Archive for Construction Labor Issues
My November 5, 2015 article published at www.UnionWatch.org entitled Will Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committees Crumble Against Union Power? outlines the history of Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committees in reviewing and making recommendations on proposed Project Labor Agreements at California school and community college districts.
What’s the latest addition to this history? On November 12, 2015, the Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee for the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District voted 7-1 to recommend against a proposed Project Labor Agreement for a $398 million bond measure. Here is the text of the resolution:
The Citizens Bond Oversight Committee for the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District approved the following recommendation at a special meeting on Thursday, November 12, 2015 by a vote of 7 in favor of the motion, one opposed to motion, and one recused as follows:
The CBOC has reviewed the concept of a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and recognizes why some responsible and fully capable companies may choose not to bid certain projects if a PLA is required as part of the GCCCD construction contract. We believe that a PLA, if implemented with Proposition V, would discourage competitive bidding and may increase costs, impact how the bond money is used, and undermine the District’s efforts to maximize bond revenues and achieve cost savings. Also, it is apparent that under a PLA, local non-union workers (especially apprentices) will not be treated equally in comparison with union workers which would constitute a violation of the Board’s prior Bond resolution. Furthermore, evidence was presented to the CBOC indicating that without the use of a PLA, no significant problems occurred on the previous Proposition R bond projects and none are expected to occur on the Proposition V projects. Therefore, there is no substantial taxpayer interest that could reasonably require the District to establish a PLA for all of the Proposition V projects.
For these reasons and in order to maintain voter confidence of the District, the CBOC recommends that the Board of Trustees does not continue with its plan to require construction companies to sign a PLA or negotiate a PLA for Proposition V projects. Furthermore, we recommend that the District be open and transparent on future bond measures and tell the voters if a PLA is being considered at some point prior to the ballot going before the voters. We believe it irresponsible to implement a PLA based on the language in the current Bond.
Here are my fall 2015 commentaries about California school and college bond measures for facilities construction:
Commentaries in www.FlashReport.org
Preparing for California’s Life Cycle of Bond Measures and Proposed Tax Increases – September 21, 2015
Commentaries in www.UnionWatch.org
Construction Unions Dominate a Marin County Bond Measure Campaign – October 27, 2015
Community College Board in California Will Be Accountable to Voters – October 17, 2015
Project Labor Agreement Requirement Downplayed in Pro-Bond Campaigns – August 22, 2015
Unions Seek Control of Recent California School Bond Measures – August 11, 2015
California Bill Would Allow Contractors and Workers to Maintain Their Existing Health Insurance Under a Project Labor Agreement
AB 842 “would provide that a contractor that bids on or has been awarded work covered by a Project Labor Agreement that provides health care coverage to workers on the project that is the subject of the agreement, that includes essential health benefits, as described in the PPACA [federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act], and that provides evidence of that coverage to the entity awarding the contract, is exempt from a requirement to pay into a trust or custodial benefit plan for health and welfare or similar benefits for those workers an amount equal to the amount that the contractor would have been required to pay into that trust or custodial benefit plan for health care costs for those workers.”
In other words, a non-union employer that has a bone fide health insurance benefit program equivalent to or better than what is offered by the applicable multi-employer union-affiliated trust for the same trade in the same geographic region does not have to pay the health insurance component to the union trust fund. It can make employer payments to the company health insurance program on behalf of its employees. The company does not need to pay to both the union program and ALSO its own company program (the costly “double payments” dilemma) so that its employees can maintain their existing health insurance.
What does this mean in practice? The Salinas Taxpayers Association took a position in support of AB 842 because the bill was relevant to Project Labor Agreement controversies in Salinas. Here is the Salinas Taxpayers Association letter on Assembly Bill 842:
Several of the more than 200 government-mandated Project Labor Agreements imposed in California have included such language for not just health insurance but for ALL legitimate fringe benefits. One prominent example is the San Diego Unified School District. A Project Labor Agreement administrator was given the authority to determine if non-union contractors provided equivalent benefit plans. (Below, see the relevant language from the Project Labor Agreement.)
