Posts

"Staggering" Cost of New High School in California: Project Labor Agreement Blamed

UPDATE – July 29, 2015: According to a Facebook post of the Ventura County Star VCS School Watch,” “about 140 workers are on site six days a week, preparing the $78.2 million Rancho Campana High School for its opening Sept. 2.” And according to a July 29, 2015 Ventura County Star article (“Frantic Pace Kept to Open Rancho Campana High“), “Assistant Superintendent Steve Dickinson said the total cost of the school will be $78.2 million, up from a projected $76.8 million earlier this year. He said most of the increase in cost is due to a decision to install pavers on the campus grounds instead of just concrete.”

These numbers are far higher than the “staggering cost” reported below.


Sometimes you can predict the future.

In the fall of 2013, business and taxpayer organizations warned the elected board of the Oxnard Union High School District in Ventura County (north of Los Angeles, on the coast) that it would endure reduced bid competition and higher construction costs if it required companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement with the Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council as a condition of working on the Rancho Campana High School construction project.

The union-backed proposal abruptly emerged at the board’s October 9 meeting and consumed the board and district administrators for more than two months.

In 2004, voters had approved Measure H, authorizing the district to borrow $135 million via bond sales for construction of two new schools and modernization of existing schools. Ten years later, the district was ready to use Measure H bond proceeds to build the new Rancho Campana High School at an estimated construction cost of $42-45 million.

On October 23, the school district awarded a lease-leaseback contract for construction to the local construction company S.C. Anderson. This contractor then waited to see if a divided board would mandate a union Project Labor Agreement in its bid documents.

At their November 20, 2013 public meeting, board members bickered with district administrators and among themselves over language to be included in the Project Labor Agreement. They scheduled a special board meeting for Monday, November 25 at 5:00 p.m. to approve a final negotiated version of a Project Labor Agreement. Staff was told to clear their schedules to meet with union officials and representatives of the lease-leaseback contractor until a deal was reached.

Union political pressure made the deal inevitable. At its November 25 meeting, the board voted 3-2 to tentatively approve a Project Labor Agreement. On December 9, the district’s Citizens Bond Oversight Committee voted 4-1 to recommend that the board reject the final Project Labor Agreement because of the likelihood of increased costs and other reasons. But on December 18, the board again voted 3-2 for the final Project Labor Agreement. Subcontractors then submitted bids to S.C. Anderson for 49 packages by the January 30, 2014 deadline.

When the board considered the Project Labor Agreement at meetings in the fall of 2013, the meeting room was packed – overflowing with union officials and activists. But only a handful of ordinary citizens were at the February 12, 2014 board meeting to see the results.

Staff presented a preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price of $58,285,794, about 30% higher than the $45 million at the high range of the estimate.

One school board member called it a “staggering amount” and a “setback” for the school district. Staff for the district’s construction management firm identified four factors in a written report (and identified an additional factor at the board meeting) that likely contributed to the price far above the estimate.

The “biggest factor” cited was the government-mandated Project Labor Agreement. Local subcontractors told district staff and the lease-leaseback contractor that they declined to bid because of the district’s Project Labor Agreement mandate. Staff also insinuated that subcontractors for some trades became aware of the lack of bid competition and inflated their bid amounts. (Go to 1:15:30 of the board meeting video to hear these remarks.)

Most damaging was the electrical package, the most expensive of the 49 packages. There were three bids very close to each other, but those three bids were double the original estimate. Is it any surprise that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) aggressively lobbies elected officials at California local governments to mandate Project Labor Agreements?

This result is consistent with the results of a comprehensive economic study (Measuring the Cost of Project Labor Agreements on School Construction in California) published in July 2011 by the National University System Institute for Policy Research in San Diego.  It concluded that the cost of California school construction under Project Labor Agreements is 13 to 15 percent higher than when school districts do not mandate Project Labor Agreements. Union leaders and their academic sycophants continually try to undermine the credibility of this study, but anecdotal evidence continually confirms that the study is accurate.

Project Labor Agreements cut bid competition and raise construction costs, for the benefit of unions at the expense of taxpayers. You can predict the future.

