The DNCC’s Sept. 13 request for proposal for construction managers and event architects states that the DNCC will enter into a labor agreement with the construction manager, who will be obligated to ensure that nearly all work at the site be covered by union monopoly bargaining agreements to the “maximum extent possible.”

Republican candidate for Mayor of Charlotte Scott Stone wants to see exactly what is in these agreements.  He issued a letter requesting the DNCC release the actual project labor agreements and also issued a press release on October 26 calling on the  DNC Host Committee to release the project labor agreements that vendors will be required to sign. At a press conference in Charlotte, Stone presented a formal letter addressed to Mayor Foxx and the DNC Host Committee asking for the labor agreements to be made public.

Stone expressed his concern that at a time when other states around the country are outlawing project labor agreements, Charlotte and North Carolina – at the hands of the DNC – are heading toward them and down a slippery slope. “As project labor agreements are going away in Michigan, here in the Right-To-Work state of North Carolina they’re actually popping up.”

August 2011 issue headlines:

Committee Mobilizes Support For Forced-Dues Repeal — House Speaker Urged to Allow Roll-Call Floor Vote on H.R.2040

Still Eager to ‘Strap’ Workers ‘to the Mast’– Ex-Clinton Labor Chief Tramples Truth to Defend Forced Unionism

State After State Rejects Union-Only PLAs — But Obama Administration Continues to Back Anti-Taxpayer Schemes

Recent Right to Work Victories Under Fire — Big Labor Campaigning For Reinstatement of Forced Union Dues

House Jousts With Obama NLRB’s Top Lawyer — But Congress Needs to Do Much More to Curtail Board Abuses

‘Choice to Remain Unrepresented’ Under Attack — Extremist Vision of Obama NLRB Appointee Moves Toward Realization

(Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Back in February 2009, one of the first actions President Barack Obama took after settling in at the White House was to issue Executive Order 13502, which promotes union-only “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on federally funded public works. In April 2010, the Obama Administration issued a “final rule” implementing the order.

“E.O.13502 now pressures federal agencies to acquiesce to PLAs on all large public works,” noted Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“In practice, it is designed to force nonunion companies wishing to participate in public works using $25 million or more in federal funds to impose union monopoly bargaining on their employees and hire new workers through discriminatory union hiring halls.

“Under union-only PLAs, independent workers who already have their own retirement funds are nevertheless forced to contribute to Big Labor-manipulated pension funds.

“Rather than compromise the freedom of their employees and the efficiency of their operations, most independent construction firms simply refuse to submit bids on PLA projects.”

Results of 2010 Elections Raised Hopes of Pro-Right to Work Citizens

Efforts to roll back E.O.13502 legislatively began almost as soon as this edict was issued. And the shellacking voters in state after state gave to Big Labor politicians in the 2010 elections spurred hope among National Right to Work Committee members and other PLA opponents that they were gaining momentum.

However, since the beginning of this year, Right to Work attempts to pass appropriations amendments in the now GOP-controlled U.S. House prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds to enforce E.O.13502 have repeatedly been thwarted by a handful of Big Labor-appeasing GOP congressmen.

The most recent setback for independent hardhats and construction firms occurred last month, as the House considered H.R.2055, the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations (MilCon) Bill for the Fiscal Year 2012.

In May, pro-Right to Work members of the House Appropriations Committee had attached to H.R.2055 an amendment prohibiting imposition of union-only PLAs on military, VA, and other construction funded through this measure.

But on June 13 a clique of 27 GOP congressmen, led by habitual forced-unionism apologist Steven LaTourette (Ohio), joined with 177 Big Labor Democrats to strip the pro-Right to Work provision from H.R.2055.

Although fewer than 12% of the 229 Republicans present and voting on the anti-Right to Work, pro-PLA LaTourette Amendment sided with Big Labor, that was enough for union lobbyists to grab a 204-203 victory.

House Speaker Urged to Hold Big Labor Appeasers’ Feet to the Fire

Mr. Mourad pointed out that ringleader Steven LaTourette and two of the other GOP House members voting for his union-label amendment hail from Ohio, the home state of Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

“As a self-styled foe of PLAs and wasteful government spending in general, Speaker Boehner should be doing everything possible to get appropriations legislation defunding PLAs approved by his chamber,” said Mr. Mourad.

