Tag Archive for State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

Federal Judge Declines to Throw Out New Union-Sponsored California Prevailing Wage and Apprenticeship Mandate Bill for Refineries

Today (March 5, 2014), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California – Sacramento Division, Judge John A. Mendez rejected a petition from construction contractors and construction workers to suspend Senate Bill 54, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on October 13, 2013. This occurred after 90 minutes of oral arguments.

It was a victory for the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, the sponsor of Senate Bill 54. Enacted under the guise of promoting public health and safety, this law fulfills on the state level the 30-year unsuccessful effort of construction trade unions in Contra Costa County to gain control of the construction contract workforce at petrochemical refineries.

What Is Senate Bill 54?

Alleged “findings of the legislature” in the preface to SB 54 provide the justification for the law. “Unskilled and untrained workers” at petrochemical refineries are a risk to public health and safety. In addition, outside contractors are a high risk to public health and safety because “they generally will be less familiar with the operations of the facility and its emergency plans” and because “the owner or operator of the facility will have less incentive to invest in their training.”

Therefore, the state now requires refinery contractors to pay workers “at least at a rate equivalent to the prevailing journeyperson wage for the occupation, or be registered in a state-approved apprenticeship program.” And in a phased plan, contractors will eventually need to have 60% of their journeypersons be graduates of a state-approved or federally-approved apprenticeship program.

Why Is Senate Bill 54 a Problem for Some Contractors?

Prevailing Wage

Senate Bill 54 attempts to graft state-mandated prevailing wage rates implemented for public works projects onto exclusively private construction projects. A contractor employing workers in trades for which the contractor is not signatory to a union Master Labor Agreement will likely have to increase wages to incorporate the various employer payments included in state determinations of the general prevailing rate of per diem wages. (For example, the employer payments for “Other” as indicated in California Labor Code Section 1773.1(a)(7-9) are not excluded from the refinery contractor wage requirement, although employer payments for travel and subsistence and holiday pay are specifically excluded.)

Industrial contractors that choose to entangle themselves with this complicated law will pass the increased costs in bids to refineries. Refineries will then pass the increased costs to consumers through higher gasoline and jet fuel prices. In turn, these higher gas prices change consumer behavior in ways some legislators regret, but other legislators appreciate.

This prevailing wage requirement in SB 54 appears to be a violation of the 1995 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bragdon. In that decision, the court ruled that an ordinance enacted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in 1990 (“Prevailing Wages for Industrial Construction”) requiring employers to pay state-mandated prevailing wage rates to their trade workers on wholly private construction projects was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Apprenticeship Training Requirements

Two training requirements are of more immediate concern to refinery contractors and their employees who are independent of unions. One provision of SB 54 requires trainees to be enrolled in a state-approved apprenticeship program. Another requires a significant percentage of the skilled journeypersons employed by a contractor to be graduates of a state-approved or federally-approved apprenticeship program.

In the counties where most refineries are located (Contra Costa and Solano, Kern, and Los Angeles), unions have a monopoly on training through state-approved apprenticeship programs for many construction trades. To complicate matters, state law requires contractors on state or local public works projects to train workers only through state-approved apprenticeship programs, so the presence of federally-approved apprenticeship training programs in California is minimal.

Apprenticeship training is highly politicized in California, because it can be used to control who and how many people enter the construction workforce. In particular, unions use the notorious “needs test” in the California Labor Code to block approval of new programs or expansion of existing programs. Getting a new program approved generally requires years of administrative actions and litigation costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

For more details about the needs test, see my March 5, 2007 article in www.FlashReport.org entitled: California Law Discourages Vocational Education, But the Feds Are Cracking Down.

Arguments of the Plaintiffs (Contractors and Workers)

Attorneys for the contractors and the employees did not hold back from asserting that SB 54 was a law carefully designed to favor union contractors and union workers on refinery projects. The State of California sets prevailing wage rates based on union Master Labor Agreements. Unions monopolize state-approved apprenticeship programs for most construction trades and aggressively exploit state law to fight any threats of competition in training. Unions outside of the traditional construction trades are excluded from the state’s prevailing wage and apprenticeship system.

They argued that Senate Bill 54 is causing imminent harm by forcing companies now to make business decisions that relate to future bids that fall under the requirements of the new law. Contractors either have to begin adjusting their workforce and their hiring and training practices to comply with SB 54 or begin a long process of challenging SB 54 as unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, employees who are not graduates of an apprenticeship program become “suspect” despite having significant experience and skills. If unions monopolize apprenticeship training for their trade, these employees may eventually need to apply to union apprenticeship programs to pursue years of classroom work and on-the-job training – even the plaintiff in this case who has 31 years of experience working in the trade.

Attorneys presented a scenario in which a contractor lacking employees who graduated from a state-approved or federally-approved program would need to lay off workers and then try to find replacement workers who met the requirement, either by requesting a union to dispatch workers or by advertising for workers in places and ways (such as a newspaper advertisement in Texas) that would encourage workers who met the requirements to apply for the jobs.

If a contractor or group of contractors decided to establish new apprenticeship programs and seek approval from the state to operate them in order to comply with SB 54, unions would immediate challenge the approval by declaring that the existing union programs could serve all training needs and therefore a new program was not justified under state law.

Arguments of the Defendants (State of California and Construction Trade Unions)

Not surprisingly, the arguments of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California were condescending and dismissive of refinery contractors that are not unionized or have Master Labor Agreements with unions outside of the building trades, such as the Steelworkers. They insinuated that construction trade unions already have skilled workers and adequate wages, while non-union contractors were resisting SB 54 because it would prevent them from bringing untrained workers from out-of-state at low wages into the refineries.

