Home » News » Politics
June 04. 2012 11:22PM
Union-friendly bidding nixed on Jobs Corps Center in city
MANCHESTER — Federal officials have decided to drop a requirement that bids to build the long-delayed $35 million Job Corps Center in Manchester contain a union-friendly project-labor agreement.
The decision came two months after three New Hampshire-based construction companies filed a challenge to the requirement.
The Obama administration has ordered that project-labor agreements be considered for any federal construction project that exceeds $25 million. But contractors and their organizations have successfully challenged such requirements on several projects, including the Job Corps Center.
A project labor agreement outlines workplace rules such as wages and benefits, safety, apprenticeships and work stopages. It usually requires construction companies to turn to local union halls for workers.
Republican congressmen from New Hampshire hailed the decision, but a New Hampshire labor official said union trades workers are frustrated and disappointed by the decision.
“PLAs bloat the cost of government construction projects, sticking taxpayers with a bigger bill,” said Rep. Frank Guinta, R-N.H, in prepared remarks. “They funnel tax dollars into union pockets and quash a level playing field, which is a requirement for free enterprise to succeed.”
New Hampshire AFL-CIO President Mark MacKenzie envisioned problems on the job site. He said he wants federal labor officials to enforce labor laws, such as proper classification of workers.
“I guarantee there’ll be out-of-state workers on the project. I guarantee there’ll be problems with pay rates,” MacKenzie said.
A U.S. Labor Department official, speaking on background, said the Labor Department would have preferred a project-labor agreement. But the department decided to drop the matter to avoid litigation-related delays.
A recommendation was made by a team of Labor Department lawyers and construction experts and ultimately approved by Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis.
“Our main priority was to make sure this project started this year,” he said. The project has been delayed since 2009 because of challenges to the requirement.
The Labor Department plans to prepare new bid solicitation documents as soon as possible, the official said.
U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said the requirement would have favored out-of-state contractors and workers, rather than New Hampshire companies. Some estimates place the percentage of New Hampshire contractors at less than 10 percent.
“Under a PLA, New Hampshire’s overwhelmingly non-union construction workforce would potentially be prevented from getting hired. That’s why reissuing the solicitation without a PLA is so important,” Ayotte said.
But MacKenzie said that a project labor agreement would have guaranteed that New Hampshire workers got hired by funneling the contractor to union halls. Without a project labor agreement, no such requirement will be in place, he said.
“We would have liked to have seen workers and contractors come from New Hampshire. I think we missed a terrific opportunity here,” he said. He noted that a consultant had earlier determined that a project-labor agreement was justified.
He said building trades workers, whom labor is relying on to help in the Obama reelection effort, are frustrated. He doesn’t know what effect it will have on their willingness to mobilize for the election.
“We’ll have to see how it turns out,” he said.
The Associated Builders and Contractors said the Department of Labor made the decision May 31, after the Government Accountability Office indicated it would likely sustain the complaints filed by the three contractors.
The organization has supported protests that led to the removal of project labor agreements for a General Services Administration procurement in Washington; a U.S. Army project in Camden, N.J.; a Veterans Affairs project in Pittsburgh; and twice on the New Hampshire Job Corps Center.
The decision came two months after three New Hampshire-based construction companies filed a challenge to the requirement.
The Obama administration has ordered that project-labor agreements be considered for any federal construction project that exceeds $25 million. But contractors and their organizations have successfully challenged such requirements on several projects, including the Job Corps Center.
A project labor agreement outlines workplace rules such as wages and benefits, safety, apprenticeships and work stopages. It usually requires construction companies to turn to local union halls for workers.
Republican congressmen from New Hampshire hailed the decision, but a New Hampshire labor official said union trades workers are frustrated and disappointed by the decision.
“PLAs bloat the cost of government construction projects, sticking taxpayers with a bigger bill,” said Rep. Frank Guinta, R-N.H, in prepared remarks. “They funnel tax dollars into union pockets and quash a level playing field, which is a requirement for free enterprise to succeed.”
New Hampshire AFL-CIO President Mark MacKenzie envisioned problems on the job site. He said he wants federal labor officials to enforce labor laws, such as proper classification of workers.
“I guarantee there’ll be out-of-state workers on the project. I guarantee there’ll be problems with pay rates,” MacKenzie said.
A U.S. Labor Department official, speaking on background, said the Labor Department would have preferred a project-labor agreement. But the department decided to drop the matter to avoid litigation-related delays.
A recommendation was made by a team of Labor Department lawyers and construction experts and ultimately approved by Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis.
“Our main priority was to make sure this project started this year,” he said. The project has been delayed since 2009 because of challenges to the requirement.
The Labor Department plans to prepare new bid solicitation documents as soon as possible, the official said.
U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said the requirement would have favored out-of-state contractors and workers, rather than New Hampshire companies. Some estimates place the percentage of New Hampshire contractors at less than 10 percent.
“Under a PLA, New Hampshire’s overwhelmingly non-union construction workforce would potentially be prevented from getting hired. That’s why reissuing the solicitation without a PLA is so important,” Ayotte said.
But MacKenzie said that a project labor agreement would have guaranteed that New Hampshire workers got hired by funneling the contractor to union halls. Without a project labor agreement, no such requirement will be in place, he said.
“We would have liked to have seen workers and contractors come from New Hampshire. I think we missed a terrific opportunity here,” he said. He noted that a consultant had earlier determined that a project-labor agreement was justified.
He said building trades workers, whom labor is relying on to help in the Obama reelection effort, are frustrated. He doesn’t know what effect it will have on their willingness to mobilize for the election.
“We’ll have to see how it turns out,” he said.
The Associated Builders and Contractors said the Department of Labor made the decision May 31, after the Government Accountability Office indicated it would likely sustain the complaints filed by the three contractors.
The organization has supported protests that led to the removal of project labor agreements for a General Services Administration procurement in Washington; a U.S. Army project in Camden, N.J.; a Veterans Affairs project in Pittsburgh; and twice on the New Hampshire Job Corps Center.