announced they intend to discriminate against the 85% of the local construction workforce that is union-free. On April 22 the Chargers and local union bosses held a press conference announcing they would build the project under an exclusionary Project Labor Agreement (PLA) like the PLA that was used to build Petco Park.

“The Chargers have managed to put together a plan that effectively harms just about every citizen in San Diego,” said Eric Christen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC). “That is quite an accomplishment. First they expect average citizens to pay for a billionaire’s stadium. Then they tell those same citizens who are non-union workers that they are not wanted in the construction of the project their tax dollars are paying to build.”

How they expect to do this legally considering that San Diego voters in 2012 overwhelmingly banned the use of PLAs on taxpayer funded projects (58%-42%) by passing Measure A has yet to be explained. “Voters in this city have more knowledge of PLAs than any other group of taxpayers in America”, added Christen. “They have voted on this issue and rejected the discrimination PLAs represent. The actions of the Chargers have all but guaranteed the defeat of their initiative. We will make sure of it.”

The press conference will be held at 11am in front of the Registrar of Voters’ office in Kearny Mesa. The address is 5600 Overland Ave, San Diego. View the press packet here.

###

Questions that Port of Long Beach Harbor Commissioners Won’t Ask Staff About Project Labor Agreements

Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction Header Image - UncroppedFrom: Eric Christen
Subject: Questions that the Long Beach Port of Commissioners Won’t Ask Staff About Union PLAs
Date: May 13, 2016 at 8:23:44 AM PDT
To: Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners

Port Commissioners.

As you move forward with the political document called a Port-Wide Project Labor Agreement (PLA) I had some questions I thought I’d ask that I know didn’t come up at last night’s meeting nor will they before you approve your Port-wide PLA on the 23rd.

At the very least this will cause you, one would hope, at least a moments reflection on just what you are doing to the 85% of your local constituents that chose to work in a union-free construction environment:

  1.  In the “report” shown by staff last night “local hire” and “City of Long Beach” percentages were given for current PLA projects. Question: What do you weight these percentages against? On previous non-PLA projects what were these percentages? Did the PLA get you anything here?
  2. You current PLAs and the Port-wide PLA defines “local” as anyone living in L.A. or Orange Counties. Really? Did staff even try and have a truly “local” definition inserted into the language that could then be shot down by union bosses
  3. How many of these current PLA projects are behind schedule and over budget? What metrics are in place to determine if the PLA had anything to do with these issues? What metrics will you have in place to determine if your Port-wide PLA is successful or not successful? Are local union bosses simply allowed to make “promises”, like they did  with “local hire”, yet have zero accountability when it comes to what the PLAs actually fail to accomplish?
  4. Your current PLAs and the Port-wide PLA that you “negotiated” all have the same language meant to discourage non-union local contractors from bidding your work:
    a.       All union-free workers must pay union dues
    b.       All union-free workers must pay into union pension and benefit plans they likely won’t vest in thus losing approximately $20 per hour from their paycheck
    c.       All union-free contractors are only allowed 5 of their workers at all with the rest having to come from the unions
    d.       All -union-free apprentices are explicitly excluded

Question: Considering the radical departure from your current SOP did you conduct a survey of local contractors to find what the likely hood is they will not bid your work in the future under a PLA? Why not?

I have conducted a survey and if any of you are interested in knowing what companies will not be bidding your work due to the exclusionary provisions of your PLA please let me know and I will forward them to you. Considering your lack of fiduciary responsibility to date it’s the least you could do.

Eric Christen
Executive Director
Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction

Port of Long Beach Harbor Commissioners Prepares for Port-Wide Project Labor Agreement

Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction Header Image - UncroppedAt their May 12 meeting, the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners is receiving a presentation from staff about adopting a Project Labor Agreement policy to cover future Port construction contracts. The board has voted for five Project Labor Agreements already and shows no inclination to preserve fair and open bid competition. A vote on a policy and negotiated Project Labor Agreement may be scheduled for the board’s May 23 meeting.