Defendants pointed out that SB 54 did not make any distinctions between union and non-union workers. They claimed that union training programs dispatch apprentices to non-union contractors. They claimed that workers who graduated from a union apprenticeship program and then subsequently resigned their union membership might be looking for jobs.

A theme from defendants was that it was quite possible for contractors to comply with SB 54, but these contractors simply chose not to do it. In addition, defendants argued that SB 54 could not be shown to affect bid awards. “Maybe the refineries don’t want to hire them under their own free will” and will make future decisions to spurn non-union contractors and award bids to union contractors without consideration of SB 54.

If refineries end up succumbing to union demands for Project Labor Agreements on all future construction contract work, “freedom of choice in the market” will surely be the claim from unions.

Comments from the Judge

Throughout oral arguments, Judge Mendez expressed concern that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the case because they had submitted nothing for the record that clearly showed injury was “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” He pointed out how plaintiffs frequently used the words “maybe” and “may.” He noted there was no evidence of a refinery bidding any work under SB 54 or any employees looking for a new job or being threatened with termination because of SB 54.

Of importance to Judge Mendez was the lack of participation in the case by refineries, which were the primary regulatory target of SB 54. “Should I be concerned?” he asked. Judge Mendez asked how harm could be proven if the refineries did not make a declaration for the record.

Finally, Judge Mendez warned that the power of a federal court to throw out a law approved by the state legislature and governor, with a stated reason for enactment, should be used sparingly. He saw possibilities – but not evidence – of harm to the contractors and employees. It’s “not impossible to come into compliance” with SB 54.

Senate Bill 54 continues to be state law. And as the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California stated in an October 14, 2013 bulletin following the signing of SB 54, “we encourage all affiliated trades to take this opportunity to unionize non-union contractors that are now working in the refineries.”


The case is Timec Company, Inc. v. Brown, Case No. 2:13-CV-02521 JAM DAD.

Timec Company, Inc. v Brown – Filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiffs were three companies (Timec Company, Inc., Petrochem Insulation, Inc., SSP Industrial Plant Reclamation, a Joint Venture), and two employees, Anthony Gillespie and Rodolfo Lopez.

Defendants were Director of the Department of Industrial Relations Christine Baker, Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards Diane Ravnik, and Secretary for Environmental Protection Matt Rodriguez.

On February 10, 2014, the judge dismissed initial defendants Governor Jerry Brown, Attorney General Kamala Harris, and the California Environmental Protection Agency.

On February 3, 2014, the judge granted permission for the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO to intervene as a defendant in the case.

Getting to the Bottom of it: Backroom Administrative/Executive Deliberation Leading to Project Labor Agreement on California High-Speed Rail

UPDATE: I emailed this message to the California High-Speed Rail Authority at 4:51 p.m. on Friday, December 20, 2013:

Today is December 20, 2013, the date cited in the last correspondence from the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

“Under Government Code §6253(a), the Authority invoked a 14 day extension in order to further research your request and make a determination. A determination letter would be sent to you no later than November 18, 2013. The Authority will provide all responsive documents to you by December 20, 2013.”

http://laborissuessolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-11-18-CaHSRA-letter-to-Dayton-on-Public-Records-Request.pdf

Any news on progress to fulfill the October 24, 2013 request?

At 5:58 p.m., the California High-Speed Rail Authority emailed me this letter notifying me that “The amount of electronic records that are responsive to your request are too large to send via email. A CD-ROM with electronic records will be sent via U.S. Mail to your attention no later than December 20, 2013.”

December 20, 2013 California High-Speed Rail Authority Letter to Kevin Dayton on Public Records Request

Then, at 6:14 p.m., the California High-Speed Rail Authority emailed me this batch of letters:

Associated Builders and Contractors of California – State Building and Construction Trades Council of California – California High-Speed Rail Authority 2013 letter exchange on Project Labor Agreement

UPDATE: In a November 18, 2013 letter, the California High-Speed Rail Authority informed me that it will provide me with the requested public records by December 20, 2013.

UPDATE: In a November 4, 2013 letter, the California High-Speed Rail Authority informed me that it is taking an additional 14 days (as allowed by law) to provide me with the requested public records.


On April 29, 2013, I posted the results of my request to the Fresno County Workforce Investment Board for public records related to the development of the Project Labor Agreement with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California for construction of the California High-Speed Rail system. (See Newly Obtained Documents Reveal Which Elected Official Was the Catalyst for the Project Labor Agreement on California High-Speed Rail: Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin.)

I also listed seven questions that remain to be answered about how this costly union construction monopoly was implemented. It was done without any public discussion or vote by the board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, obviously because public scrutiny and discussion would have further damaged its reputation in California and even in Washington, D.C.

Today I submitted another request for public records related to the Project Labor Agreement, this time directly to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. I expect these records will answer those seven questions and give the public a complete picture of the backroom wheeling and dealing.


From: Kevin Dayton [mailto:kdayton@laborissuessolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:45 AM
To: ‘records@hsr.ca.gov’; ‘xxxxx’
Subject: Public Records Request to California High-Speed Rail Authority: Community Benefits Agreement/Project Labor Agreement

October 24, 2013

Lisa Marie Alley
Assistant Deputy Director of Communications
California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Public Records Request – Community Benefits Agreement/Project Labor Agreement

Dear Ms. Alley:

Under the authority of the California Public Records Act, I am requesting the following records to determine the following:

The administrative/executive branch deliberative process within the California High-Speed Rail Authority that led to the execution of the “Community Benefits Agreement” (aka Project Labor Agreement) as signed by Robbie Hunter, President of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, on August 7, 2013 and by Jeff Morales, Chief Executive Officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, on August 13, 2013. Here’s a link to that Project Labor Agreement: Project Labor Agreement with Unions for California High-Speed Rail.