Sources

Minutes of November 20, 2013 board meeting

Minutes of November 25, 2013 special board meeting

Minutes of December 9, 2013 board meeting (includes Oversight Committee recommendation against the Project Labor Agreement)

Consideration of Approval of Final Project Stabilization Agreement for Rancho Campana High School Construction Project (Staff Report and Proposed Project Labor Agreement for December 18, 2013 board meeting)

Minutes of December 18, 2013 board meeting

Video of February 12, 2014 board meeting


Kevin Dayton is the President & CEO of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC, and is the author of frequent postings about generally unreported California state and local policy issues at www.laborissuessolutions.com. Follow him on Twitter at @DaytonPubPolicy.

 

Judicial Council of California Imposes Project Labor Agreement on San Diego Courthouse

Excerpts from four documents (obtained from California’s Administrative Office of the Courts on June 5, 2013 through a public records request) reveal the successful behind-the-scenes plot within the California court system involving top staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council to give construction trade unions monopoly control of the $586 million new San Diego County Central Courthouse with a Project Labor Agreement. Although the Judicial Council claims to have “a comprehensive process for soliciting, gathering, and considering public comment on proposals during the policy development process,” the hasty internal process of deciding to negotiate, negotiating, and executing a Project Labor Agreement was not included on the last meeting agenda of the Judicial Council on April 25-26, 2013.

This labor pact will cut competition and raise costs for the benefit of unions. For example, see the 2011 study from the National University System Institute for Policy Research in San Diego entitled Measuring the Cost of Project Labor Agreements on School Construction in California.

How do taxpayers in the San Diego region feel about fair and open competition versus Project Labor Agreements? We know from actual votes.

  • In June 2012, 56% of voters in the City of San Diego approved Proposition A to prohibit government-mandated Project Labor Agreements on city projects.
  • In November 2010, 76% of voters in the County of San Diego approved Proposition A to prohibit government-mandated Project Labor Agreements on county projects.
  • In June 2010, 56% of voters in the City of Chula Vista (the second most populous city in San Diego County) approved Proposition G to prohibit government-mandated Project Labor Agreements on city projects
  • In June 2010 54% of voters in the City of Oceanside (the third most populous city in San Diego County) approved Proposition K, a charter that included an explicit provision to prohibit government-mandated Project Labor Agreements on city projects.

Citizens in the San Diego region – the region to be served by this courthouse – clearly do not support govenment-mandated monopolies on taxpayer-funded construction. No wonder the Project Labor Agreement was arranged by the head of the Sacramento-based State Building and Construction Trades Council of California rather than locally in San Diego.

At least everyone now knows not to waste money filing a lawsuit in the California court system challenging a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement. Would judges favor unions for construction contracts in their own system while denying this kind of deal to other government entities? Obviously lawyers for unions will now and forever launch their arguments by pointing out that the California court system itself requires its construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of winning a job.

The story was first revealed in the UT San Diego (San Diego Union-Tribune) in its June 7, 2013 article Courthouse to Be Built Under Labor Pact. The UT San Diego (San Diego Union-Tribune) then posted an editorial on June 9, 2013 entitled Public Safety Loses, Labor Wins at New Courthouse.

Also, see my blog post about this Project Labor Agreement in the context of the larger Senate Bill 1407 courthouse construction program at Union Quest for Project Labor Agreements from Judicial Council of California and Administrative Office of the Courts Succeeds with San Diego County Central Courthouse.

Excerpts from the four actual documents explain the plot. (Note: one of them is “Confidential.”)

1. March 22, 2013 Memorandum to Curt Child, Chief Operating Officer from Ray Polidoro, Manager, Judicial Branch Capital Program Office, Subject: New San Diego Central Courthouse RE: Project Labor Agreement 

The State Building and Construction Trades Council has asked the Administrative Office of the Courts to consider using a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on the construction for the New San Diego Central Courthouse Project (the Project)…The JBCP is requesting that Justice Hill, as chair of the Court Facilities Working Group, review the use of a PLA on the Project. The following provides a definition and some background on PLAs…

There is variation among the provisions in PLAs, but generally they contain two key components. The first involves how labor disputes will be handled. Contractors who are party to PLAs agree not to lock out workers from worksites. In turn, the construction trade unions agree to not strike or disrupt the construction…

The second core component found with PLAs involves who will be hired and the conditions of their employment. Signatories to these agreements recognize labor unions as the exclusive bargaining representative for all project workers. Most PLAs require workers on the project to pay union dues, regardless of their membership status, and that contractors make payments on behalf of all their workers to union-affiliated fringe benefit trust funds during the course of the project.

