November 25, 2009
Scott Lehigh
The Boston Globe
Boston, Massachusetts

Dear Mr. Lehigh:

I happened to read a recent column of yours entitled, “The Candidates and the Unions,” and there are a couple of points I would like to address.

First, you make it sound unseemly for a labor union to simply put forth questions to the candidates on specific policy issues that are of utmost importance to their families, their livelihoods, and their communities. How is that somehow wrong or improper? Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t one of the pillars of our democracy the ability of voters to have direct access to candidates for public office and to ask them specific questions concerning the issues and policy ideas of the day in order to make an informed choice on Election Day?

Now, I cannot address many of the issues that you suggest were a part of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO’s candidate questionnaire…with the exception of one. And that is the issue of project labor agreements (PLAs). In describing PLAs you state that “they make it hard for nonunion construction firms to win work on federal projects…” and that they are “…dubious policy.”

I’m curious; how did you come by those conclusions? Did you attempt to gain any sense of balanced insight into this issue, or did you simply re-constitute the talking points that were provided to you by non-union contractors, or their representatives at the Associated Builders and Contractors? I ask this because I am quite certain that if you took the time to investigate the true record of PLAs, you would have reached altogether different conclusions.

First, project labor agreements are prohibited by law from discriminating against any contractor or employee. The fact that non-union construction contractors don’t gain contracts on a PLA job is often because they have made a philosophical decision not to bid at all. Secondly, if you would have looked in your own backyard, you would have found that a substantial number of non-union contractors were awarded contracts on the Boston Harbor clean-up project, which was done under a PLA in a city whose construction market is predominantly unionized.

But, the more important point goes directly to your assertion that PLAs are “dubious” public policy. Again, your lack of understanding of what a PLA is (and more importantly, what it isn’t) is quite unnerving for a person who holds the distinction of being called a “journalist.” So, allow me to assist you in gaining such an understanding.

For federal, state and local agencies looking to invest taxpayer dollars in today’s construction market, they – just like corporations in the private sector – essentially have two distinct business models from which to choose.

The first is a business model that is epitomized by the use of PLAs. It is a business model that offers increase jobsite efficiencies through a 21st century labor-management approach based upon cooperation, harmony and partnership. And it is an approach that ensures that the construction owner will have a steady, LOCAL supply of highly skilled and productive skilled craft professionals – who receive a pay and benefits package reflective of their skill and productivity levels (which, numerous academic studies have shown, actually reduces costs for public agencies – you can view many of these studies by going to www.PLAsWork.org).

Further, the PLA model promotes the development of additional opportunities for local residents – particularly women, minorities and those from traditionally disadvantaged communities – to gain access to career training opportunities in the skilled trades (a critical issue given the significant future needs for skilled craft workers in the United States). I would think that any reasonable person would question whether providing career skill training for traditionally disadvantaged communities is “dubious” policy.

Now, the PLA business model lies in stark contrast to what is known as the “open shop” or “merit shop” business model – whose advocates staunchly believe that contracts in the construction industry ought to be awarded based primarily upon a contractor’s ability to assemble a low-wage, low-skill, oftentimes vulnerable and exploitable, workforce. If you were to set about today to uncover the root source of our nation’s undocumented worker problem…look no further than the non-union construction industry. Upwards of 25% of the American construction workforce today consists of undocumented workers who, most cases, are being victimized and exploited by their employers, and essentially driving down community standards of living for those who choose to work legally in this industry.

Interestingly, the specious arguments that raise against PLAs have been raised repeatedly in public and political forums and have been rejected by the courts in every jurisdiction in which they have been argued. As I mentioned previously, there is a plethora of highly credible academic studies that point to the cost-savings attributed to the utilization of a more highly skilled and productive workforce. And there are a growing number of construction managers and consultants whose experiences have led them to tout the benefits of PLAs for their clients.

The exhaustive reviews of individual PLAs by the courts has made it clear that PLAs, in certain circumstances and upon appropriate review by the government entity, are valid and beneficial to the government and therefore the taxpayer.

But putting all of that aside, probably the best argument for PLAs in the public sector is that they have been utilized for decades in the private sector by large, sophisticated, experienced, and cost-conscious owners, developers, construction managers and contractors, all of whom are driven by a profit motive. They want the best results in the most cost-effective and time-sensitive manner possible. Disney World, the GM Saturn Plant, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, dozens of professional sports stadiums, and all eight of Toyota’s American manufacturing facilities, are but a small example of major private projects that have utilized PLAs.

If Project Labor Agreements continue to be utilized by the profit-oriented private sector, there must be a reason. Clearly, that reason is this: THEY WORK! And if they work for the private sector, they will work for the public sector.

It is time for PLA critics such as yourself to put aside their uneducated, unfounded, emotional, philosophical, and rhetorical pleas and to consider PLAs on a rational, case-by-case basis, as the courts and private sector owners have found to be the most reasonable and responsible approach to the issue.

I would have thought that that was what they teach on the first day at journalism school, no?

Tom Owens
Director of Marketing & Communications
Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
815 16th Street, NW, 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20006