Note that unions (as well as labor compliance programs or personnel) monitor contractors that claim equivalent fringe benefit plans. Unions have also challenged decisions of PLA administrators concluding that non-union contractors have equivalent benefits. Two examples at San Diego Unified School District:
The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local Union No. 45 went after A Good Roofer, Inc. because the company did not submit its fringe benefit package to the Project Labor Coordinator for evaluation to determine if it was equivalent or better than the union package. The Roofers union demanded that A Good Roofer, Inc. pay employee fringe benefits (as designated in the union collective bargaining agreement) to the applicable union trust funds, along with interest, costs, and liquidated damages. See SDUSD PLA Grievance – A Good Roofer, Inc.
The San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council went after the San Diego Unified School District claiming it improperly determined under Section 5.2 of the Project Labor Agreement that Standard Electronics had a fringe benefit program equivalent to the program administered by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Union Local No. 569. See SDUSD PLA Grievance SDUSD & Standard Electronics.
Here is the language from the San Diego Unified School District Project Labor Agreement:
Section 5.2 Benefits. (a) Contractors shall pay contributions to the established employee benefit funds in the amounts designated in the appropriate Schedule A; and make all employee authorized deductions in the amounts designated in the appropriate Schedule A: provided, however, that the Contractor and Unions agree that only such bona fide employee benefits as accrue to the direct benefit of the employees (such as pension and annuity, health and welfare, vacation, apprenticeship, and training funds) shall be included in this requirement and required to be paid by the Contractor on the Project; and provided further, however, that such contributions shall not exceed the contribution amounts set forth in the applicable prevailing wage determination.
Unless otherwise required by law, Contractors who have fringe benefits for their core workforce equal to or better than those designated in the Schedule A do not have to pay the fringe benefit contribution designated in the Schedule A on the core work force and may utilize their own fringe benefits. The Project Labor Coordinator will be responsible for determining whether the benefits are equal to or better than those designated in the Schedule A’s. Contractors must submit their fringe benefit packages to the Project Labor Coordinator for evaluation prior to bidding. Contractors may only take credit against the prevailing wage in accordance with the Prevailing Wage Statute and the difference between the hourly cost, if any, of the fringe benefit provided and the hourly cost of the applicable fringe benefit portion of the wage determination must be paid to the worker as wages. Benefits designated in the Schedule A will be paid on all employees dispatched by the Union.
(b) Where applicable, the Contractor adopts and agrees to be bound by the written terms of the applicable, legally established, trust agreement(s) specifying the detailed basis on which payments are to be made into, and benefits paid out of, such trust funds for its employees. The Contractor authorizes the Parties to such trust funds to appoint trustees and successors’ trustees to administer the trust funds and hereby ratifies and accepts the trustees so appointed as if made by the Contractor.
(c) Each Contractor and Subcontractor is required to certify to the Project Labor Coordinator that it has paid all benefit contributions due and owing to the appropriate Trust(s) or fringe benefit programs prior to the receipt of its final payment and/or retention. Further, upon timely notification by a Union to the Project Labor Coordinator, the Project Labor Coordinator shall work with any Contractor or Subcontractor who is delinquent in payments to assure that proper benefit contributions are made, to the extent of requesting the District or the prime Contractor to withhold payments otherwise due such Contractor, until such contributions have been made or otherwise guaranteed.
This example shows that Assembly Bill 842 proposes a feasible policy. In fact, AB 842 could be expanded to encompass ALL bone fide fringe benefit plans and not just health insurance. Nevertheless, expect the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and individual unions to oppose the bill.
West Sacramento School District Uses Union-Only Apprenticeship Policy to Boot Lease-Leaseback Contractor
Tonight (April 23, 2015), the board of trustees for the Washington Unified School District (in West Sacramento) will reject a construction company from a lease-leaseback contract because unions will not agree to dispatch apprentices to the company.
The staff report for “Adopt Resolution 1415-22 for the Bryte Career Technical Education Campus Phase #1 Project (Implement the Capital Investment Program for Sustainability Initiatives / Facility Improvements through Measure V Funds)” states the following:
Bid #3, Landmark Construction, was highest bid by almost $1,000,000 (17%). Bidder #1 and #2, the point spread between them was significant (10%) and after the formal interviews the team felt that the best value of the three (3) submittals received was from Bobo Construction (bidder #2). The team began contract negotiations with Bobo Construction to finalize a lease lease-back (LLB) document. Unfortunately, during contract negotiations it was determined that the District’s pre-apprenticeship requirements could not be met by Bobo Construction. As a result, the team is reaching out to Landmark Construction in an effort to negotiate and finalize a contract.