“Public opposition to union-only PLAs is already intense, and growing more so. Ultimately, President Obama and [U.S. Senate Democratic] Majority Leader Harry Reid [Nev.] may decide they don’t want to expend any more of their political capital defending these special-interest schemes.

“But Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid will feel relatively little pressure to end their love affair with PLAs as long as the GOP-controlled House remains incapable of passing anti-PLA legislation!

“I strongly urge the speaker to advise all members of his House caucus, including especially his fellow Ohioans, that there will be significant intra-party repercussions for them if they continue providing cover for Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other union-label Democrats on the PLA issue.”

Mr. Mourad added that National Right to Work members in Ohio and around the country may want to call Speaker Boehner’s office in Washington, D.C., at 202-225-0600 to reinforce the message that a “hands off” approach toward pro-forced unionism GOP congressmen is unacceptable.

The bill protects taxpayers by ensuring that they get the highest quality work at the best possible price. PLAs, on the other hand, force taxpayer to pay inflated union wages often driving up the price of construction by nearly 25%.

In addition, the law demonstrates Louisiana’s commitment to its Right to Work law by guaranteeing that workers are not forced to pay union dues as a condition of accepting a job in Louisiana. This preserves a worker’s choice on whether or not to join or pay dues to a labor union.

We say Amen to that!

The White House said it “strongly opposes” a provision in the House Appropriations Committee’s military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill that would block the administration from encouraging the use of so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs). Such pacts allow government contracts to be awarded exclusively to unionized companies.

The Obama administration says the use of these arrangements “can provide structure and stability to large construction projects,” according to the policy statement. “The coordination achieved through PLAs can significantly enhance the economy and efficiency of Federal construction projects.”

That wording is similar to a February 2009 executive order stating it was the administration’s policy to encourage “executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement.”

The House panel’s language would prohibit future use of that order.

“The vast majority of contractors and their employees — more than 80 percent — have voluntarily opted against unionization,” according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Because most contractors and employees choose to refrain from unionization when they have the free choice, Big Labor turned to politicians to remove that choice and impose union representation on employees from the top down.”

In an apparent shot across the committee’s bow, the White House added that it “strongly opposes inclusion of ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.”

If the provision is included in the final version of the legislation, the administration would oppose it — but the White House stopped short of threatening a veto.

In a letter to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuchinelli, Hugo claimed that the airports authority appears to have violated its own ethics code as well as state conflict-of-interest statutes by allowing board member Dennis Martire, vice president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, to vote for the agreement. Hugo charged that the union Martire represents would “reap a financial windfall” as a result of the agreement, the Washington Examiner reports. “Should MWAA move forward with this ill-advised measure, it will discriminate against nonunion construction firms and the 96 percent of construction workers in Virginia who have chosen to not belong to a union,” Hugo wrote. It will also “discourage competition; and ultimately greatly increase the overall cost of the project.”

Should contractors win the bid, the agreement would require them to provide union wages and benefits and hire union workers even though the construction will take place in Virginia, a right-to-work state — which means an employee can’t be forced to join a union to get a job.

Critics of the labor agreement, citing studies from the Boston-based, free-market think tank Beacon Hill Institute, said it will increase project costs by 12 percent to 18 percent. The cost of the second phase, originally estimated at $2.5 billion, has already jumped by over $1 billion, most of which will be paid by Loudoun and Fairfax counties and Dulles Toll Road users.

In an age of belt-tightening, there is no reason to pay inflated dollars for construction contracts all to please Big Labor.

Big labor threw the kitchen sink in the fight to prevent Republicans from gaining a majority in Congress but there are still two dozen Republican members who seem prepared to carry the water for the union bosses.  

When freshman Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH) offered an amendment to end anti-competitive Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on federal funded projects, 26 Republicans voted against his amendment.  The list of opponents include the usual suspects like Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) — long-time supporters of the big labor.  But shockingly, others like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) and Rep. Thad McCotter (R-MI) voted with the union bosses.  

If Republicans are serious about ending deficits, shutting the spigot of taxpayer dollars to big labor would be a good place to start.  Unfortunately, two dozen Republicans don’t seem to have the fortitude to get the job done

Rather than deal with many of the fiscal issues brought about by unsustainable congressional gifts to Big Government Union Bosses and their private sector Big Labor counterparts, Nancy Pelosi threatens to join the movement for a federal government shutdown.  A shutdown forces all non-essential federal government employees to go home without pay.  (Of course in the past when these “non-essential” employees returned, congress basically paid them for their time-off without a loss in regularly pay or vacation pay.)

