Obama hands Unions another WIN

Construction Groups Decry Obama's New Union Friendly Policy for Federal Projects

Advocates for the recession-battered construction industry are lining up to challenge President Obama's new policy backing the use of union labor for large-scale federal construction projects.

The policy, which went into effect Tuesday, encourages federal agencies to have construction contractors
and subcontractors enter project labor agreements (PLAs) for all construction projects larger than $25 million. Those agreements require contractors to negotiate with union officials, recognize union wages and benefits and generally abide by collective-bargaining agreements.

Opponents of the policy are calling it a payoff to unions. They say it will unfairly steer federal construction contracts to unions even though the bulk of U.S. construction workers are not unionized.

"Anti-competitive project labor agreements are special interest kickback schemes that end open, fair and competitive bidding on public projects," Jim Elmer, national chairman of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., said in a written statement. "Government-mandated PLAs are a handout to a politically connected special interest group and come at the taxpayers' expense."

Elmer said the agreements can drive up the cost for public construction by nearly 20 percent while "unfairly discriminating against the more than 85 percent of the U.S. construction workforce that chooses not to join a union."

This administration is trying to get all of its agenda taken care of before Mid Term Elections in November.

Everything this administration is putting out there creates another hurdle to put Americans to work.

Great! This is the type of stuff for which I voted. Nice to see at least some hard working Americans compensated a bit more fairly. Also, working conditions should be safer, no need to see another tragedy like in the non-unionized W. Virginia Massey mine. I hope the administration acts decisively on that issue as well. Keep it up Obama!

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by prionace glauca


If I didn't have union representation I would have no insurance, crappy working conditions, and not be paid anywhere near what my education, apprenticeships and personal effort at mastering my craft is worth. Perhaps if Companies didn't pay their excs. so much with stock options, bonuses etc. there wouldn't be a need for collective bargaining for fair wages on the floor.

Do you suggest that I forgo union representation so I can work for less?

Here's a thought...why don't the stock holders in the company take a little hit on their dividends instead of placing the burden on the people that actually do the work?



[edit on 14-4-2010 by whaaa]