“Public records” include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by the California High-Speed Rail Authority regardless of physical form or characteristics. “Writing” means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photocopying, photographing, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols or any combination thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.

“Public records” shall include writing from private email addresses used by the Board and staff of the California High-Speed Rail Authority for public business. For example, if a staff member sends electronic mail through a Google mail account to schedule a meeting with Robbie Hunter, that email is a public record.

Please provide the following public records – in electronic form if possible – from the California High-Speed Rail Authority:

  • All records dated after January 1, 2012 concerning consideration, rejection, and approval from any federal or state agency for a Community Benefits Agreement/Project Labor Agreement and/or “Targeted Hiring Agreement” based on a similar agreement adopted at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
  • All records dated after January 1, 2012 concerning evaluation or deliberation of the conditions, benefits, challenges, and negative impact of a Community Benefits Agreement/Project Labor Agreement.
  • All records dated after January 1, 2012 referencing the Community Benefits Agreement/Project Labor Agreement in communications from, to, or citing the following individuals:

a) Robbie Hunter (Current President, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California)

b) Bob Balgenorth (Past President, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and past board member, California High-Speed Rail Authority)

c) Ashley Swearingen (Mayor of Fresno)

d) Tom Richards (Chair of Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board and current board member, California High-Speed Rail Authority.)

e) Lee Ann Eager (Economic Development Corporation serving Fresno County)

f) Chuck Riojas (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers – IBEW)

g) Blake Konczal (Executive Director, Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board, and Fresno Works Consortium)

h) Ken Price (counsel for Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board)

i) Michael Bernick (Applied Development Economics)

j) Robert Padilla (Small Business Advocate, California High-Speed Rail Authority)

  • All records dated after November 1, 2012 referencing the Community Benefits Agreement/Project Labor Agreement in communications from, to, or citing the following individuals:

a) Eric Christen (Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction)

b) Nicole Goehring (Associated Builders and Contractors, Northern California Chapter)

c) Kevin Dayton, Labor Issues Solutions, LLC

  • Any other records related to the Community Benefits Agreement/Project Labor Agreement.

Note: the California High-Speed Rail Authority does not need to provide board meeting agendas, minutes, board meeting transcripts, or staff reports for meetings already provided to the public as posted on the California High-Speed Rail Authority web site in association with board meetings. It does not need to provide the Addendum 8 version of the Project Labor Agreement (Addendum 8 Project Labor Agreement for Initial Construction Segment) or the revised Project Labor Agreement linked above (Project Labor Agreement with Unions for California High-Speed Rail).

Upon receiving this request for a copy of records, please, within 10 days, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the California High-Speed Rail Authority and promptly notify me of the determination and the reasons therefor.

In unusual circumstances, the time limit may be extended by written notice, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days, and the notice shall provide the estimated date and time when the records will be made available.

###

Republicans Pushing the Construction Union Agenda in the California Legislature

Almost all Democrats in the California State Legislature vote in committee and on the floor of their chamber for any bill sponsored by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. There are exceptions in rare circumstances, usually when a Democrat recognizes that a union-backed bill sets up an artificial system to favor middle class suburban white men among people seeking vocational education and employment in the construction trades.

Now there are Republican legislators supporting the construction union legislative agenda, in effect voting for government intervention to maintain or expand union involvement in commerce. I informed Republican leaders and activists about this development in an August 19, 2013 article in www.FlashReport.orgUnions Tempt Republicans with “Bipartisanship” Lure: Five Tips for Resistance – and an August 20, 2013 article in www.UnionWatch.org – Some Republican State Legislators in California Push the Union Agenda.

Republican elected officials who support the union agenda have a right to do so, but they need to be accountable to voters and to Republicans who see their 157 year-old political party as a defender of free markets and limited government. I believe that Republicans who vote for the union agenda in 2013 (as opposed to say, 1931) think this kind of voting record will help them get re-elected to office or elected to higher office.

That strategy doesn’t often work when it really matters. Generally, unions end up supporting a Democrat with a credible chance of winning a competitive election against a Republican who votes for greater union power and influence in commerce and government. There are practical parliamentary reasons to do so: party majorities and supermajorities are fundamental to the development of public policy.

I’ve noticed during more than 20 years working in politics that Republicans who support union-backed bills also tend to be the ones who end up “compromising” under pressure on high-profile budget issues – tax increases, for example – often in exchange for political favors. Votes on union issues are a key indicator of where an elected official will stand when the Establishment is clamoring to take more money from people to fund government programs.

State Water Agency Is First to Implement State Punishment for California Local Governments Banning Project Labor Agreements

In 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 922, which nullified current and future “fair and open competition” ordinances that prohibit California counties and (general law) cities from entering into contracts that require construction companies to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions as a condition of work.

Along with the subsequent Senate Bill 829 enacted in 2012, Senate Bill 922 also prohibited the state from providing funding for construction projects to any charter city with a “fair and open competition” charter provision or ordinance. Because the 121 California cities with a charter have a degree of authority over their municipal affairs, the state legislature cannot directly nullify local contracting policies: it can only withhold funding to such cities as a financial disincentive. (To send an extra belligerent message to uppity cities seeking to evade the costly union political agenda, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and its member unions and allied organizations helped convince voters in Costa Mesa, Escondido, and Grover Beach to reject proposed charters on the November 2012 ballot.)