In the debate over the use of PLAs, one of the most prominent areas of disagreement is whether these agreements affect construction costs…Opponents argue that PLAs increase costs. They claim that the requirements imposed by PLAs discourage nonunion contractors from bidding on projects and subcontractors from participating. This reduced competition could result in overall higher bids. Opponents also claim that the work condition rules required in PLAs increase labor costs and that these are passed onto the projects (sic) owner.

Rudolph and Sletten, the CM@Risk for the Project, has done several PLAs and as a result can leverage their knowledge and relationships in structuring favorable terms for a PLA to contain costs.

2. April 4, 2013 letter from Curtis L. Child, Chief Operating Officer, Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts to Dan Dolinar, Executive Vice President, Chief of Operations, Rudolph and Sletten – CONFIDENTIAL 

The Court Facilities Working Group Executive Committee provided direction to AOC [Administrative Office of the Courts] staff to amend the R&S [Rudolph & Sletten] agreement to require R&S to negotiate a PLA specific to the San Diego Project and to be signatory to the agreement with the trades. R&S and AOC will jointly participate in the negotiations with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (Trades Council).

Representatives of the Trades Council will participate in the negotiations. Other unions may also participate in the negotiations. Although the AOC is sensitive to the Trades Council’s expectations, the AOC and R&S will negotiate favorable PLA terms to minimize the potential for any construction cost increase. The negotiations and execution of a PLA by Rudolph & Sletten and the trades must not delay bidding on the San Diego Project. If an agreement between the parties is not reached by April 30, 2013, a PLA will not be required on this project.

If the PLA negotiations are successful, only R&S and the trades will be party to the PLA. For the PLA to become effective, though, all of R&S’s trade contractors over a minimum contract amount will be required to execute a letter of assent, agreeing to be bound by the PLA. The AOC will prepare necessary revisions to the current AOC I R&S Agreement to incorporate the PLA. The PLA will have to be part of R&S’s prequalification packages that R&S plans to send to its trade contractors in the beginning of May 2013.

The AOC has contacted representatives of the Trades Council and set up the first negotiation session to be in Sacramento at the State Building and Construction Trade Council office at 1225 8th Street, Suite 375, Sacramento, CA 95814 on April 12, 2013, 9:00am to 12:00pm and any additional sessions to be determined.

Thank you for R&S’s continued cooperation to incorporate a PLA into R&S’s contract and into this San Diego Project…

3. April 5, 2013 letter from Curtis L. Child, Chief Operating Officer, Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts to Robbie Hunter, President, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 

This letter is to confirm that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has agreed to meet with you and Ray Van Der Naught (sic) [Ray Van der Nat], the attorney for the State Building and Construction Trades Council (Council), at the Council’s office on April 12, 201 3 from 9 a.m. to noon for the purpose of negotiating a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the San Diego New Central Courthouse Project (San Diego Project)… I look forward to seeing you on April 12 and to fruitful discussions among the Council, R&S, and the AOC.

4. May 8, 2013 email from Steven Jahr to the Judicial Council of the Administrative Office of the Courts 

From: Jahr, Steven (Administrative Director of the Courts for California)

Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:54 AM

To: AOC JC Members Only [Administrative Offfice of the Courts Judicial Council]

Cc: Bocchicchio, Michael; Byrd, Donald; Capozzi, Anthony; Castellanos, Stephan; Chang, Steven; Cooper, Hon. Candace D.; Davis, Keith D.; Feng, Hon. Samuel; Foiles, Robert D.; Fowler-Bradley, Melissa; Highberger, William; Hill, Brad; Hirschfeld, Burt; Ignacio, Donna; Jacobs-May, Hon. Jamie A.; Johnson, Jeffrey W.; Lucas, Hon. Patricia M.; Magnusson, Chris; Masunaga, Laura; Miessner, Leslie; Nash, Stephen H.; Olivas, Noema; Orozco, Hon. Gary R.; Power, David; Quinn, Kelly; Robinson, Akilah; Romero-Soles, Linda; Ruano, Teresa; Spikes, Larry; Stinson, Kevin; Toppenberg, Val; Trentacosta, Robert J.; Warwick, Thomas; Willoughby, Lee

