|
|
||
Legislators want to bar mandated union contracts from public projects Date published: 12/29/2011
BY CHELYEN DAVIS Some state legislators want to bar the state from mandating union contracts in public projects. A bill filed for the upcoming 2012 legislative session would specify that a union contract cannot be a required part of any project labor agreement on public works. Another bill, from Del. Bob Marshall, would bar use of state funding for the Dulles Metrorail project if a labor agreement is mandatory. The bills don't bar contractors from voluntarily using union labor. But opponents say the bills are merely ideological anti-union statements that unfairly malign project labor agreements. Del. Tim Hugo, R-Fairfax, one of the sponsors of the broader bill, said it arose from a concern that union agreements could be required on the next phase of the Dulles Metrorail project. The first phase of the project, Hugo said, had a labor agreement in which union agreements were voluntary. But if a project labor agreement is mandatory on the next phase, Hugo said, that could drive up the cost so much that it wouldn't be economically feasible to even finish the project, which would extend Metro service to Dulles airport. He and others are also concerned it could prevent smaller contractors from bidding on the project. "Mandated project labor agreements have been estimated to raise costs by 10 percent to 20 percent or more, with the most egregious example being Boston's 'Big Dig' debacle," said Hugo and Del. Barbara Comstock in a statement about their bill. "This measure will help protect our taxpayers and our constituents. Several Northern Virginia Democratic legislators disagree. In an article posted on a blog called OxRoadSouth, Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax, said project labor agreements just specify training and safety standards for workers. That doesn't require union labor, Petersen wrote. It just benefits it. "Those standards benefit contractors with experienced labor forces," Petersen wrote. "They hurt those contractors who use illegal or untrained labor. The former tend to be unionized. The latter are not." Writing specifically on Marshall's bill, Petersen said the bill targets organized labor. "It's about discrimination, i.e., making sure that union-based firms are not permitted to bid on a Virginia project," he wrote. In a statement posted on his website, Del. David Englin, D-Alexandria, agreed, calling Marshall's bill "nothing but a labor-baiting political move that stands to harm taxpayers, businesses, commuters, and workers alike."
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
|||||||||||||