Now the the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) appears to be the first state agency to implement SB 922 and SB 829. At its July 23, 2013 meeting, the State Water Board will consider a resolution to adopt a Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program Preliminary Funding Commitment (PFC) for the bankrupt City of Stockton to proceed with the $3.25 million Tuxedo Avenue Sewer Rehabilitation Project, by funding half of the project by forgiving principal on existing debts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program.

The proposed resolution includes a list of conditions, which includes a statement that “the City shall provide an opinion from the City’s counsel, documenting that counsel has reviewed the financing agreement, and confirming the following…

iv. There is no provision or other legal impediment to the City’s authority or discretion to adopt, require, or utilize a project labor agreement that includes the tax payer protection provisions of section 2500 of the California Public Contract Code;

Of course, the condition includes the false and extraneous reference to “taxpayer protection” meant to portray Project Labor Agreements as something fiscally responsible rather than something that cuts bid competition for the benefit of construction trade unions.

Note that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program is federally-funded, meaning that the SB 922 and SB 829 restrictions are actually applying to federal funds distributed by the state. California received about $147 million of the $2.1 billion appropriated for the program in fiscal year 2010.

Incidentally, no one on the State Water Resources Control Board has any obvious connections to trade unions.

Not Accountable for Project Labor Agreement – Until Now: Mailers Inform Judges About Union Deal of Administrative Office of the Courts

The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) remains determined to see that the California Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council of California are accountable to the judicial branch and to the public for a behind-the-scenes deal to require construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of working on the $600 million New San Diego County Central Courthouse. For more information on how this scheme was discovered, see Union Quest for Project Labor Agreements from Judicial Council of California and Administrative Office of the Courts Succeeds with San Diego County Central Courthouse.

The Judicial Council of California has received public comments from three groups opposing the Project Labor Agreement in advance of its June 28, 2013 meeting in San Francisco.

On June 20, 2013, San Diego construction companies and their employees held a press conference and rally opposing the decision of California’s judicial branch to give unions monopoly control of this major state project in a city and a county where voters banned government-mandated Project Labor Agreements on city and county projects. See the press release announcing this gathering at Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction to Hold Press Conference – June 20, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. – Condemning San Diego Courthouse Project Labor Agreement.

Judges, prominent San Diego business and government leaders, and ordinary taxpayers have now received a mailer about the Project Labor Agreement. A press release from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) announcing the mailer is below.

June 24, 2013 Mailer of Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction on California Administrative Office of the Courts on Project Labor Agreement for New San Diego County Central Courthouse - Front

Front of June 24, 2013 mailer of Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction: California Administrative Office of the Courts negotiates a Project Labor Agreement with unions for the $600 million New San Diego County Central Courthouse.

 

June 24, 2013 Mailer of Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction on California Administrative Office of the Courts on Project Labor Agreement for New San Diego County Central Courthouse - Back

Back of June 24, 2013 mailer of Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction: California Administrative Office of the Courts negotiates a Project Labor Agreement with unions for the $600 million New San Diego County Central Courthouse.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 24, 2013

Contact: Eric Christen, (858) 431-6337

Mailers Hit the Judges: Courthouse Construction in California Now Favors Unions

Costs Will Rise After Project Labor Agreement Repels Potential Bidders

Increasing Risk to Public Safety

The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) has sent mailers to California taxpayers and key stakeholder groups announcing a secret sweetheart deal between the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. View the mailer here.

Allegedly requested by the state’s central lobbying group for construction unions, this deal requires all construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with unions as a condition of working on the $600 million new San Diego Central Courthouse. It gives unions monopoly control over the construction workforce for this project.

The Judicial Council of California, comprising the leadership of the state’s judicial system, has never deliberated on union agreements for courthouse construction contracts. This deal happened behind the scenes, out of sight of the public.

“The Administrative Office of the Courts has done very little to inform judges – or the public – in California that it’s now wheeling and dealing with construction union lobbyists,” said Eric Christen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction. “We’re letting the judges – and the public – know that the court system is scheming behind the scenes to cut competition and increase costs of construction on this courthouse project.”

Christen points out that the union-exclusive Project Labor Agreement is happening in a city whose citizens are quite educated on the issue of PLAs and who oppose them.

“Staff did so little homework before rushing headlong into this scheme that they failed to even consider the fact they are pushing this PLA in a city that one year ago voted 58% to 42% to ban PLAs.” added Christen. “People here understand what PLAs represent: Higher costs and discrimination.”

The decision of the Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a costly union contracting requirement on the new San Diego Central Courthouse is particularly surprising, because this proposed project has been substantially reduced in size and function to reduce the cost.

“Even the internal staff reports acknowledge the danger of increased costs resulting from this union deal,” said Christen. “Something compelled the Administrative Office of the Courts to start guaranteeing work to unions. This does not bode well for the future fiscal responsibility of the state’s judicial system.”

The mailers that CFEC sent out are part of a broader effort to educate the AOC’s Judicial and Facilities Working Group Committees on what is being done in their name, and that it will not pass quietly.

For more information contact Eric Christen at (858) 431-6337 or visit CFEC’s website at www.opencompca.com.