Subject: San Diego Central Courthouse Project

Members of the Judicial Council:

I want to make you aware of a pending announcement by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California regarding a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with our selected contractor (Rudolph and Sletten, Inc.) for construction of the new Central Courthouse project for San Diego, the state’s largest courthouse construction project. The Trades Council has expressed continued interest to the AOC about entering into such an agreement on this project. Following negotiations regarding potential terms and conditions of a PLA between Rudolph and Sletten and the Trades Council, (with input from the AOC), we concluded that this approach was beneficial.

I requested that the contractor enter into a PLA with the Trades Council to ensure certainty and timeliness as well as reduce variables in a construction project of this magnitude. This will be the first state courthouse project on which a PLA is signed. I should emphasize that we are considering this PLA to be a pilot effort that the Court Facilities Working Group and AOC will continuously evaluate for costs and benefits going forward, about which I will keep the Judicial Council apprised.

As you know, the new 71-courtroom facility is badly needed because of serious seismic and security issues and other significant functional problems. At $586 million for the total project (of which $544 million is construction), any delay can be costly. The Court Facilities Working Group and the AOC have worked with all parties, including the Legislature, the Department of Finance, County, and City to keep the project moving forward. To that end, the PLA is being put in place to ensure that this momentum continues by preventing potential expensive delays and related costs.

We realize there are some who criticize PLAs. We have examined those criticisms and believe for this project there is an overall benefit. We have been advised that a number of collective bargaining agreements for involved trades will come up for renewal within the construction window for this job. The terms of the PLA ensure that the construction process will be uninterrupted by those renewal anniversaries. The agreement precludes strikes and would prevent delays caused by shortages of qualified workers in the relevant trades. It will also streamline management of the project. We believe the PLA will be cost-effective. It will apply to most, but not all, of the bid packages—those smaller than $125,000 at all bid tiers will be exempt. Additionally, the PLA provides that the project has a built-in local participation goal of 30 percent for San Diego trades. (The Long Beach project, through Long Beach Judicial Partners, LLC, also is operating under a PLA. Examples of other projects with PLA in San Diego include Petco Field and the San Diego Convention Center.)

Packages for subcontractor prequalification are now being disseminated by the contractor. The AOC along with the contractor are taking steps to do outreach to local, small, emerging, and minority businesses, as well as the Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise Program to encourage them to bid on portions of the project. The project is scheduled for a fall bond sale with a construction start date by the end of December 2013.

There will be a further briefing on the PLA approach at an educational session during the June council meeting.

Steve


Who’s Responsible? The Judicial Council

The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) implements the council’s policies.

Chair

Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye 
Chief Justice of California

Supreme Court

Hon. Marvin R. Baxter
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 

Courts of Appeal

Hon. Judith Ashmann-Gerst 
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division Two
Los Angeles

Hon. Harry E. Hull, Jr.
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District
Sacramento

Hon. Douglas P. Miller
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
Riverside 

Trial Courts

Hon. Stephen H. Baker
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Shasta

Hon. James R. Brandlin
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles

Hon. David De Alba
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento

Hon. Emilie H. Elias
Judge of the Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

Hon. Sherrill A. Ellsworth
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside

Hon. James E. Herman
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Barbara

Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

Hon. Ira R. Kaufman
Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Plumas

Hon. Mary Ann O’Malley
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Contra Costa

Hon. David Rosenberg
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Yolo

State Bar

Ms. Angela J. Davis
United States Department of Justice
Office of U.S. Attorney

Mr. James P. Fox
Attorney at Law

Ms. Edith R. Matthai
Attorney at Law

Mr. Mark P. Robinson, Jr.
Attorney at Law

Advisory Members

Hon. Sue Alexander
Commissioner of the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda

Mr. Alan Carlson 
Chief Executive Officer
Superior Court of California,
County of Orange

Hon. Laurie M. Earl
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento

Hon. Allan D. Hardcastle
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Sonoma