At various times over the past 15 years, construction trade unions have lobbied Northern California local governments for local apprenticeship policies that supplant existing state law. Of course those self-interested policies are meant to cut bid competition and limit workers’ freedom of choice in training programs.
Those policies have been rejected by elected boards at some local governments and passed by others, often after amendments. But until now there has not been a high-profile case in which a construction company lost a major project because of such a policy.
The Washington Unified School District board of trustees quietly passed the union-backed apprenticeship policy in November 2013 that requires all contractors to obtain apprentices from union-affiliated programs. Now unions have been able to use this policy as the basis to get the school district to deprive a Merit Shop construction company of a contract. This action raises the cost of the project by $1 million (17%).
Here is the discriminatory policy: Washington Unified School District Resolution #1314-10 – Resolution Establishing Apprenticeship Graduation and Local Hire Requirements for Hiring on School Construction Projects.
For details, see the email below from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction to the elected board and administrators of the Washington Unified School District.
From: “Eric Christen”
Subject: URGENT: IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED REGARDING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
Date: April 23, 2015 at 9:40:01 AM PDT
Board of Trustees,
As your staff and legal counsel have been unresponsive to our earlier email I am now forwarding this issue on to you.
The Washington Unified School District has implemented illegal pre-qualification requirements and is arbitrarily using these requirements to favor certain construction contractors, certain state-approved apprenticeship programs, and certain apprentices at the expense of others.
On April 21, 2015, the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) learned that your selected (but not contracted) lease-leaseback contractor Bobo Construction will not be working on the district’s Bryte Culinary Arts project or on the District Office project. The vague reason given by a district consultant for this decision: “During contract negotiations, it was determined that the District’s Apprenticeship requirements could not be met by Bobo Construction.”
We inquired with Bobo Construction representatives, who informed us they left voice mails and sent emails to the Washington Unified School District asking specifically what requirements it did not meet, how the district determined that it could not meet the requirements, and who determined it could not meet the requirements. Suspiciously but not surprisingly, there has been no official response from the school district.
This unusual and disturbing incident, based on both the current situation and previous attempts to discriminate against non-signatory firms using similar tactics leads us to conclude that unions have engineered this latest episode so as to benefit its members. We will be submitting a public records request to confirm the involvement of union officials in these discussions leading to this decision and to determine specifically why the district ceased communication with Bobo Construction.
Bobo Construction had submitted a pre-qualification questionnaire and was approved and deemed eligible to work on these projects. It also submitted bids by the deadline. We will be checking on this to ensure Bobo Construction complied with every requirement.
Bobo Construction representatives say they typically request Carpenters and Laborers apprentices from the state-approved unilateral apprenticeship programs operated by the Northern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC). These programs are approved by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards to train apprentices on public works projects in Yolo County.
But the Washington Unified School District insists in its regulations that its contractors have to request and train apprentices exclusively from programs overseen by Joint Apprenticeship Training Committees (JATCs) affiliated with trade unions. Unilateral (union-free) apprenticeship programs are not regarded as eligible or legitimate training programs. The attached resolution, that the board approved in November of 2013, is where this language comes from.
Apprentices in these JATC programs pay union dues and fees and their fringe benefits indicated in prevailing wage determinations are paid into union-affiliated trust funds. The district’s decision to only accept apprentices from those programs is clearly favoritism for union apprentices, for union-affiliated apprenticeship programs overseen by Joint Apprenticeship Training Committees, and for construction companies that have agreements to train through union-affiliated apprenticeship programs overseen by Joint Apprenticeship Training Committees.
Nevertheless, to try to keep the peace and comply with this illegal requirement, Bobo Construction contacted representatives of the Carpenters and Laborers unions to arrange for a one-job subscription agreement to use union apprentices on Washington Unified School District projects. By refusing to arrange such agreements (an illegal action), these union officials disqualified Bobo Construction.
Basically, the Washington Unified School District has given union officials the power to decide which contractors get construction contracts at the district. Unions – not contractors – have the authority to dispatch apprentices. A union apprenticeship program can withhold its apprentices from being dispatched to any contractor (including a union contractor) and thus disqualify it.
Subcontractors for Bobo Construction are now reportedly being told that Bobo Construction was “kicked off the job” because it was non-union, and anyone wanting to work at the district better be unionized. Reportedly union officials had been lobbying the elected board of trustees and district administrators and contractors to deny the work to Bobo Construction. We will be submitting a public records request to confirm the extent of these communications.