###

Newly Obtained Documents Reveal Which Elected Official Was the Catalyst for the Project Labor Agreement on California High-Speed Rail: Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin

Residents of California’s Central Valley from Merced to Bakersfield are still asking how unions obtained costly monopoly control of the first construction segment of the California High-Speed Rail through a Project Labor Agreement that all contractors must sign as a condition of work. The union requirement was inserted in late December 2012 as Addendum 8 in the bid specifications for the project, without public comment or scrutiny. Here are some of the mysterious circumstances behind this Project Labor Agreement:

  1. The board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority never voted on the Project Labor Agreement or even discussed the concept as a scheduled board item.
  2. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration apparently never approved the Project Labor Agreement, even though it awarded a American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Obama stimulus package) grant in 2010 of $2,552,556,231 for construction of the first segment.
  3. No local elected officials in the Central Valley have taken responsibility or credit for the Project Labor Agreement; in fact, elected officials either express opposition to the Project Labor Agreement or avoid mentioning it.
  4. The head of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California was on the board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority while Fresno civic leaders developed a local hiring program that eventually transformed into a union agreement.
  5. A select group of professional staff and appointed officials in Fresno seemed to be the driving force for the Project Labor Agreement, and they developed the policy and made the decisions without accountability to the people.

Today I obtained several documents through my California Public Records Act request to the Fresno County Workforce Investment Board. These documents reveal that agitation for a Project Labor Agreement was coming from the Fresno Works consortium, described on its web site as an unprecedented coalition of officials from the County of Fresno, City of Fresno and the Council of Fresno County Governments, working together with the education, labor and business communities to ensure the success of the California High-Speed Rail initiative and its heavy maintenance facility in Fresno County. This group has come together in support of this effort to bring forward a technically responsive and compelling expression of interest in locating the heavy maintenance facility in Fresno County.”

Somehow a lobbying effort to get the California High-Speed Rail Authority to place the highly-coveted Heavy Maintenance Facility in Fresno was used as the agent to get unions a Project Labor Agreement for construction of the Madera to Fresno segment of the rail line. One of the organizations listed in the consortium is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and the photo on the home page shows local union officials standing in the background. As noted below, Chuck Riojas, the head of the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local No. 100, spoke before the board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority in November 2012 about a proposed targeted hiring program that became the Project Labor Agreement.

The other individual who seems to play a prominent role in the process to get a Project Labor Agreement is Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, who had run for mayor in 2008 and was re-elected in 2012 with a platform of supporting fair and open competition on city construction projects. Mayor Swearengin had worked extensively with unions when she was the top executive for the Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative, and during that time union officials tried to use the Regional Jobs Initiative as an agent to recommend policies to local governments that favored unions for public works construction. (See documents concerning a 2005 controversy at the Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative concerning apprenticeship requirements.) Her June 2012 letter to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation asking for comments about a Project Labor Agreement ended up being a centerpiece of the process to implement it.

June 19, 2012 letter from Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearingen to DOT Secretary Ray LaHood - California High-Speed Rail Project Labor Agreement

Here are summaries of the documents leading to a Project Labor Agreement on the first segment of California’s High-Speed Rail:

The Acting Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) sent a letter dated January 6, 2012 to the Chief Counsel of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. It opened with this opinion:

This letter is in response to your request for the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) views of the proposal described in the September 8, 2011 Memorandum to the Fresno Works Consortium (Memorandum) from the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board (FRWIB) staff recommending that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) implement a “Targeted Unemployed Worker” Program and “First Source” transparency requirements for the California High Speed Rail Project (Project) funded in part by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). For the reasons set out below, we have concluded that while not specifically precluded as a matter of applicable Federal law, the “Targeted Unemployed Worker” Program conflicts with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) – and FRA’s – general disapproval of local or in-state geographic preferences because of the potential negative impacts on open and competitive procurement procedures.

Meanwhile, an unrelated federal review of a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement for regional highway construction in Southern California would become a key justification for a Project Labor Agreement on the California High-Speed Rail. The Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sent a letter dated February 7, 2012 to the Chief Administrative Services Officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA).

The letter indicated that the federal agency reviewed the LACMTA’s Project Labor Agreement and its associated “Construction Careers Policy” and concluded that the LACMTA would not violate the federal requirement that federal grant recipients “conduct federally assisted procurements using full and open competition.” The board of the LACMTA had already approved the Project Labor Agreement and Construction Careers Policy at its January 26, 2012 meeting. A group closely aligned with unions called LAANE (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy) had worked with Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas to impose this union requirement on all significant transportation projects in the county. The head of the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local No. 11 is on the board of directors for LAANE.

In a memorandum to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the California High Speed Rail Authority dated March 21, 2012, Blake Konczal – the co-chairman of the Education Committee of the Fresno Works Consortium and the executive director of the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board – proposed a set of revised “Targeted Unemployed Worker” Hire Criteria and “First Source” Transparency Requirements. In its list of proposed requirements, the proposal included these references to unions:

A mandate that to the extent that said jobs will be drawn from organized labor, that such hiring criteria also be reflective of union apprenticeship requirements.

Coordination with unions. The Contractor(s) and their sub- contractors that have an agreement with a construction union shall use the following procedures and shall inform each relevant union of these requirements:

While these provisions do not indicate that unions will be the sole source of construction trade labor, the proposal includes a reference to a Project Labor Agreement:

d. If a project labor agreement is negotiated to cover this project, such an agreement shall include a provision requiring the parties to adhere to this Targeted Unemployed Worker Program. The Contractor(s) and their subcontractors shall promptly notify the CA-HSRA of any union that fails or refuses to refer Targeted Unemployed Workers and/or Disadvantaged Workers for construction jobs on this project.

