U.S. Agencies Cleared to Require Union Workers on Job Sites

[Dreadnaught]

U.S. Agencies Cleared to Require Union Workers on Job Sites

Monday, April 12, 2010

By Holly Rosenkrantz

April 13 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. agencies may require contractors on public construction projects to negotiate with labor unions under a rule issued today by the Obama administration.

The rule that takes effect next month lets the government make so-called project labor agreements a requirement for contractors on U.S.-financed construction jobs that exceed $25 million.

Under the order, unions have the ability to bargain for wages, hours and work-rules in exchange for agreeing not to call a strike. Supporters of project-labor agreements say it promotes efficiency on government purchases. Opponents say the arrangements discriminate against the more than 85 percent of construction workers who aren't union members.

"Anti-competitive project labor agreements are special interest kickback schemes," Jim Elmer, national chairman of the Associated Builders and Contractors that represents more than 25,000 firms, said in an e-mailed statement.

President Barack Obama issued several executive orders that supported labor unions in February 2009, a month after taking office, including a rule to promote project labor agreements in the construction industry. Today's action is a final step in implementing that executive order.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ND1A74E9-3.DTL

The actual executive order is a bit more complicated, so I've attached it here.

But this really is a stunning example of de-facto cronyism. Union construction workers are a severe minority (15%) in the construction market. Yet now government agencies can impose unionized workers on an entire job (including subcontractors) if said union can influence government agency or legislator funding project.

Obviously the unions have the right to lobby for policies, but it's absurd for the President to take a step backwards and actually agree to it.

[CitizenCain]

But this really is a stunning example of de-facto cronyism.

Well, that's what you get for electing a Democrat from Chicago to the oval office. Chicago politics are notoriously corrupt, and I can't even feign surprise that Obama brought that with him from Chicago to Washington.

Obviously the unions have the right to lobby for policies, but it's absurd for the President to take a step backwards and actually agree to it.

Don't be too hard on the guy. One of his "union" "associates" probably just made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

[Loki]

What's the problem? It's not like the government has any fiscal problems. I'm sure it can afford to spend more on all its contracts without any side-effects.

[Being]

So mandating no-strike clauses in federal construction contracts is cronyism? You guys really need to read it again.

[Dreadnaught]

It's not the no strike clause, that's a tradeoff. The issue is that federal agencies can force all of their subcontractors to be unionized (or use union workers) for construction projects.