Hon. Morris D. Jacobson
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda

Hon. Brian L. McCabe
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Merced

Hon. Robert James Moss
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Orange

Hon. Kenneth K. So
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego

Ms. Mary Beth Todd
Court Executive Officer
Superior Court of California,
County of Sutter

Hon. Charles D. Wachob
Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Placer

Mr. David H. Yamasaki
Court Executive Officer 
Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara

Secretary

Judge Steven Jahr
Administrative Director of the Courts


Kevin Dayton is the President & CEO of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC, and is the author of frequent postings about generally unreported California state and local policy issues at www.laborissuessolutions.com. Follow him on Twitter at @DaytonPubPolicy.

Tracking California’s November 2012 Elections Related to Labor Issues

California’s Proposition 32 is the country’s most high-profile election in November 2012 directly related to labor unions and labor policy issues. There are also several California local elections – particularly Measure V to enact a charter in the City of Costa Mesa – that will potentially strengthen or weaken union control of government. Here’s a summary of the elections to watch in California.

Proposition 32 – “Stop Special Interest Money” – Requires Union Leaders to Get Permission Before Taking Workers’ Money for Political Purposes

The statewide ballot measure Proposition 32 includes a requirement for union officials to get annual permission from a union member (or represented non-member) before extracting money from that worker’s paycheck for political purposes. Under current law, unions can simply take money from employee paychecks when desired in order to influence legislation or elections. For more information on how this coercive power is implemented in practice, see My Outline of the June 21, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Decision on a California Union’s Mandatory Fee Assessment on Non-Members to Fight Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Ballot Measures.

A common description of Proposition 32 is “game changer” and the $70 million spent against it by union leaders proves this moniker is not political exaggeration. Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, asserts that Proposition 32 is “the most important political reform measure to be placed before California voters in decades. If passed, it would surpass Governor Scott Walker’s successful ballot measure in Wisconsin last year. Moreover, it would be the ‘shot heard ‘round the political world’ as it would fundamentally change the way special interests are required to operate in the realm of California politics.”

Proposed Charters Would Allow Three California Cities to Set Their Own Policies for Municipal Affairs and Circumvent Costly Union-Backed State Mandates

Union leaders are clearly concerned that many of the state’s medium-sized suburban cities and smaller towns are exercising their right under the California Constitution to use charters to escape the tight grip of the state legislature, where union lobbyists basically set the agenda.

A 4-1 majority of the city council of Costa Mesa (in Orange County) is asking city voters to approve Measure V, which would enact a charter so the city can control its own municipal affairs, such as contracting-out of government services and government-mandated construction wage rates. Measure V would give the city authority to free itself from costly and inflexible union-backed mandates from the state legislature.

A professor of public administration at Chapman University (in Orange County) describes Costa Mesa as the ideological “ground zero for virtually everything taking place in the country” and the proposed Measure V charter as “a political manifesto of how government should be organized in the 21st century.” The $500,000 spent against Measure V by union leaders proves this assessment is not political hyperbole.

For more information, see my www.UnionWatch.org article Mysterious Union Slush Fund Spends $100,000 Against Costa Mesa Charter and Gee , Do You Think a Charter Is a Meaningful Way for California Cities to Pursue Fiscal Responsibility? $500,000 of Union Opposition Confirms It.

A second city proposing a charter to voters is Escondido (in San Diego County), with Proposition P. This charter essentially provides the City of Escondido with the same power and authority as the proposed charter in Costa Mesa, but union opposition has been minimal. Perhaps San Diego County union leaders concluded it was a waste of limited campaign resources to try to undermine Proposition P: since 2007, voters in the San Diego County cities of Vista, Santee, Carlsbad, Oceanside, and El Cajon have all approved robust, aggressive charters.

Meanwhile, in the San Luis Obispo County coastal town of Grover Beach, construction trade unions spent a few thousand dollars to send slick, professional mailers from Sacramento to residents urging them to vote against Measure I-12, a proposed charter with similar powers to the ones proposed in Costa Mesa and Escondido. See my articles Campaign Mailer Opposing the Proposed Grover Beach Charter: Definitely NOT Photocopied at Dave’s Copies & Fax and Who Paid the Bills for the Mailers Opposing the Proposed Charter (Measure I-12) in Grover Beach? No One.