So when this memo was written, the idea was circulating in Fresno to require construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of working on the California High-Speed Rail project. And at some time between March 21, 2012 and June 19, 2012, Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin learned that the U.S. Department of Transportation had declared that the Project Labor Agreement for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority did not violate federal laws. In a June 19 letter to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Mayor Swearengin wrote the following comments:

it has come to my attention that Mr. Dorvel R. Carter, Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration, approved language put forward by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Administration (sic) (LACMTA) and the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council which is very similar to the Fresno Works targeted hiring program. This language focuses on establishing targeted hiring criteria in project labor agreements…we have modified our initial proposal to more closely comport with the LACMTA language that has been approved by USDOT-FTA and respectfully request that USDOT work with us to institute this revised proposed, the “National Targeted Hiring Program,” for the Initial Construction Section of the California High Speed Rail program…I look forward to discussing it with you and your team at your earliest convenience.

Copies of Mayor Swearengin’s letter calling for the Project Labor Agreement were sent to Fresno County Supervisors Susan Anderson and Henry R. Perea and California High-Speed Rail Authority board members Dan Richard and Tom Richards, who is listed as the chairman of the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board and is also the chairman and CEO of The Penstar Group, a Fresno-based real estate investment, development and construction company. Presumably this letter would have alerted them to the proposed Project Labor Agreement, although they probably already knew that a Project Labor Agreement was in the works.

Obviously the Obama Administration works quickly when unions are involved. A letter sent from the head of the Federal Railroad Administration at “Secretary LaHood’s request” dated June 29, 2012 assures Mayor Swearengin that “we would respect the choices of CHSRA in adopting a variation of a targeted hiring program so long as the program is consistent with the California state procurement policies and procedures that CHSRA uses in the expenditure of its non-Federal funds.” The letter also expressed some concerns:

We are happy to work with CHSRA to examine the revisions to the targeted hiring program and the program advanced by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Administration’s (LACMTA) and approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). One distinction I note is that LACMTA, as a local government entity, is covered by 49 C.F.R. §18.36(b) through (i) while CHSRA, as a state entity, is governed by§ 18.36(a). Additionally, FRA looks forward to reviewing any final findings or recommendations resulting from the CHSRA subcommittee study of the Fresno Works proposal and CHSRA’s proposal for adopting a targeted hiring program in implementing the HST project.

The general counsel for the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board then sent a memorandum dated August 8, 2012 to the executive director of the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board summarizing a proposed “National Targeted Hiring Program” that would pass muster with the federal government. He notes the following:

The legality of the National Targeted Hiring Program is further evidenced by the U.S. D.O.T. Federal Transit Administration’s prior approval of a similar hiring program included in a project labor agreement proposed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”). The LACMTA’s project labor agreement included contractor requirements nearly identical to those proposed in the Fresno Works National Targeted Hiring Program.

In summary, the general counsel of the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board uses two letters as the basis to declare to the general counsel of the California High-Speed Rail Authority that the Fresno Works Consortium’s National Targeted Hiring Program is legal: (1) the Federal Transit Administration’s February 7, 2012 letter to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority about the acceptability of the Project Labor Agreement and (2) the U.S. Department of Transportation’s June 29, 2012 letter to Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin.

Notice three things at this stage of the development of the Project Labor Agreement:

  1. The Federal Railroad Administration never explicitly approved the Project Labor Agreement. The national office of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) realized this and sent a letter dated January 17, 2013 to the head of the Federal Railroad Administration asking for more information. A letter back to ABC from the Federal Railroad Administration dated March 26, 2013 stated that “We have received CHSRA’s analysis demonstrating that the proposed CBA is consistent with California’s procurement practices and policies and is otherwise consistent with state law” and also that “FRA understands the CHSRA is evaluating whether the HST project meets the criteria established in the Executive Order.”
  2. The union Project Labor Agreement itself is mentioned only in passing, even though by this time it is to be the vehicle for any alleged efforts to hire any “targeted” workers.
  3. The hiring policy no longer focuses on employment opportunities for workers in the Central Valley, where the construction will be performed.

According to the transcript of the November 14, 2012 meeting of the board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the executive director of the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board – speaking on behalf of the Fresno Works Consortium – made a presentation in conjunction with Chuck Riojas, a union official with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local No. 100. Blake Konczal told the following to the board:

…we were able to find out the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority in working with the Federal Transit Administration rather was addressing the same question. And through the Chief Legal counsel at FTA, at the Transit Administration, a man by the name of Dorvel Carter, an opinion was put forward that said it was possible to have focused or targeted hiring for areas of high long-term unemployment nationally. We were able to get ahold of the legal reasoning that went into that opinion. And through elected representatives in Fresno, a request was put forward to the Secretary of Transportation LaHood that it seemed that what the FTA was granting to Los Angeles County Transit was what the FRA was denying in our request. So Secretary LaHood asked there be a unified federal policy across the different administrations and we were able to generate a revised positive findings from Federal Rail Administration legal counsel Melissa Porter. I should mention the letters I’m referencing, I have copies if you want all went them. I can give them to you. We were ecstatic. We found a policy. We revised our policy to comport with the language that Los Angeles County had submitted and been analyzed. And then we communicated that information back to your Board.

Mr. Konczal does not mention how “we were able to find out” about the letter from the Federal Transit Administration to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Commission about the acceptability of the Project Labor Agreement. (Communication among officials of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers might be a good guess.) Nor does he name Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin as the local elected official who sent the inquiry to the U.S. Department of Transportation about using the language of that Project Labor Agreement for the California High-Speed Rail.

Mr. Konczal also added the following:

And to be clear up front and to clear up any misconception about what we’re proposing, we are not recommending a local hire program. We are not mandating the Authority or its contractors hire on the basis of any geographical region.