It is time for congress to deal with the problem of forced unionism and its costs to society as well as to the future of the American Dream.

From the Politico:

A high-ranking aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told Democratic chiefs of staff that a government shutdown is more likely than not, according to attendees. Speaking at a regular meeting of the top aides to House Democrats, Pelosi’s floor director, Jerry Hartz, offered up his assessment that the odds favor inaction before the government runs out of money, sources said. A shutdown would only happen if the House and Senate can’t reach a deal on the continuing resolution that expires on March 4.

December’s issue contains the following headlines:

Voters Give Forced Unionism a ‘Shellacking’ – But Big Labor Retains Hold Over U.S. Senate, Key State Assemblies

Federal Candidate Survey Mobilizes Millions – Program Maximizes Right to Work Gains in ‘Year of Opportunity’

Obama NLRB to Ignore Mid-Term Election Results – Independent Workers, Firms Face ‘Card-Check Lite’ Implementation

Workers Forced to Bankroll Agenda They Oppose – New Nationwide Poll Shows Union Members Support Right to Work

Iowans Repudiate Pro-Forced Unionism Governor – Right to Work Makes Major Gains in State Legislative Contests

Right to Work: Rx For Job-Losing States – Legislators Look at ‘Oklahoma Model’ For Stronger Economic Growth

Congratulations, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, you just gave Big Labor a $3.3 million tip. Not for exceptional service, mind you. Just for wearing the union label.

As part of the flood of taxpayer cash approved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the federal government has about $140 billion worth of federal and federally assisted construction projects to fund and oversee. Most of us would expect that such projects would be awarded to qualified bidders based on whichever contractor submits a bid delivering to taxpayers the best work at the best price.

But that has not been the case under the Obama administration.

After receiving major political dollars and support from Big Labor, President Obama signed Executive Order 13502 just 16 days after taking office. The order repealed a prior executive order in effect since 2001 that kept the government accountable by prohibiting government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on at least $147.1 billion worth of federal construction projects. It had also ensured fair and open competition on hundreds of billions of dollars of important federally assisted schools, jails, bridges, roads and sewers in communities across the United States.

Now, taxpayers are stuck with an executive order that encourages federal agencies, whenever possible, to require a union-favoring PLA on projects exceeding $25 million in total cost.

Think of a government-mandated PLA as a stimulus package for Big Labor at the expense of taxpayers and the construction industry’s non-union workforce. PLA schemes discourage competition from qualified non-union contractors and ensure that most or all the workforce building the federal project will be union members hired through union hiring halls. Such favoritism steers lucrative federal contracts to unionized contractors and is especially appalling since just 14.5 percent of the U.S. private construction workforce belongs to a labor union.

Unfortunately, this favoritism is going to hit taxpayers in the wallet, as evidenced by the results of a PLA forced on a U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) project in the District of Columbia. On Sept. 14, the GSA awarded a $52.3 million ARRA-funded contract to renovate the Lafayette Building at 811 Vermont Ave NW (which houses, among other entities, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) to a contractor offering a non-PLA bid with the best overall experience at the best price.

But then something shocking happened. Politics trumped responsible governing. On the very same day, the GSA ordered the contractor to make it a union-favoring PLA project. The tab for this change to a special interest handout, in a city where union labor makes up a minority of the industry at just 12 percent, was a cool $3.3 million.

That’s taxpayer money being taken from the U.S. Treasury to benefit Big Labor, one of President Obama’s biggest political supporters. While this rigged public bidding system funneled an additional $3.3 million of taxpayer funds to reward special interests — only a drop in the bucket when you consider all federal construction spending — imagine the skyrocketing costs if more federal agencies are nudged by the White House into using costly federal PLAs. Numerous studies have found that government-mandated PLAs can typically increase construction costs up to 18 percent. Can America really afford four schools, jails and hospitals for the price of five?

(Source: October 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

John Falk, a genial 59-year-old glass worker from Red Lion, Pa., made a five-day trek on foot last month from his home state to Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Falk and the three people who accompanied him — a friend, a fellow worker, and his employer, Debra Zarfoss — walked 89 miles to help mobilize public opposition to federal and state policies that discriminate against union-free employees and businesses.

