Pla Union Agreement

On February 6, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13502 entitled “Use of the Project Working Agreement for Federal Construction Projects.” This Order encourages executive agencies to consider using LPAs for major federal direct construction projects (defined as a project with a total cost of $25 million or more). In particular, Article 3 allows authorities to require the use of an APL in federal contracts if such use is: “… (i) promote the interest of the Federal Government in achieving the effectiveness and efficiency of federal public procurement, in creating stability in the management of work and in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations relating to safety and health, equal employment opportunities, labour and employment standards and other matters, and (ii) to comply with the law. “Under its terms, section 3 applies only to federal contracts, and not to contracts awarded under federal financial assistance programs. With respect to projects that receive federal financial assistance, section 5 states that “this Order does not require an organization to use a project employment contract for a construction project, nor does it preclude the use of a project employment contract in circumstances not covered by the Order, including leases and projects that receive federal financial assistance. Project employment contracts generally require contractors to grant union officials monopolistic bargaining privileges over all workers; use exclusive union recruitment rooms; requiring workers to pay contributions to keep their jobs; and pay above-average prices resulting from lavish working rules and feather bedding. Article 7.01. – For unions that have a recruitment room or placement system in their local agreements, the employer agrees to be bound by this system and it is used exclusively by the employer. Using a project employment contract typically results in cost overruns and higher construction costs for taxpayers. Skilled, non-unionized contractors who wish to bid cheaper and workers who wish to work in a non-unionized manner will be excluded from the project.

However, politicians and government officials continue to enforce project employment contracts to reward union officials who fund their political campaigns and keep them in power. The bridge was built under an employment contract (PLA) for a family support project. Project employment contracts (LPAs) are pre-employment collective agreements that set out the terms and conditions of employment for one or more construction projects. They are often used by municipalities, contractors and unions to ensure the successful completion of projects. The $240 million project was completed on time and on budget. The project has also created hundreds of well-paying local jobs and provided a variety of benefits to affected workers, businesses and communities. Another point of discussion is the proportion of construction workers unionized. According to opponents, LPAs require contractors to hire their workers through unions,[66] and unionized workers are the majority of those working on PLA projects, although non-unionized workers make up the majority of construction workers.

[56] Estimates of the percentage of non-unionized construction workers led by pla opponents are about 85%[67], based on figures from the United States. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics[68] and more recent data put this figure at 86.9%. [69] This figure is disputed by PLA supporters, who argue that the figures given by LPA opponents are misleading and based on census data that include an overly broad concept of construction worker. [70] According to a 2010 Cornell University study cited by Mary Vogel, executive director of the Construction Institute, 60% of construction occupations in Massachusetts are unionized. [71] Since its founding in 1998, the Construction Institute, a non-profit organization, has been dedicated to the needs of Massachusetts` unionized construction industry. The agreements have been used in the United States since the 1930s and were debated in the 1980s to be used for publicly funded projects. In these cases, government agencies have made the signing of LPAs a condition for working on taxpayer-funded projects. This type of PLA, known as a government-mandated PLA, is different from a PLA voluntarily entered into by contractors for public or private works – as permitted by the NLRA – as well as a PLA ordered by a private entity for a privately funded construction project. Executive orders issued since 1992 have impacted the use of state-mandated APLs for federal construction projects, and the most recent executive order issued by President Barack Obama in February 2009 encourages their use by federal agencies. A number of groups oppose the use of LPAs and argue that the agreements discriminate against non-unionized contractors and do not improve efficiency or reduce the cost of construction projects.

Studies on LPAs have mixed results, with some studies concluding that LPAs have positive effects, while others conclude that agreements increase costs and can have a negative impact on entrepreneurs and non-unionized workers. Despite the fact that the vast majority of ABC member companies have their own benefit plans, LPAs require Merit Shop contractors to pay their employees` health and pension benefits to union trust funds, even if their employees – if they are allowed to use their existing employees – will never benefit from these dues unless they join a union and/or comply with the union`s blocking plans. the Plan. […] Large corporations continue to pressure federal agencies to order anti-competitive and expensive project employment contracts (APLs) for large federal construction projects, even if they are not in the […] Article 6.01 – The Employer recognizes the unions that have signed this Agreement as the sole and exclusive bargaining representatives with respect to rates of pay, hours of work and other conditions of employment for the job classifications contained in the relevant local union agreements and Annexes A for this project. LPAs are usually negotiated exclusively by construction unions and a project owner or owner`s representative (officials often blindly accept an APL without reviewing the final contract), but the agreement actually exists between the contractors (and their subcontractors) and the unions. […] Labor bosses and supporters of government-hired project employment contracts (PLA) often claim that LPAs are the only way to […] A number of women and minority entrepreneur groups oppose project employment contracts[62], arguing that LPAs have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, especially those owned by women and minorities. These groups argue that LPAs are anti-market and discriminatory. [100] [101] In particular, groups, including the National Association of Women Business Owners, expressed opposition to the PLA, and in 1998 a hearing was held in the House of Representatives on the issue of minority groups` resistance to the government-mandated LPAs. [102] The National Black Chamber of Commerce opposes the use of APLs because of the small number of black union members in the construction industry […].