He is correct – the Project Labor Agreement subsequently included in the bid specifications for the Madera to Fresno segment as Addendum 8 is not a local hire program. Other than one passing reference in the preamble, there is nothing mentioned about Central Valley residents getting jobs. It is a UNION hire program, so it’s not surprising that Mr. Konczal introduced a representative of the unions to speak:

MR. KONZCAL: If I could ask Chuck Riojas to come up from the local IBEW also with the Fresno, Madera, Tulare, Kings – I think that’s all of them – Building Trades Council.

Mr. Riojas then talks about union apprenticeship programs and pre-apprenticeship programs. He claims he’s “here not to speak as a union electrician” and that “This isn’t I’d like to stress a union or non-union document” because it would give “people the opportunity to come into the respective apprenticeship programs, be it union or non-union in any apprenticeable craft.” This is not true, of course: Article 1.2 of the Project Labor Agreement specifies that apprentices shall be registered and participating in Joint Labor/Management Apprenticeship Programs.

And in fact California High-Speed Rail Authority chairman Dan Richard concludes discussion of the proposal by noting “there had been a lot of very positive discussions with the construction trades, the represented union, and making sure that this program dovetails with what is the normal course of business there.” He has no qualms about the union requirements.

At their December 6, 2012 meeting, the board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority approved a “Community Benefits Policy” that contained no references to a Project Labor Agreement. That policy was then incorporated internally and administratively into the Project Labor Agreement with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, which was added to bid specifications in late December 2012.

Here are questions that remain to be answered:

  1. Is the Project Labor Agreement for California High-Speed Rail actually acceptable to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration?
  2. Did Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin know that she was submitting an inquiry to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation asking about the acceptability of a union Project Labor Agreement for the California High-Speed Rail? Why did she help the effort to give unions a monopoly on this project?
  3. Is there a connection between the quest of the Fresno Works Consortium for a Project Labor Agreement and the quest of the Fresno Works Consortium to get Fresno selected as the site for the California High-Speed Rail Heavy Maintenance Facility?
  4. Why is there so little overt involvement of the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors and staff in the development of the hiring policy? Was this to avoid an apparent conflict of interest involving the board member who was head of the state’s construction unions? Or are there reasons not yet known that might be troubling to the public if revealed?
  5. To what extent did Fresno-based California High-Speed Rail Authority board member Tom Richards know about the union Project Labor Agreement?
  6. Who tipped off the Fresno Works Consortium that it should adopt the Project Labor Agreement and associated Construction Careers policy implemented at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority?
  7. Does this process build public confidence in California High-Speed Rail?
Background and Sources:

Project Labor Agreement for California High-Speed Rail

Analysis of the Phony Community Benefits and Other Provisions in the Union Project Labor Agreement for the First Segment of California’s High-Speed Rail – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – January 11, 2013

Community Benefits Policy for California High-Speed Rail

Project Labor Agreement for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Construction Careers Policy for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board (FRWIB) Board of Directors

Fresno Works Consortium

Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin

January 6, 2012 Federal Railroad Administration Letter – California High-Speed Rail – Targeted Hiring

March 21, 2012 Fresno Works Consortium Revised Targeted Hiring Program for California High-Speed Rail

June 19, 2012 Letter from Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin to Federal Railroad Administration – Inquiry on Applying Project Labor Agreement to California High-Speed Rail

June 29, 2012 Letter from Federal Railroad Administration to Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin on Targeted Hiring Program for California High-Speed Rail

August 8, 2012 Legal Analysis for Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board of California High-Speed Rail Targeted Hiring Program

Transcript of November 14, 2012 Board Meeting for California High-Speed Rail Authority – Hints of Project Labor Agreement

January 17, 2013 Letter from Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) National Office to Federal Railroad Administration on California High-Speed Rail Project Labor Agreement

March 26, 2013 Letter from Federal Railroad Administration to Associated Builders and Contractors on California High-Speed Rail Project Labor Agreement

April 11, 2013 Letter from Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board – Public Documents – Process Leading to Project Labor Agreement on California High-Speed Rail

California High-Speed Rail Authority Keeps Union Deal Out of Public Forums – my article in www.FlashReport.org – February 10, 2013

www.CaliforniaHighSpeedRailScam.com – your centralized source for key information about the debacle that is the California High-Speed Passenger Train for the 21st Century.

California’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee Rejects Proposed Audit of California High-Speed Rail Project

Nicole Goehring, Government Affairs Director of the Northern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, just provided me with this report (below) about Assemblywoman Diane Harkey‘s failed proposal to the California’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Senate web site, Assembly web site) at its March 13, 2013 meeting to audit the $68-203 billion California High-Speed Rail Project, the most expensive public works project in history.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is requiring construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California as a condition of working on the first construction segment from Madera to Fresno.

Read Assemblywoman Harkey’s request for audit here: 2013-105: Audit Request of California High-Speed Rail Authority – Construction Package 1. It states the following motivation:

Ensuring that the Authority has proper policies, protocols, and resources in place to manage its contractors prior to breaking ground is critical for protecting passenger safety and controlling costs. Missteps during this early planning period could imperil the project for decades with defective construction, expensive litigation, massive cost overruns and lengthy project delays. An active and prominent role for the State Auditor during these crucial months could ultimately save lives and billions of taxpayer dollars.

The request was co-signed by numerous Republican state legislators (including Dan Logue, whose signature was added late and is not on the version linked above).

ABC Northern California Testifies in Favor of California High Speed Rail Audit in the Joint Legislative Audit Committee

From: Nicole Goehring, Government Affairs Director, Northern California Chapter, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)

On March 13, I attended the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) meeting. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee is statutorily charged with ascertaining facts and making reports and recommendations to the Legislature concerning the State, its agencies, departments and political subdivisions of the State. In carrying out these duties, the JLAC reviews requests for audits from any of the 120 members of the Legislature and approves those requests that are a good use of the resources of the State Auditor.