As Mr. Falk puts it, “We’re not looking for a handout, bailout, or any other special favor. We just want a fair shake.”

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama and most current U.S. congressmen and senators are opposed to letting union-free workers like John Falk compete on a level playing field.

Back in February 2009, one of the first major actions the President took after settling in at the White House was to issue Executive Order 13502, which promotes union-only “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on federally funded public works.

This April, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council published a “final rule” implementing E.O.13502.

‘Job Discrimination Because . . . of a Worker’s Union Membership Is Flat Wrong’

“E.O.13502 pressures federal agencies to acquiesce to PLAs on all large public works,” noted Matthew Leen, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

“That means, until further notice, to participate in public works using $25 million or more in federal funds, nonunion companies will have to consent to impose union monopoly bargaining on their employees and hire new workers through discriminatory union hiring halls.

“Independent workers who already have their own retirement funds will nevertheless be forced to contribute to Big Labor-manipulated pension funds.

“Rather than compromise the freedom of their employees and the efficiency of their operations, most independent construction firms will, in most cases, simply refuse to submit bids on federal projects.”

As Mr. Falk points out, the small firm for which he works, Debra’s Glass, is a case in point. Recently, the company had to back off from bidding on a project at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in New Jersey because submission to a PLA was a precondition.

“Eighty-five percent of the workforce in [Pennsylvania] is not in a union,” said Mr. Falk. ” . . . I just want every American worker to have the equal right to bid for a project.”

For him, the problem with PLAs is very simple: “Job discrimination because of a worker’s color, religious affiliation, or union membership is flat wrong, and it’s got to stop.”

Of course, when a PLA sharply reduces the number of bidders on a project, taxpayers’ bills are invariably jacked up.

Mr. Leen specified: “The nonpartisan, Boston-based Beacon Hill Institute estimates that construction costs will be inflated by at least 12% to 18% on every project that uses a PLA as a result of E.O.13502.”

Battle Likely to Heat up In the 2011-2012 Congress

John Falk and his companions arrived, sore-footed but in high spirits, on Capitol Hill September 21.

They immediately delivered thousands of petitions from freedom-loving citizens around the country who are eager for Congress to pass legislation overturning E.0.13502 and barring discriminatory PLAs on federal taxpayer-funded public works.

“Ever since E.O.13502 was first issued more than a year-and-a-half ago, the Committee has assisted efforts by pro-Right to Work members of Congress to craft and advance legislation revoking this pro-PLA presidential edict,” recalled Mr. Leen.

“In the current Big Labor-controlled Congress, this has been a steeply uphill fight.

“However, if, as recent polls indicate is very possible, Right to Work makes major gains in both chambers of Congress in the November elections, the battle to pass legislation promoting equal competition in federal contracts will intensify in the next Congress.

“Public opposition to union-only PLAs is already intense, and growing more so. Ultimately, even quite a few normally pro-forced unionism members of Congress may decide they don’t want to risk losing their seats by continuing to defend these special-interest schemes.”

It’s no surprise the President touted this idea at the AFL-CIO rally on Labor Day.  This new spending would be another handout and bailout to the labor union bosses and Michelle Malkin understands why

President Obama calls his latest attempt to revive the economy a “Plan to Renew and Expand America’s Roads, Railways and Runways.” I’m calling it “The Mother of all Big Dig Boondoggles.” Like the infamous “Big Dig” highway spending project in Boston, this latest White House infrastructure spending binge guarantees only two results: Taxpayers lose; unions win.

The blunt instrument used to give unions a leg up is the “project labor agreement (PLA),” which in theory sets reasonable pre-work terms and conditions — but in practice, requires contractors to hand over exclusive bargaining control; to pay inflated, above-market wages and benefits; and to fork over dues money and pension funding to corrupt, cash-starved labor organizations. These anti-competitive agreements undermine a fair bidding process on projects that locked-out, nonunion laborers are funding with their own tax dollars. And these PLAs benefit the privileged few at the expense of the vast majority: In the construction industry, 85 percent of the workforce is nonunion by choice.

