Comments on: Project Labor Agreement to be discussed by Contra Costa Community College District board

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:31:58 +0000

Here is a story with more information about the Contra Costa College District issue: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_19090607?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com

By: Philip Piel

Philip Piel — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:28:53 +0000

The Board should not approve a Project Labor Agreement (PLA)Specyail labor rules in addition to the current comprehensive rules already in place do not make sense. Tax payers already pay for an entity (DLSR)to set hourly wages and benefits for workers, already pay for compliance programs (LCP) to make sure workers are being paid, already pay for an entity (OSHA) that checks safety compliance on work sites and already pay for an entity (DAS) to address training issues. On top of these costs unions and their elected officials now want to add the cost of administering a labor agreement which does nothing more than check workers for union cards. Do unions really need special rules to compete and more importantly should tax payers pay more to administer these special rules?

By: Laurie Payne

Laurie Payne — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:52:33 +0000

I will never understand how it can even be considered that I am required to pay in Taxes for all these projects yet as a non-union employer I cannot have the right bid on these projects. We still pay pre-vailing wage so competion in bidding is not an issue. Truly how can you think the Founding Fathers would ever think this is any way a good thing?

By: Heather Gee

Heather Gee — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:34:48 +0000

With unemployment at all time highs in California it makes no sense to give preferential treatment to Labor Unions. What ever happened to competition in the market place. Govt contracts should be open to all American workers and companies. Tax payer money should not be used to give preferential treatment to anyone.

By: Richard Markuson

Richard Markuson — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:50:47 +0000

I was at the last meeting where the district reported that 75% of district contracts were to union contractors and last year the only “problem” was with a union contractor. So it appears the proponents of the PLA are not satisfied with 75% but want 100%. The district staff reports the PLA is not necessary to complete its work and evidence suggests PLAs add up to 20% to the cost of construction. Add to this that one of the trustees is a union official and you get a proposal that sounds like a payoff or for someone who wants to run for higher office.

By: Dee Dee

Dee Dee — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0000

Project Labor Agreements are union-only agreements between the contracting agency (CCCCD) and the Construction Trade Unions that require all labor on the project must be a member of the construction union. Only about 15% of the construction workers in Contra Costa County are members of unions. You do the math. Is it right for our elected officials (CCCCD Directors) to execute agreements for commerce of the District that restrict the work to 15% of the workers available in exchange for campaign contributions that will take them to higher offices? Board member Tomi Van de Brooke, V.P. of that board has lead the charge on quickly passing this onerous agreement with BIG LABOR. Is it a coincidence that in August, Tomi announced her plans to run for County Supervisor in Contra Costa County against Gayle Uilkema, around the same time that it became such an urgent matter for this Board to pass a PLA? We are likely to see some large campaign dollars come from BIG LABOR in the funding of Tomi’s campaign. Labor funds Tomi for higher office, and in exchange they get all construction work at the CCCCD restricted so that their 15% of workers have jobs. Stay tuned folks!