Six audits were on the meeting agenda for consideration. The committee approved the first two audits without objection: Salton Sea Restoration fund and Military Veterans Employment. Then came Assemblywoman Harkey’s request for an audit of the California High Speed Rail Project, specifically the contracting practices authority given to California High Speed Rail Authority Executive Director Jeff Morales, risk management practices, and land acquisition for the California High-Speed Rail project.

Assemblywoman Harkey said that the California High Speed Rail Authority would spend $1.1 million per day on the project when the land acquisition starts. In addition, the California High-Speed Rail Authority still has not presented a business plan.

Senator Cathleen Galgiani and committee chairman (Assemblyman) Adam Gray objected to the proposed audit because two audits were previously approved in 2009 and 2011. They questioned what could be learned from another audit. Assemblyman Tim Donnelly spoke strongly in favor of the audit. He said the project needs a permanent chaperone and this particular use of public funds needs to be audited every step of the way.

Paul Guerrero from the Associated Professionals and Contractors of California and I spoke in favor of the audit. I also spoke against the government-mandated Project Labor Agreement that contractors must sign with unions to work on Construction Package 1. My testimony can be heard 1:17:47 into the hearing.

Speaking in opposition to the audit – and in favor of Project Labor Agreements – were Cesar Diaz from the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California; Scott Wetch representing the California Coalition of Utility Employees, California State Association of Electrical Workers, and Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers; Keith Dunn of the Association for California High Speed Trains (representing design, engineering, and construction management firms); and a representative from Our Train: Young Voters for California High-Speed Rail.

In the end, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee rejected (on an 8-3 party-line vote – Democrats opposed, Republicans in support) Assemblywoman Diane Harkey’s request for an audit of the California High-Speed Rail Project.

I will note that the rejection of this audit request is consistent with the comments of Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal at the February 26, 2013 high-speed rail oversight hearing claiming that there was no interest in rehashing old controversies. Supporters of the project are intent on portraying the numerous problems with the project as resolved and in the past.

Opponents of CEQA Reform Cite New Study with Union Connections (Who Wrote It, Who Paid for It?) – My Article in www.UnionWatch.org

My article Opponents of CEQA Reform Cite New Study with Union Connections was posted on www.UnionWatch.org on March 12, 2013. Here’s the introduction:

A broad coalition opposing any changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) held a press conference today (March 12, 2013) that included the findings of a newly-released study, The Economic and Environmental Impact of the California Environmental  Quality Act.

The study was written by a University of Utah professor with a long history of academic work biased toward the construction union agenda. It was funded by the union-affiliated California Construction Industry Labor-Management Cooperation Trust. Study results were summarized at the press conference by Bob Balgenorth, chairman of the California Construction Industry Labor Management Cooperation Trust and the former head of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

Read the full article here: Opponents of CEQA Reform Cite New Study with Union Connections

Bill Introduced in State Senate to Suppress Authority of California’s Charter Cities to Establish Their Own Policies on Government-Mandated Construction Wage Rates

California State Senate Majority Leader Darrell Steinberg issued a press release on February 19, 2013 announcing the introduction of Senate Bill 7, which would impose a financial disincentive on any of California’s 121 charter cities that establish their own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates (so-called “prevailing wages”). See Bi-Partisan Bill by State Senators to Require Prevailing Wage Jobs in California Charter Cities.

At least 53 of the 121 charter cities in California establish their own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates, with 43 of them providing for a complete exemption. (See page 18 of this guidebook and add two for Newport Beach and Bakersfield.)

Most recently, the charter city of Newport Beach established its own policy concerning government-mandated construction wage rates in January 2013, and the charter city of Bakersfield established its own policy concerning government-mandated construction wage rates in October 2012.

(For more details, see Newport Beach Is Latest California Charter City to Establish Its Own Prevailing Wage Policy: 7-0 Unanimous Vote for Fiscal Responsibility and Common Sense and Bakersfield Becomes Latest of California’s 121 Charter Cities to Free Itself from Government-Mandated Construction Wage Rates – So-Called “Prevailing Wage”)

In July 2012, the California Supreme Court (in State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista) upheld a longstanding practice among charter cities to use their local authority to implement their own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates (so-called “prevailing wages”). These policies can apply to public works projects receiving public funding only from the city or private projects receiving public assistance with monetary value that only comes from the city.

State-mandated construction wage rates can be 5%-30% higher than actual market wages in a locality, depending on the geographic region and the trade. Under current state law, the state does not conduct surveys of contractors or workers to determine “prevailing wages.” Instead, the California Division of Labor Statistics and Research collects union collective bargaining agreements, adds up all of the employer payments in the agreements (including payments to trust funds that are not employee wages or fringe benefits), and declares the total to be the prevailing wage.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (an umbrella lobbying group for construction unions) detests charter cities that establish their own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates. Unions want all local governments to submit to state law, which imposes these political demands of unions (1) broadly define public works to encompass many private projects; and (2) calculate so-called prevailing wage rates using union collective bargaining agreements.

Construction unions have also aggressively opposed proposed charters and have recently stopped movements for charters in Elk Grove, Redding, Rancho Palos Verdes, Auburn, Costa Mesa, Escondido, and Grover Beach.

For a comprehensive, authoritative guide to the status of policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates in California’s 121 charter cities, see Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate (“Prevailing Wage”) Exemptions?

Also, see general information about Charter Cities from the League of California Cities.