We don’t need to theorize about how this shakedown works in the real world. Boston’s notorious Big Dig was a union-only construction project thanks to a Massachusetts government-mandated PLA. The original $2.8 billion price tag for the project skyrocketed to $22 billion in state and federal taxpayer subsidies thanks in no small part to ballooning labor costs. In February, the Bay State’s Beacon Hill Institute found that PLAs added 12 percent to 18 percent to school construction costs in Massachusetts and Connecticut. In Washington, D.C., the Department of Veterans Affairs commissioned an independent study showing that PLAs would increase hospital construction costs by as much as 9 percent in some markets.

In short, Obama’s new Union Infrastructure Rescue Plan is a political favoritism scheme that raises the cost of doing business and bars tens of thousands of skilled, nonunion laborers who choose to run open shops from securing work. In the name of patching up America’s highways and byways, Mr. Fix It would create another gaping fiscal sinkhole to appease his special interest donors. Recovery Summer turns to Union Payback Fall.

(Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

If you want to make a Massachusetts taxpayer shudder, just say the words “Big Dig.”

For years now, the “Big Dig,” officially referred to as the Central/Artery Tunnel Project, has been widely recognized as a poorly constructed, extraordinarily expensive boondoggle.

The “Big Dig” tunnel system was conceived in the 1970′s to replace Boston’s aging elevated six-lane Central Artery and improve access to Logan Airport and Boston Harbor. In 1987, Congress voted to furnish federal taxpayer funds, and ground was first broken in 1991.

To the dismay of independent construction employees and firms and Right to Work advocates, Massachusetts politicians announced that the “Big Dig” would be subject to a union-only “project labor agreement” (PLA).

Construction firm owners who wished to bid on the project, whether unionized or union-free, would be forced to impose restrictive union work rules on employees and to fill positions through discriminatory union hiring halls.

In 1991, project managers estimated the “Big Dig” would cost $2.6 billion and take seven years to complete. Thirteen years and nearly $15 billion after ground had been broken, the tunnel system was open, but still not complete.

Then, in November 2004, Boston media outlets reported that the “Big Dig” had experienced 1400 leaks in its tunnel wall as well as a wide array of other costly-to-repair damage.

New Taxpayer-Funded PLA Example of What ‘Makes People Crazy About State Government’

The “Big Dig” finally concluded at the end of 2007. It ended up costing $22 billion, including $7 billion in interest, which won’t be paid off until 2038.

In Massachusetts today, public anger about construction defects, missed deadlines, and enormous cost overruns in the “Big Dig” PLA remains intense enough that it represents a significant problem for 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee Charlie Baker.

During the 1990′s, when Mr. Baker was Massachusetts’ chief budget writer, he supported borrowing an additional $1.5 billion for the “Big Dig.” Bay State taxpayers, who are still paying off that debt, don’t see that as a point in his favor!

However, Charlie Baker is singing a different tune about union-only PLA’s nowadays. In a campaign event last month, he blasted a June 14 decision by University of Massachusetts officials to foist a PLA on $750 million (at least) in new taxpayer-funded construction at UMass’s Boston campus.

Flagrantly discriminating against the roughly 80% of Massachusetts construction workers who aren’t unionized while accepting bids for publicly funded construction is the kind of thing “that makes people crazy about state government,” said Mr. Baker.

He pledges to ban PLA’s in state contracts if elected.

Gov. Patrick: ’96% of the Construction’ Is Being Done ‘by Union Workers’

National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented: “Charlie Baker is surely a slow learner when it comes to the ill effects of union-only PLA’s. It took him an awfully long time to realize they’re unfair and anti-taxpayer.

“On the other hand, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, now seeking reelection, appears to be a ‘never learner’ when it comes to PLA’s.

“Despite the ‘Big Dig’ fiasco and the many other examples of huge delays and excessive costs in Massachusetts PLA’s over the past two decades, Mr. Patrick continues to be a cheerleader for these special-interest schemes.

“This March, Mr. Patrick actually boasted about the fact that, even though the vast majority of Bay State construction workers have opted against unionization, ’96% of the construction’ on a hospital PLA in Worcester ‘is being carried out by union workers’!

“Because of Mr. Patrick’s cluelessness, and because independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill is dodging the PLA issue, Mr. Baker’s current outspoken stance against PLA’s may well resonate with Bay State voters, despite his past.

“Mr. Baker is savvy enough to see, finally, that public opposition to PLA’s is intense, even in a traditional union stronghold state like Massachusetts.