The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction is committed to ensuring that all capable and responsible bidders and their capable and qualified workers are able to work on taxpayer-funded construction projects. Following are the next steps we will be taking to ensure that all contractors, workers, and apprentices are treated equally and fairly:
Submission of the aforementioned public record request the goal of which is twofold: Show who in 2013 gave you the discriminatory language you voted to approve and secondly, what special interests have been involved in seeing that Bobo Construction was rejected in favor of a signatory firm whose bid was $1 MILLION HIGHER.
Undertake a public relations campaign to inform community leaders, the general public, and area media about how staff and elected officials of the Washington Unified School District are breaking the law and manipulating the district’s bidding process to raise construction costs and benefit union special interests. Your decision to choose Landmark Construction over Bobo alone will cost the District $1 million!
We will be researching the origin of this discriminatory apprenticeship requirement(s) and will expose it to the public.
Should this issue not be resolved by the board at your meeting tonight (April 23rd) we will recommend that Bobo Construction file a lawsuit against the Washington Unified School District over its patently illegal apprenticeship requirements.
Finally, a stench of corruption envelopes this entire process. CFEC has been protecting the rights of contractors, workers, and apprentices in California for almost 16 years and I have never seen such a blatant political power play as I have witnessed in the past few days. CFEC will do everything within its considerable resources to see to it that whomever is behind this attempt to play favorites using taxpayer dollars will be held accountable to the people for those actions, especially if public records or other documents unearthed in various stages of litigation reveal what the District has done in pursuit of political ambition.
In conclusion, we encourage you to work with Bobo Construction, which is a well-established company willing to resolve reasonable differences in order to perform the outstanding work that your district expects. The alternative is getting to deal instead with this organization, exceptional for its zeal to expose the bidding corruption eroding many school districts in California.
We look forward to hearing that Bobo Construction is back performing the best work at the best price for the taxpayers and students of the Washington Unified School District. We also look forward to hearing that the Washington Unified School District will no longer implement illegal policies that favor unionized contractors, unionized apprenticeship programs, and unionized apprentices. It’s not necessary, it’s wrong, it’s not desired by the public, and it’s illegal.
You are encouraged to contact me at xxx or xxx.
Eric Damian Christen
Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction
The typical Project Labor Agreement deliberation at California local governments often endures for hours, with several dozen speakers pounding away with their arguments and attacks on their opponents. Presiding officers of local agency boards routinely declare that the Project Labor Agreement item has set a record for most submitted speaker cards. Arguably this is the most intense and contentious issue now encountered on the local level in California.
Now the elected board of the Chula Vista Elementary School District is trying to slip a Project Labor Agreement through the process without experiencing the obligatory legislative agonies. The meeting agenda for April 15, 2015 assigns the item to the consent calendar as Item 5P.
In 2010, 56% of voters in the City of Chula Vista voted for Measure G, which prohibited the city from entering into contracts that require construction companies to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions. Nevertheless, the board decided to put the item on the consent calendar.
Update: at the meeting, a board member removed the item from the consent calendar, and several supporters and opponents spoke on it. The board then approved it on a 4-1 vote.
Here’s my email to the Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo Community College District) elected board of trustees and top administrators regarding the sneaky effort to require its construction contractors to sign a “Project Labor Agreement” with unions as a condition of working on projects funded by Measure L. In November 2014, 62.6% of voters authorized the district to borrow $275 million for construction projects by selling bonds to investors.
Subject: Public Needs to Be Informed About Project Labor Agreement for Measure L Projects at Cuesta College
From: Kevin Dayton
Date: February 2, 2015 at 2:42:59 PM PST
Dear Cuesta College Board of Trustees:
I haven’t been able to find any official information provided to voters before Election Day about the plan of Cuesta College to require construction companies to sign a “Project Labor Agreement” with unions as a condition of working on projects funded by Measure L.
To try to alert taxpayers, students, and other interested parties about the Project Labor Agreement plan, I have provided concise information about it to various media entities, including the San Luis Obispo Tribune, KSPY, KCOY, KEYT, KVEC News/Talk 920, the Tolusa Press newspapers, CalCoastNews.com, New Times SLO, the Cuestonian, and Paso Robles Daily News. See below.
