Construction Job Layoffs

The construction industry is mired in a slump with more layoffs coming thanks to the demands of the union bosses.

Brett McMahon notes in the Washington Examiner:

The newest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the construction industry’s unemployment rate rose to 19.4 percent in November, up from October’s 18.7 percent.

Job growth is desperately needed in the construction industry, like in many others, but government spending may only create jobs for the politically-well connected. President Obama’s staunchest political patrons, Big Labor, will soon benefit from an executive order signed earlier this year that encourages government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on all federal construction projects over $25 million. The final regulations to implement Executive Order 13502 and these special interest giveaways are currently under review by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council and this gift to Big Labor is expected to be delivered any day.

The reason why this order is a lump of coal in the stockings of taxpayers, nonunion employers and employees is simple: It favors Big Labor over the majority (86 percent) of the construction industry’s nonunion workers. See, the order discourages competition from nonunion contractors by requiring that the jobs be awarded only to contractors agreeing to recognize unions as representatives of their employees for the life of a construction project.

Less competition means higher prices and fewer jobs brought to you by the union bosses and their friends in the Obama Administration.

Share

Big Labor's Billion Dollar Slush Fund

A new study conducted by George Mason University’s John M. Olin Institute exposes the existence of construction union slush funds that have expended more than $1 billion in union wages from 2000 to 2007 on a scheme known as “job targeting” aimed at bankrupting non-union businesses.

Union construction contractors — who are paid much higher wages and benefits than non-union workers and comprise fewer than 15% of the work force today — rely on the government-controlled “prevailing wage” diktats on public-sector projects for their bread and butter. Through these programs, organized labor officials collect fees from union members then funnel that money to union contractors — and in a few cases non-union contractors — to subsidize wages for the purpose of circumventing prevailing wage mandates and submitting a winning low bid. In many instances, these unfair business practices are used to target specific competitive, non-union businesses for extermination.

Share
Posted in: Prevailing Wage

Iowa's Big Union Bosses Lose First Battle

Despite heavy lifting by the Iowa Governor and House Speaker Pay Murphy, who used extraordinary efforts to pass a state “prevailing wage law,” Iowa union bosses suffered a legislative setback when the bill failed to pass the House by a 49-49 vote. Unfortunately, “Murphy told reporters, the bill’s defeat does not derail the bill permanently, nor does it mean Democrats will table three other labor-related bills that unions hope pass the legislature in 2009.” They include an attempt to repeal the 60-plus year old Right to Work Law that guarantees an individual’s right not to join or pay fees to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. More to come….

Share
Posted in: Iowa, Prevailing Wage

Red Flags

Massachusetts labor bosses are used to getting their way, especially from Gov. Deval Patrick. But labor activists are throwing up the red flag at Patrick’s proposed idea to use civilian flaggers on highway work projects instead of state troopers. Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that uses police officers instead of civilian flaggers at nearly all road and utility construction sites, giving union officers a way to make overtime pay. In fact, nearly five percent of the state highway construction budget went to pay state troopers.

Patrick’s draft regulations, which could go into effect as soon as October, would encourage the state to use less expensive civilian flaggers or electronic signs on roads with a 45 mph speed limit or less, and the AFL-CIO isn’t happy about it.

AFL-CIO spokesman Tim Sullivan, who blasted the plan as unsafe and questioned the cost savings, said the union would fight the regulations. “Who’s going to pay for these flagmen to be trained, who’s going to pick up their unemployment insurance? We just don’t think the cost savings are there,” Sullivan said.

This, of course, raises a more important issue in the eyes of David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. Under Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law, the state pays about $40 an hour to police officers who do flag work. Union activists note that the law would require civilians to be paid the same amount — thus create no savings to the taxpayers.

Tuerck correctly argues, “By making this argument, the unions have done us a service. If a law compels the state to spend the equivalent of $80,000 a year for someone to flag down oncoming traffic, then it’s time to rethink the law.”

Share
Tagged with:
Posted in: Massachusetts, Prevailing Wage