“And that should give pause to President Barack Obama, who up to now has been relentlessly promoting union-only PLA’s at the federal level, and will have to campaign in all 50 states if he chooses to seek reelection in 2012.”

Project labor agreements clearly limit the number of firms that can compete for work, at both the contracting and subcontracting level, and that deprives the project of potential low bidders. But defenders of such labor agreements tout the economic benefits of a smooth-running, on-time project, insisting that the pacts help maintain “labor peace’’ — a term with vaguely threatening intimations.

Maintaining labor standards is laudable. Restricting bids simply to promote unions, without a strong rationale for doing so, is not. Unfortunately, the UMass decision, and Patrick’s support for it, seems more the latter than the former.

Ohio Town Council Cuts Through Big Labor/White House Fog 

Marietta, which has only about 15,000 residents, but enjoys a place of honor as the oldest city of any size in Ohio, is located more than 230 miles outside the Washington, D.C., Beltway. 

And from the vantage point of Marietta’s community building at Lookout Park, where the town council considered adoption of a so-called “project labor agreement” (PLA) on May 13, it appears to be far easier to see and state the obvious than it is at the White House or on Capitol Hill. 

This spring, building trades union bosses lobbied furiously to convince the council’s seven members to impose a Big Labor PLA on employees and firms seeking to participate in the renovation of the town’s former Ohio Bureau of Employment Services building into a new municipal court facility. 

Parkersburg Marietta Construction and Building Trades Council union President Bill Hutchinson claimed, time and again, that the reason he and his cohorts were twisting arms to get a PLA was to ensure that “local” workers got the jobs. 

Finally, at the council’s May 13 meeting, Councilman Jon Grimm decided to test building trades union bosses’ sincerity. 

Mr. Grimm called attention to the provision in the PLA mandating that 50% of any contractor’s employees be registered with the union and pay union dues, even if they weren’t union members, and didn’t want to join. 

Would union officials accept a PLA retaining all the other provisions, but excluding “mandatory union membership”? Mr Grimm asked. 

Vast Majority of ‘Local’ Construction Workers in Marietta Aren’t Unionized 

Marietta law director Roland Riggs, who had hammered out the PLA deal with union officials, bluntly responded: “I don’t believe the folks from the building trades council would be interested in signing an agreement if that were removed.” 

A crowd of union militants, including several union officials, was in the room. No one from the crowd contradicted Mr. Riggs. 

“The plain fact is, the vast majority of ‘local’ construction workers in Marietta, Ohio, are union-free, and show no signs of wanting to be unionized,” observed National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. 

“According to labor scholars Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, just one in four construction workers across the state of Ohio is currently under union monopoly bargaining. And southern Ohio, where Marietta is located, is much less unionized than northern Ohio. 

“Forcing independent local hardhats to pay dues to an unwanted union in order to work on taxpayer-funded projects is no way to ‘help’ them — and a Marietta council majority had no trouble seeing the truth and voting down the PLA. 

“Unfortunately, all too many Inside-the-D.C. Beltway politicians from President Obama on down seem to have a much harder time deconstructing the phony claims of Big Labor bosses demanding union-only PLAs on taxpayer-funded public works. 

“For example, in issuing Executive Order 13502, promoting union-only PLAs for federal taxpayer-funded public works in February 2009, the President mechanically repeated Big Labor propagandists’ contention that PLAs promote ‘economy.’ 

“The truth is exactly the opposite. By discriminating against the union-free majority of construction employees, PLAs jack up taxpayer construction costs by a minimum of 10–20%, according to nonpartisan researchers. 

“Even a recent study commissioned by Obama appointees at the Department of Veterans Affairs predicted that PLAs would raise taxpayer costs in markets like Denver, New Orleans and Orlando. 

“But rather than cancel the PLA executive order after Veterans Affairs found it would fail to accomplish its purported objective, the Obama Administration proceeded to implement it this April!” 

Right to Work Movement Is Fighting Back 

“Fortunately, there’s still hope that the Obama Administration’s anti-taxpayer E.O.13502 can be stopped,” Mr. Mix continued. The legal system is one possible means. 

In April, attorneys for the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a federal court brief charging that a California PLA illegally discriminates against independent construction workers. (Mr. Mix is president of the Foundation as well as of the Committee.)If the Foundation’s argument in this case (known as Rancho Santiago) prevails, that will raise serious questions about the legal viability of E.O.13502.