Since you had a representative of the Tri-Valley Building and Construction Trades Council make a presentation to the board after Measure L passed, I suggest you invite some local construction company representatives to make a presentation, so that you have a range of viewpoints on this highly-controversial and costly proposal. Were local construction trade associations informed about the December 10 Project Labor Agreement presentation?
Also, shouldn’t Cuesta College officially inform ordinary citizens about the Project Labor Agreement plan, since they will be paying back the principal and interest on the borrowed money obtained through bond issues? I don’t see any News Releases from Cuesta College about it.
President and CEO
Labor Issues Solutions, LLC
From: Kevin Dayton
Subject: Cuesta College board mtg 2/4 – proposal for union monopoly on construction funded by Measure L
Date: February 2, 2015 at 11:55:28 AM PST
Cuesta College board of trustees is discussing at its February 4 meeting whether its construction contractors should be required to sign a “Project Labor Agreement” with the Tri-Valley Building and Construction Trades Council as a condition of working on projects funded by Measure L.
This plan was kept quiet until 62% of voters approved the bond measure last November. Then the construction unions were invited to make a one-sided presentation about Project Labor Agreements:
Project Labor Agreements cut bid competition and raise construction costs for the benefit of unions. Here is a 2011 study from the National University System Institute for Policy Research: “Our research shows that PLAs are associated with higher construction costs. We found that costs are 13 to 15 percent higher when school districts construct a school under a PLA.”
Your readers might be interested in this proposed policy. Voters had no idea last November that this union plan was going to happen.
President and CEO
Labor Issues Solutions, LLC
Want to Protest On-Site at the California High-Speed Rail Groundbreaking on January 6, 2015 in Fresno?
A media advisory released by the California High-Speed Rail Authority on December 30 provides an update on how the California High-Speed Rail Authority will host an official High-Speed Rail groundbreaking ceremony on January 6, 2015 in Fresno. (Excerpts from the media advisory are below, or see it on the California High-Speed Rail Authority website.)
The media advisory bluntly tells the public that “This event is open to invited guests and credentialed media only.” But concerned citizens and taxpayers who weren’t invited to the event will express their First Amendment right to freedom of speech by protesting at the groundbreaking ceremony.
Are you interested in participating in the protest? Contact me at (916) 439-2159 or at kdayton [ at ] laborissuessolutions.com for information.
Fresno, Calif. – The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will join government, community, transportation, business and labor leaders on Tuesday, January 6, 2015 to commemorate the start of sustained construction on the nation’s first high-speed rail system at a ceremonial groundbreaking in Fresno.
WHAT: Official High-Speed Rail Groundbreaking Ceremony
WHEN: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 12:00 p.m.
WHERE: Site of Future High-Speed Rail Station
1625 Tulare Street
Fresno, California 93706
Media Tour Scheduled for 10:00 a.m.
Prior to the groundbreaking ceremony, there will be a tour available to media to highlight progress being made on the high-speed rail program in the Central Valley. Credentialed media on the tour will visit the old Del Monte Plant, which was recently demolished and is now having steel, asphalt and concrete recycled. Media will also view a building that is being prepared for demolition, and interview Authority staff and construction crews working on the first segment of high-speed rail in California.
NOTE: This event is open to invited guests and credentialed media only.