Project Labor Agreement Provokes Opposition to Measure LB at Long Beach Community College District

Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction Header Image - UncroppedPRESS RELEASE
May 10, 2016
Contact: Eric Christen, (858) 431-6337

Coalition to Oppose Massive $850 School Bond at Tonight’s Long Beach City College Meeting
Bond has been reduced by at least 10% thanks to Board of Trustees’ payoff to big labor special interests.

Long Beach, CA – At tonight’s Long Beach City College meeting the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) will call out the Board of Trustees for their support of a wasteful and discriminatory Long Beach Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2016.

A PLA would force workers to pay union dues, pay into union pension plans, be hired through a union hiring hall, and would explicitly forbid non-union apprentices from working at all.

“In this day and age where we see people from every aisle of the political spectrum disgusted with political payoffs from special interest groups, the Long Beach Community College District Board of Trustees have shown a tone-deafness by giving big labor special interests a monopoly on all this work, thereby decreasing the value of each tax dollar” said Eric Christen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC).

In 2011 the National University System Institute for Policy Research conducted a study of PLAs and the impact they had on school construction costs in California. They found that PLAs increased construction costs 13-15%.

We ask this: why would the Trustees vote now on such a measure when their last bond Measure E, worth $515 million, didn’t have any acknowledged problems?

At a time when other competing tax measures are on the ballot and when taxpayers are conserving every penny, the Board of Trustees instead chose to put special interests ahead of the interests of their hard-working constituents.

CFEC’s Eric Christen will be speaking at the Long Beach City College District Board of Trustees meeting tonight, May 10th. The meeting will be held at the Liberal Arts Campus – Building T – Room 1100. The address is 4901 E. Carson Street, Long Beach, CA 90808.

###


Communication to Long Beach Community College District Board of Trustees

Subject: Why we will be opposing Measure LB: Your Vote for a Union-Only PLA
Date: May 10, 2016 at 1:52:23 PM PDT

Dear LBCCD Board of Trustees,

Your vote on April 26 to place a union-crafted Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on your future construction bond work has forced us to educate voters about what this means for their tax dollars. PLAs are highly discriminatory and the most controversial issue facing the construction industry in America today. Big labor special interests push PLAs as a way to eliminate non-union competition from work covered by PLAs thus driving up the costs of these projects. A moment of research would have allowed you to discover this, and in fact we have sent you a large amount of data on PLAs and why they have no place in a just and equitable society.  Yet you persisted.

Now you are asking the taxpayers of your community to approve a $850 million construction bond that, because of the PLA, will be reduced in value by up to 15%Already you have had to spend money just to oversee the PLA by putting out an RFP for a PLA manager. This is only the beginning of the nightmare. As you can read in the series of L.A. Times stories on the nightmare that took place under the Los Angeles Community College District’s PLA (again, does anyone on your board do any research, at all?) PLAs benefit one group and one group only: union bosses.

Because of your failure to take your fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers seriously, not to mention your failure to protect the rights of all workers, we have been forced to educate voters in your district as to why they should think seriously about supporting your new tax.

Tonight we will announce this effort which will aggressively be implemented over the next 30 days.

You have no one but yourselves and your canine affection for union boss demands to blame for this situation.

Waste, fraud, abuse, and discrimination have no place in 2016 America.

Eric Christen
Executive Director
Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction

Sacramento Municipal Utility District Won’t Rebid Grossly Overpriced Headquarters Without Project Labor Agreement

Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction Header Image - UncroppedFor years, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) board of directors anticipated awarding a contract for a major renovation of its headquarters with a bid specification requiring all contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with the Sacramento-Sierra’s Building and Construction Trades Council. Bids have now been received and the low bid is about $30 million over the estimate. Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction and Richard Marksuon (representing the Western Electrical Contractors Association, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of California, and Air Conditioning Trade Association) asked the SMUD board on May 5 to try rebidding the project without the Project Labor Agreement. In response, the chairwoman of the SMUD board insisted that the Project Labor Agreement had nothing to do with the unexpectedly high price of the low bid.

Older Posts