The union strategy in Grover Beach emulates successful union-funded mail campaigns to defeat proposed charters in Rancho Palos Verdes in March 2011 and Auburn in June 2012. Unions have learned they can successfully overrun local grassroots activism for charters in smaller towns by stuffing voters’ mailboxes with deceptive, paranoid propaganda. (For more information about how unions defeated the Rancho Palos Verdes and Auburn charters, see my article Who Defeated the City of Auburn’s Proposed Charter, and How Was It Done? (Answer: Three Union Entities, by Spending $56.40 Per NO Vote).

I expect more than a dozen California cities will ask voters to enact charters in the June 2014 election. Currently there are 121 California cities with charters. Many of these cities take advantage of their charters to establish their own policies concerning government-mandated construction wage rates (so-called “prevailing wages”). See Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate (“Prevailing Wage”) Exemptions?

Unions Help K-12 School and Community College Districts to Borrow Money for Union-Only Construction by Selling Bonds

Voters throughout California are being asked to approve 106 ballot measures to authorize school districts and community college districts to borrow money for construction by selling bonds. But for the first time since California voters narrowly approved Proposition 39 in 2000 (lowering the voter approval threshold from 66.67% to 55% for educational bond measures), there is a semi-coordinated statewide effort (“Operation Close the Spigot”) to oppose some of the most egregious bond measures by moving beyond the message “it’s for the kids” and providing some real accountability for performance. There is even an aggressive, well-funded locally-based opposition campaign (led by the San Diego County Taxpayers Association) to defeat an exceptionally foolish bond measure in San Diego.

Sacramento City Unified School District wants voter approval through Measures Q and R to sell another $414 million in bonds to add to its existing $522 million bond debt. West Contra Costa Unified School District (based in Richmond) wants voter approval through Measure E to sell another $360 million in bonds to add to its existing $1.77 billion bond debt. Solano Community College District wants voter approval through Measure Q to sell another $348 million in bonds to add to its existing $180 million bond debt. And San Diego Unified School District wants voter approval through Proposition Z to sell another $2.8 billion in bonds to add to its existing $4.7 billion bond debt.

Why are construction unions and their unionized contractor allies providing significant funding to the campaigns in support of these four ballot measures? It’s not because they love the kids; it’s because the elected boards of these fiscally irresponsible, mismanaged educational districts require their construction contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions as a condition of working on projects funded by bond sales previously authorized by district voters.

In July 2011, the National University System’s Institute for Policy Research in San Diego published a comprehensive study showing that California school construction projects cost 13% to 15% higher when the district requires contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. (The study is titled Measuring the Cost of Project Labor Agreements on School Construction in California.)

I’ve written extensively about these four union-backed bond measures – here are the most recent articles about each one:

  • Who’s Paying to Convince Sacramento Voters to Take On $414 Million of Additional Debt – Plus Interest – with Measures Q and R?
  • $652,650 Contributed to Measure E Campaign: West Contra Costa Unified School District Seeks to Borrow Another $360 Million “For the Children of West County”
  • Updated Chart! Who’s Paying to Convince Solano County Voters to Take On $348 Million of Additional Debt – Plus Interest – with Measure Q?
  • ONE San Francisco Investment Banker Is Funding About 20% of the Yes on Proposition Z Campaign for San Diego Unified School District to Borrow $2.8 Billion Through Bond Sales

As I reported in my www.UnionWatch.org article Construction Unions Could Grab Billions Through Education Bonds, Oakland Unified School District and East Side Union High School District will surely require their contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions for projects funded by bond measures on the November 2012 ballot. Other districts such as the Rancho Santiago Community College District may also attempt to cut bid competition and increase costs for the benefit of union special interests.

Keep in mind that every California taxpayer pays for the union-controlled construction in these educational districts. The State Allocation Board regularly provides matching grants for construction projects with proceeds from bond sales authorized by three past statewide propositions (Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Acts) totaling $35.8 billion. Union officials believe in “trickle-down economics” when your taxes “trickle down” to their operational and political funds.

Kevin Dayton is the President and CEO of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC and is the author of frequent postings about generally unreported California state and local policy issues at www.laborissuessolutions.com.