|
ELECTRI Council
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1. Background
2. The Content of PLAs
3. Interviews
4. Bidding and Costs
5. Case Studies
Principal Findings
Footnotes
|
ELECTRI International—The Foundation for Electrical Construction, Inc. As of January 15, 2007 |
$1,000,000 or more
Albert G.Wendt*
Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Arizona
Richard W. McBride*
Southern Contracting Co., California
National Electrical Contractors Association*
Square D/Schneider Electric
------
$500,000 or more
The Okonite Company
------
$350,000 or more
Electrical Contractors Trust of Alameda County
------
$250,000 or more
Contractors
H.E. “Buck” Autrey*
Ron Autrey
Miller Electric Co., Florida
John R. Colson
Houston, Texas
Robert E. Doran III*
Capital Electric Construction, Kansas,
In memory of Robert E. Doran, Jr.
Nicholas Dutto
Metropolitan Electrical Construction, California
Jerrold H. Nixon
Eric F. Nixon
Maron Electric Co., Illinois
------
Northeastern Illinois Chapter, NECA
Northern Indiana Chapter, NECA
San Diego County Chapter, NECA
Southeastern Michigan Chapter, NECA*
------
ACCUBID
Eaton Electrical
Estimation
McCormick Systems
------
$150,000 or more
Contractors
Arthur Ashley
Ferndale Electric Co.,Michigan
Clyde Jones
Center Line Electric, Inc.,Michigan
Michael Lindheim*
Schwartz & Lindheim, California
Richard R. Pieper, Sr.*
PPC Partners, Inc.,Wisconsin
James A. Ranck
J. Ranck Electric, Inc.,Michigan
Dan Walsh
United Electric Co., Inc., Kentucky
------
Illinois Chapter, NECA*
Kansas City Chapter, NECA
Los Angeles County Chapter, NECA
Northern New Jersey Chapter, NECA
------
Thomas & Betts Corporation
Panduit Corporation
------
$100,000 or more
Manufacturers and Distributors
Advance Transformer/PhilipsLighting |
Crescent Electric Supply Company
Graybar
Greenlee Textron
Ruud Lighting
Thomas Industries
------
Utility
San Diego Gas & Electric
------
Contractors
Ted C. Anton
Newkirk Electric Associates, Inc., Michigan
Ted N. Baker
Baker Electric, Inc., California
D. R. “Rod” Borden, Jr.*
Tri-City Electric Co., Inc., Florida
Daniel Bozick
Daniel’s Electrical Construction Company, Inc.,
California
Larry Brookshire*
Fisk Acquisition, Inc., Texas
Jay Bruce
Bruce & Merrilees Electric Co., Pennsylvania
Richard L. Burns*
Burns Electric Company, Inc., New York
Brian Christopher
Oregon City, Oregon
Larry Cogburn
Cogburn Bros. Electric, Inc., Florida
Michael Curran
Red Top Electric Company Emeryville, Inc.,
California, In honor of George T. and Mary K. Curran
Ben D’Alessandro
L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc., New York
Frank DiFazio
DiFazio Electric, Inc., New York
Gene W. Dennis
Universal Systems,Michigan
William T. Divane, Jr.
Divane Bros. Electric Co., Illinois,
In memory of William T. Divane, Sr.
and Daniel J. Divane III
Robert Egizii
EEI Holding Corporation, Illinois
Randy Fehlman *
Gregg Electric, Inc., California
Rex A. Ferry
Valley Electrical Consolidated, Inc., Ohio
Brad Giles
Giles Electric Company, Inc., Florida
Darrell Gossett
ERMCO, Indiana
John F. Hahn, Jr.*
Peter D. Furness Electric Co., Delaware
Michael Hanson
Hunt Electric Corporation,Minnesota
Eddie E. Horton
Dallas, Texas
Mark A. Huston
Lone Star Electric, Texas
Thomas G. Ispas
Daniel’s Electrical Construction Company, Inc.,
California
Donald W. Leslie, Sr.
Johnson Electrical Construction Corporation,
New York
Richard J. Martin*
Motor City Electric Co.,Michigan
Roy C. Martin, Jr.
Triangle Electric,Michigan
Edward C. Mattox
Inland Electric Corporation, Illinois
Michael Mazzeo
Michael Mazzeo Electric Corp., New York
Michael McAlister
MRM Electrical/Communications, California
James C. Mc Atee
Electric Power Equipment
Company, Ohio
Timothy McBride*
Southern Contracting Co., California
Edward T. McPhee, Jr.
McPhee, Ltd., Connecticut
James B. Morgan, Sr.
