- Egypt rights center raided, 2 Mubaraks acquitted
- New Mexico Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage constitutional
- Blame Bush: 5 years later, that’s still the mantra, pollsters find
- Dutch prostitutes demand same retirement benefits as soccer stars
- John McCain to Harry Reid: I’ll ‘kick the crap’ out of you
- Dogs that talk: Researchers seek $10K for ‘No More Woof’ technology
- 1,000 firefighters called to battle stubborn Big Sur wildfire
- Black Friday brouhaha: Millions of Target shoppers hit by credit card theft
- Britain orders airplane to rescue citizens from violent South Sudan
- Mega Millions winner emerges as Georgia mom, in ‘disbelief’
Obama puts union strings on federal jobs
Question of the Day
Delivering on President Obama’s promise to boost the labor movement, the administration has announced a $35 million federal construction project in New Hampshire that requires union representation for the workers and forces nonunion employees to pay dues and contribute to a union pension fund.
Mr. Obama issued an executive order in the first weeks of his presidency that would make the requirement, known as a “project labor agreement” or PLA, the norm for all government contracts on large-scale construction jobs. The order is under review and a final rule is not expected for months, but that did not stop the Labor Department from rushing to use a PLA to build its new Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H.
The PLA executive order replaced a Bush administration order that discouraged the use of such agreements.
It was one in a series of early policy moves by Mr. Obama that has dramatically improved the unions’ fortunes, though the president has not delivered on labor’s top legislative priority, the so-called “card-check” bill that would make it easier to organize workplaces.
Critics say imposing the union-friendly rules on the New Hampshire job - the first federal construction contract with such stipulations since President Clinton was in office - will drive up costs, delay the project and force most of the workers to pay union dues and pension contributions for which they likely will never receive benefits.
North Branch Construction, a Concord, N.H.-based general contractor and member of the business group Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), filed a bid protest this week with the Government Accountability Office, claiming the PLA “unduly restricts competition.”
“PLAs are special-interest handouts that deny taxpayers the accountability they deserve from government contracts,” said Ken Holmes, president of North Branch Construction.
Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, said the scarcity of local unionized workers and a separate requirement that contractors must have completed three previous successful PLA projects to qualify to bid will essentially prevent local firms from competing for the Manchester project.
“The administration’s decision to discriminate against successful and independent construction firms simply because New Hampshire employees choose to work in a union-free workplace and not bow down to the demands of Big Labor is extremely unfair to our state,” the senator said, calling on the administration to revoke the PLA.
“In a time of economic hardship, it is simply absurd to discriminate against local contractors and construction workers for the benefit of national labor unions,” he added.
Union officials argue that PLAs, which incorporate collective bargaining agreements into the contract, ensure the construction companies hire highly skilled workers and pay them fair wages.
“Rather than all the money going to the contractor profit, a fair share goes into the worker’s paycheck,” said Greg Denier, communications director for Change to Win, a coalition of unions that includes the Laborers’ International Union of North America.
Brett McMahon, vice president of business development for Miller & Long Co. Inc., the country’s largest concrete subcontractor and the largest employer of construction workers in the Mid-Atlantic region, argued that it was the unions that are exploiting the workers.
“In order to go to work, you have to pay for it,” Mr. McMahon said.
He said that unless the workers join a union, they would not be expected to accumulate enough consecutive hours on union jobs to become vested in the pension plan. The money paid into the plan would then be forfeited to the fund.
About the Author
Steven A Miller
- Massachusetts 'tossup' threatens Obama agenda
- Weiner blasts health care 'negotiation'
- Democrats chart dim midterm course
- McCain slams court decision
- Kaine: GOP 'civil war' ace in hole
Latest Blog Entries
By Michael P. Orsi
Edward Snowden should declare his patriotism in court
- Citing 'unfair system,' Obama commutes sentences for 8 crack offenders
- Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Bill Gates: The Secret Santa disguised as a 'friendly fellow' on Reddit
- Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting
- Obamacare 'pajamas boy' gets roundly mocked
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Special ops vets slam military benefit cuts
- Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson suspended indefinitely for gay quip
- BOLTON: Nero in the White House
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Southern Fried Politics from the Lens of a Persian-American Millennial
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Paul Rondeau exposes the propaganda, media tricks, and government policies that undermine our families, faith, freedom…and even life itself
Implement these actionable tips, how-to’s and best practices in 10 minutes or less to leverage online communications and technology for brand, business and career development.
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow