(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.”

(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.

June’s issue contains the following headlines:

Primary Voters Rebuke Issue-Dodging Republican — Refusal to Respond to Right to Work Survey ‘Raised Concerns’

Tweedle Dee Lincoln and Tweedle Dum Halter — Both Candidates in Arkansas Democrat Run-Off Back Forced Unionism

‘Too Bad For Recently Hired, Talented Teachers’ — Union Bigwigs Make Sure Public School Layoffs Are ‘Quality-Blind’

‘Mandatory Union Membership’ Is PLA’s Purpose — Ohio Town Council Cuts Through Big Labor-White House Fog

Obama Bureaucrats Promote Monopolistic Unionism — Right to Work Fights For Independent Transportation Employees

Business ‘Raspberries’ For Compulsory Unionism — Protecting the Right to Work Improves Overall Job Climate

There’s almost a direct correlation these days between the Obama Administration’s complaints about “special interests” and its own fealty to such interests. Consider its latest decree that federal contractors must be union shops.

The federal rule, which went live yesterday, implements an executive order President Obama signed within weeks of taking office. It encourages federal agencies to require “project labor agreements” for all construction projects larger than $25 million. This means that only contractors that agree to union representation are eligible for work financed by the U.S. taxpayer.

Only 15% of the nation’s construction workers are unionized, so from now on the other 85% will have to forgo federal work for having exercised their right to not join a union. This is a raw display of political favoritism, and at the expense of an industry experiencing 27% unemployment. “This is nothing but a sop to the White House’s big donors,” says Brett McMahon, vice president at Miller & Long Concrete Construction, a nonunion contractor. “We’ve seen this so many times now, and how many times does it have the union label? Every time.”

It’s also a rotten deal for taxpayers. White House economist Jared Bernstein blogged that these agreements “significantly enhance the economy and efficiency of Federal Construction projects.” In fact, the carve-outs put an end to open, competitive federal bidding, which means higher project costs. They also mean taxpayers must finance the benefits and work rules of union members.

Mr. Bernstein could check all this with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which last year commissioned an independent study showing the Obama project labor agreements would likely raise the VA’s construction costs for hospitals by as much as 9% in three of five markets—Denver, New Orleans and Orlando. In two others, New York and San Francisco, the study predicted a mixture of small cost increases and small cost savings.

The study reported “strong evidence to suggest that the result of a PLA [project labor agreement] that dictates work rules, double benefits, team structure and activities on non-union type contractors will be that production costs will increase—given these union-related requirements.” It also rebutted a favorite liberal argument that such agreements lead to less labor strife, noting that there are “many examples for projects where there have been strikes but also no strikes—unrelated to whether or not a PLA is in place.”

The Veterans study mirrors academic work showing that project labor agreements raise the costs of construction by 10% to 20%. The Beacon Hill Institute at Boston’s Suffolk University in 2006 investigated the costs of building 126 Boston-area schools. It found project labor agreements raised winning bids for school construction projects by 12% and actual construction costs by 14%.

Boston’s Big Dig, Seattle’s Safeco field, Los Angeles’s Eastside Reservoir project, the San Francisco airport, Detroit’s Comerica Park—all were built under PLAs marked by embarrassing cost overruns. We’d list more, but newsprint is expensive.

The White House went out of its way to note that the Supreme Court has upheld such agreements in the past, suggesting it has a guilty conscience. In fact, the High Court has never ruled on the legality of these agreements under federal competitive bidding laws. Industry groups are now threatening legal action to defend the rights of workers who will be denied employment for the crime of not sporting Obama-Biden bumper stickers. It’s a fight worth having.

Rewarding Big Labor for political support, the Obama administration is virtually shutting nonunion contractors out of federal construction projects worth at least $25 million — and sticking taxpayers with untold millions in higher costs.

Just weeks after taking office, President Obama signed an executive order encouraging use of project labor agreements (PLAs), which require contractors to agree to union representation and work rules. A federal rule implementing that order took effect May 12, benefiting the 15 percent of construction workers who are unionized — and hurting the 85 percent who aren’t.

This, in an industry with 27 percent unemployment. And with study after study showing PLAs hike costs 10 percent to 20 percent — and the rule essentially ending open, competitive bidding for federal construction contracts — taxpayers will feel plenty of pain, too.

But never mind. This White House has major political backers to pay off — by giving organized labor a stranglehold on federal construction contracts that, by the way, practically guarantees increased contributions to union retirees’ underfunded pension plans.

This new rule is, as The Wall Street Journal put it, “a raw display of political favoritism.” And a sickening one at that. [Emphasis added]

White House Federal-Contract Policy Rewards Big Labor Patrons

(Source: May 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Union-free construction workers, their employers, and taxpayers were all dealt fresh blows last month as President Barack Obama’s Administration implemented an executive order promoting union-only “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on federally funded public works.

On April 13, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council published a “final rule” implementing Executive Order 13502, issued by the President in February 2009.

“E.O.13502 itself and the final rule both pressure federal agencies to acquiesce to PLAs on all large public works,” said National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. “Experience indicates federal bureaucrats will not resist.”

“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 all probability, simply refuse to submit bids on federal projects.

“And sharply reducing the number of bidders will surely jack up taxpayers’ bills. 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.”

Administration Knows PLAs Will Surely Reduce Number Of Bidders on Public Works

“The Obama Administration knows full well that its pro-PLA policy is extremely likely to reduce the number of bidders on public works,” Mr. Mix continued.

Well before issuing the final rule implementing E.O.13502, FAR Council bureaucrats admitted to having received hundreds of comments from construction industry employees and businesses opposing the Obama edict.

A significant number of these comments came from union-free firms, and employees of such firms, that had each already performed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction work on large government projects.

And the overwhelming majority of the many union-free construction firms that submitted comments vowed that neither they nor their subcontractors would be willing to bid on or perform construction work under government-imposed PLAs.

“According to the U.S. Labor Department’s latest estimate, just 15% of construction employees nationwide are unionized. That means 85% are union-free,” said Mr. Mix.

“In practice, PLAs rig the bidding process against union-free employees and employers to such an extent that they are all but excluded from the competition. There’s absolutely no plausible way you could drive out such a huge share of potential bidders and not drive up taxpayer costs.

“And, in fact, the Obama Administration clearly knows that, by slashing the number of bidders, its pro-PLA policy will force taxpayers to pay more for public works.”

Department of Veterans Affairs Expects Higher Costs

Last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), already headed by Obama appointees, commissioned an independent study of the potential impact of Obama PLAs on its own construction costs. As a Wall Street Journal editorial last month pointed out, the study found that PLAs “would likely raise the VA’s construction costs for hospitals by as much as 9%” in the Denver, New Orleans and Orlando markets.

The VA-commissioned study did not predict a net reduction in construction costs in any of the markets it examined, even heavily unionized New York City and San Francisco.

Overall, the study found “strong evidence to suggest that the result of a PLA that dictates work rules, double benefits, team structure and activities on non-union type contractors will be that production costs will increase — given these union-related requirements.”

“Even the Obama Administration’s handpicked researchers couldn’t avoid concluding that E.O.13502 will sock it to federal taxpayers, though the VA-commissioned estimate of the damage done is far lower than that of most independent researchers,” commented Mr. Mix.

“If the President’s PLA policy had anything to do with taxpayers’ interests, the Administration would have revoked E.O.13502 in light of the VA findings, instead of proceeding full speed ahead with the edict’s implementation.”

Worker Safety a Common Problem in Union-Only Projects

In addition to costing taxpayers more money than projects in which unionized and union-free firms are free to bid on equal terms, PLA projects often suffer from serious safety problems.

For example, the union-only Iowa Events Center suffered nearly 50 accidents in the first six months after construction began in 2002, including four linked directly to substance abuse by unionized workers.

One construction worker was killed when he was struck by a steel beam. Ironworkers had been working late shifts to catch up with previous delays on the project.

On the union-only Boston Harbor clean-up project, OSHA proposed fines totaling nearly $411,000 against four contractors in connection with fatalities of two workers who succumbed due to lack of oxygen.

“No legitimate public policy interest is served by union-only PLAs,” said Mr. Mix. “They are unfair to construction employees and construction firms as well as taxpayers. They undermine efficiency, quality and safety in public works.

“Yet President Obama seems determined to foist PLAs on the American public in order to advance his own narrow political agenda.

“Fortunately, Right to Work supporters and our allies still have a chance to stop him.

“First of all, there is a very strong case that FAR’s final rule implementing E.O.13502 exceeds the President’s statutory authority and violates the Competition in Contracting Act, as well as other procurement laws and regulations.”

Right to Work Leader Ready to Do Everything He Can to Block E.O.13502

Attorneys for the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, are now assessing how they can most effectively challenge the rule in federal court. (Mr. Mix is president of the Foundation as well as of the Committee.)

Last July, the Foundation filed a brief supporting union-free construction apprentices now effectively blacklisted from over 50 taxpayer-funded PLA projects in California.

“If the Foundation’s arguments prevail in the Rancho Santiago case, it will heighten the serious legal questions about the implementation of E.O.13502,” noted Mr. Mix.

“Meanwhile, the Committee is also supporting legislative efforts to roll back the PLA edict on Capitol Hill, even though, in the current Big Labor-controlled Congress, pushing for enactment of any such measure will be a steeply uphill fight.

“On the positive side, public opposition to union-only PLAs is already intense, and growing more so.

“If federal courts shirk their responsibility to overturn the White House’s policy of favoritism in federal contracts, there is real hope that the public can prevail upon a future Congress and/or President to do the job.”

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

(Source: March 2010 NRTWC Newsletter)

Big Labor and its pliant politicians from President Barack Obama on down are facing passionate opposition from ordinary citizens and mounting legal concerns as they strive to foist union-only “project labor agreements,” or PLAs, on taxpayer-funded construction work across the country.

Even in union-boss stronghold states like New York and California, independent construction employees and employers and concerned taxpayers are fighting back against government PLAs that rig the public-works bidding process in favor of union boss-controlled contractors and inflate construction costs.

In the Empire State and in neighboring Vermont, citizens are already mobilizing against a nascent deal between the New York Department of Transportation and political appointees at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to impose a PLA on the $75 million project to replace the Champlain Bridge.

Until 2009, this nearly 2200-footlong structure was the only bridge that connected New York and Vermont by crossing Lake Champlain. But the Champlain Bridge was closed last October due to safety concerns, then destroyed in December after it was determined to be beyond repair.

At this writing, the project to replace the economically important bridge is scheduled to go to bid in April, with work to begin just weeks later.

Employees of recession-wracked New York and Vermont construction firms have been awaiting the commencement of the Champlain Bridge replacement project with bated breath.

Workers Would Be Forced To Contribute to Big Labor-Manipulated Pension Funds

That’s why many were deeply distressed to learn last month that the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) had secretly commissioned a draft report by an obscure White Plains-based consulting firm that endorses a so-called “PLA” for the project.

Moreover, the draft report had already been sent to the FHWA, now headed by Obama appointee Victor Mendez.

Most observers believe it is inevitable that the FHWA will give a quick nod to the NYSDOT’s PLA plan. After all, President Obama on February 6, 2009, just a couple of weeks after he took office, issued Executive Order 13502, promoting union-only PLAs for federal taxpayer-funded public works.

“Fortunately, the regulations to implement E.O.13502 are not yet in place,” noted National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“But once they are, 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 all probability, simply refuse to submit bids on large federal projects.

“And sharply reducing the number of bidders will surely jack up taxpayers’ bills. The nonpartisan, Boston-based Beacon Hill Institute estimates that construction costs will be inflated by 12% to 18% on every project that uses a PLA as a result of E.O.13502.

“Of course, a union-only PLA on the Champlain Bridge project would have exactly the same unhappy consequences.”

Powerful Backlash Seems to Have Surprised Union Bigwigs

Last July, attorneys for the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, joined in a federal court case challenging the power of public agencies to systematically impose PLAs on taxpayer-funded construction.

And in New York, many union-free contractors who don’t want their employees corralled into an unwanted union say they will support a legal effort to block a Champlain Bridge PLA should the NYSDOT proceed with its plan to impose one.

Meanwhile, all the way across the country in California, strapped taxpaying individuals and businesses are helping drive efforts to prohibit PLAs on public works in county after county.

These efforts have so unnerved southern California AFL-CIO official Evan McLaughlin that late last month he snarled at the San Diego County Board of Supervisors: “Voters don’t know anything about these issues.”

“Such outbursts tell me that Right to Work supporters and our allies are making real progress in our efforts to stop discriminatory PLAs. We must keep turning up the pressure,” concluded Mr. Mix.