Washington State Project Labor Agreements


With the February 2009 stimulus package, which allocates approximately $140 billion to federal, regional and local construction projects[31] [32] [32] the struggles for government-mandated AEPs for public works projects from 2009 to 2011 are widespread at the state and local level. Government officials and legislators have argued over the use of PLA mandates for projects in states such as Iowa,[33] Oregon,[34] Ohio,[35] California[36] and others. [37] [38] Some municipalities voted to ban the use of mandatory LPOs for taxpayer-funded construction projects, including election initiatives in Chula Vista, Oceanside[39] and San Diego County, California, in 2010, which led to a ban on officials hiring or banning PPPs for government projects. [40] In 2011, contractors filed with the Government Accountability Office against government-mandated PLAs for construction projects in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. These protests led to the departure of federal warrants from tenders. [41] Any contractor or subcontractor, union or union that proposes a project with a PLA is subject to the terms of the agreement that unfairly favour non-union contractors. While TAPs do not directly prohibit non-union and performance-oriented contractors from offering and working on a public project, they effectively eliminate competition because strict requirements in THE AEPs create difficult barriers for non-union contractors to overcome. The application of project-agreements (PLA) to publicly funded construction projects has come under increasing scrutiny as states look for ways to improve efficiency, maximize public value and ensure that taxpayers` money is spent wisely. The PTAs are under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 8 (e) and f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C No.

158 (e) and f) make specific exceptions to other NRL requirements to allow employers to enter into pre-lease agreements with construction unions. [5] On February 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13202, “Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Government Contractors` Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects,” which prohibits the use of PLA for construction projects with federal funds. [21] In that decision, it was said that federally funded construction projects could not impose project work contracts. [22] In practical terms, the decision specifies that neither the federal government nor a federal aid agency can compel or prohibit construction contractors from signing union contracts as a precondition for carrying out work on federally funded construction projects. [21] The contract allowed all previously agreed-upon LASs to proceed and did not result in projects that did not receive federal funding. [23] Bush`s ordinance overturned the previous executive order regarding the PLA, the Clinton Ordinance of 12836, which annulled The Executive Order of President George H.W. Bush in 1992. [16] In April 2001, President George W. Bush issued an amendment to exclude certain drafts from the order if, at the time of the contract, a contract had already been awarded under an existing PLA.

[24] Studies have shown that PLA project owners and local communities have advantages and penalize contractors and non-union workers. A 2009 study by Fred B. Kotler, J.D., associate director of Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, found that there was no evidence that PMAs discriminate pending employers and workers, limit the number of bidders and increase construction costs. [110] In a 2009 report by Dale Belman of Michigan State University; Matthew M.

Comments are closed.