“Something Fishy About County Water Agency, AB 155 & PLA” – commentary by Nicole Goehring in Salinas Californian – July 2, 2014
“Will a Few Republican State Legislators Open Floodgates for Costly Union Control of California Water Projects?” – commentary by Kevin Dayton in www.FlashReport.org – July 10, 2014
“Interlake Tunnel Sparks Labor Controversy” – Salinas Californian – September 5, 2014
“Labor Agreements Key to Monterey County Interlake Tunnel, Unions Say” – Salinas Californian – September 5, 2014
Dan Walters: “Three Obscure Bills Show How Big Policy Gets Buried” – column in Sacramento Bee – September 16, 2014
“Documents Expose Union Lobbying Scheme to Control Water Project Construction” – www.UnionWatch.org – September 16, 2014
“California Lawmakers Throw Business New Roadblock” – WorldNetDaily – September 24, 2014
How a Bill Becomes a Law (California Assembly Bill 155 – 2014) – Labor Issues Solutions, LLC
“Interlake Tunnel Bill Signed by Brown Despite Opposition” – Monterey Herald – October 1, 2014
“Interlake Tunnel Project In Line for State Water Bond Funding” – Monterey Herald – October 15, 2014
“Assemblymember Alejo: No Design-Build, No Interlake Tunnel Funding” – Monterey Herald – October 15, 2014
“Legislator Tells County How It Must Bid a Project to Get Prop 1 Water Bond Funds” – commentary by Kevin Dayton in Flash Report – October 17, 2014
“Debate Over Interlake Tunnel Project Rages On” – Monterey Herald – October 29, 2014
“Labor Issue, Data Stall Interlake Tunnel Approval” – Salinas Californian – October 29, 2014
“Interlake Tunnel Project Funding, Labor Agreement Considered” – Monterey Herald – December 8, 2014
“Unions Win First Victory to Control Projects Funded by Water Bond” – www.UnionWatch.org – December 9, 2014
“Interlake Tunnel Project Gets Green Light” – Salinas Californian – December 9, 2014
“Ferrini Ranch Gets Nod on 3-2 Board of Supervisors Vote” (article includes report on vote for Project Labor Agreement on Interlake Tunnel Project) – Monterey Herald – December 9, 2014
Arguing Against a Project Labor Agreement Policy with a $500,000 Project Cost Threshold in the City of Martinez
Below is an email I sent today to the Martinez City Council and top staff regarding their vote tonight on instituting a Project Labor Agreement policy for all city projects over $500,000. Here is the staff report for the agenda item: Policy on Project Labor Agreements.
Dear Martinez City Council:
Tonight you will consider a Project Labor Agreement policy for “all City construction projects awarded by the City with a bid amount of more than $500,000 (the “Threshold”).”
According to the proposed resolution, this threshold will encompass “certain large, complex City construction projects involve numerous contractors and employees in different trades.” According to the proposed resolution, the purpose of this policy is the city’s recognition that “it is essential that construction on such projects proceed without the labor disruptions that can occur on projects both from external labor relations problems and from the frictions that often arise when a large number of contractors and their employees work in proximity to one another on a job site.” The resolution also adds that “in the private sector, project labor agreements have been used for years on large, complex construction projects” and “in the public sector, project labor agreements have been used successfully by the County of Contra Costa and other public entities in Contra Costa County for hospital, reservoir, wastewater, and other large, complex construction projects.”
You may be aware that this language has to be included in the resolution because that’s the basis in the National Labor Relations Act to justify a Project Labor Agreement. “Favoritism for contractors that are signatory to collective bargaining agreements in the construction trades” is not a legal purpose for a Project Labor Agreement, despite what anyone claims.
There’s a good chance you’ll be sued if you vote for this policy tonight. I recommend you delay a vote on the policy until you have a report prepared by an outside consultant clearly and thoroughly outlining the following:
1. What is a “large, complex construction project?”
2. What is a “large number of contractors and their employees?” Is it five employees or 736 employees? Is it five contractors or 23 contractors?
3. What is “proximity to each other?” Within spitting distance?
4. Speaking of spitting, what are some of the “frictions” that arise when people are working together to build a project, and what are the basic and immediate causes of those frictions?
5. When does the City of Martinez plan to build an airport, reservoir, or hospital for $500,000? (Note: this would be a valuable service for entities that are spending billions of dollars on similar large, complex construction projects.)
6. What are the recent or anticipated labor disruptions that this policy would prevent? Please indicate the controversies and the parties that caused the disruptions. (Note: this would be a valuable service for union contractors unaware that their unions plan to disrupt upcoming work.) The list of upcoming labor disruptions should include any planned incidents of “the unions and their members, agents, representatives, and employees” endeavoring to “incite, encourage, condone, or participate in any strike, walkout, sit-down, stay-in, boycott, sympathy strike, picketing, hand-billing, work stoppage, work slowdown, or other labor disruption or unrest.”
7. Please provide examples of workers outside of a Master Labor Agreement or Project Labor Agreement who have recently disrupted projects.
8. Please provide examples of workers covered by a Project Labor Agreement who have recently disrupted projects, and describe how those disruptions were resolved.
Here is a link to a report entitled From Peace to Absurdity – The Emergence of Cost Thresholds and Multi-Project Coverage for Project Labor Agreements in California: Shifting the Purpose from Labor Peace to Cutting Merit Shop Competition. I can email this to you directly as a PDF attachment if you want it in that format.
Please regard this email as Exhibit One and the report linked above as Exhibit Two for any future litigation.