Harrington Electric Co., Ohio
Harvey Morrison
Pritchard Electric Co.,West Virginia |
| * denotes founding member of ELECTRI’21 COUNCIL (1989–1990) |
|
Joel Moryn
Parsons Electric Company, Minnesota
Walter T. Parkes*
O’Connell Electric Co., New York
Skip Perley
TEC-Corp/Thompson Electric Co., Iowa
In memory of Alfred C. Thompson
Robert L. Pfeil
South Bend, Indiana
David Pinter
Zwicker Electric Company, Inc., New York
Carl J. Privitera, Sr.
Mark One Electric Company, Inc., Missouri
Dennis Quebe
Chapel Electric Company, Ohio
Stephen J. Reiten*
M. J. Electric, Inc., Michigan
Frank Russell
Bagby & Russell Electric Co., Alabama In memory of
Robert L. Russell
Tim Russell
R.W. Leet Electric, Inc.,Michigan
Frederic B. Sargent
Sargent Electric Co., Pennsylvania
Rocky Sharp Carl T. Madsen, Inc.,Washington
Turner Smith*
Dillard Smith Construction Co., Tennessee
|
Herbert Spiegel
A tribute in memory of Flora Spiegel,
Corona Industrial Electric, California
Greg E. Stewart
Superior Group, A Division of
Electrical Specialists Ohio
Jeff Thiede
Oregon Electric Construction, Oregon
Ronald J. Toomer
Toomer Electrical Co., Inc., Louisiana
Robert W. Truland
Truland Systems Corporation, Virginia
Robert J. Turner II
Turner Electric Service, Inc.,Michigan
Angelo Veanes
Ferguson Electric Construction Co., New York
Michael H.Walker
Walker Seal Companies, Virginia, In honor of
Michael H.Walker and Frank W. Seal
Mark Walter
Christenson Electric Company, Oregon
Brad Weir
Kelso-Burnett Company, Illinois
Jack W.Welborn
Electrical Corporation of America,Missouri
David A.Witz
Continental Electrical Construction Co., Illinois |
| * denotes founding member of ELECTRI’21 COUNCIL (1989–1990) |
ACEN NECA Monterrey (Mexico)
AMERIC Foundation (Mexico)
American Line Builders
Arizona
Atlanta
Boston
Canadian Electrtical Contractors Association
Central Indiana
Central Ohio
Chicago & Cook County
Greater Cleveland
Greater Sacramento
Greater Toronto Electrical Contractors Association
Michigan
|
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
NECA ACOEO Guadalajara (Mexico)
New York City*
North Central Ohio
Northeastern Line Constructors
North Florida
North Texas
Northern California
Oregon-Columbia
Oregon Pacific-Cascade
Penn-Del-Jersey
San Francisco
Santa Clara Valley
Southeastern Line Constructors
South Florida
South Texas
Washington, D.C.
Western Pennsylvania
|
The research team would like to acknowledge the contributions of the ELECTRI Council members and staff who contributed to this project, and ELECTRI International for providing the financial support. Significant guidance was provided by the project’s Task Force, made up of the following individuals:
Mr. Tom Barrow, Chapter Manager
Santa Clara Valley Chapter NECA
Mr. Steve Boyd, Chapter Manager
Alaska Chapter NECA
Mr. Thomas Chabot, Chapter Manager
Rhode Island & Southeast Massachusetts Chapter NECA
Mr. Ron Cooper, Executive Manager
San Diego Chapter NECA
Mr. Thomas Curran, Vice President of Sales & Marketing
Red Top Electric Co., Emeryville Inc.
Mr. Salvatore DiFede, Manager
Hudson Valley Chapter NECA
Mr. Glenn Kingsbury, Chapter Manager
Boston Chapter NECA
Mr. David Manderson, Executive Director
Northeast Texas Chapter NECA
Mr. Francis Mazza, Chapter Manager
Dakotas Chapter NECA
Mr. Michael Moconyi, Chapter Manager
Connecticut Chapter NECA
Mr.Walter Parkes, President
O'Connell Electric Co., Victor, NY
Mr. Charles Ramsey, School Board President
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Mr. Robert Rayburn, Executive Vice President
Milwaukee Chapter NECA
Mr. Eric Sivertsen, Assistant Chapter Manager
Northern New Jersey Chapter NECA
|
Mr. Robert Gasperow, Construction Labor Research Council
Washington, DC
Mr. Andy Berg, Director of Local Government Relations
San Diego Chapter NECA
Mr. Don Campbell, Executive Director
Northern California Chapter NECA
Mr.William Collins
Collins Electric Company, Chicopee, MA
Mr. Mike Crawford
Surnbrock ECS, Diamondale, MI
Mr. Donald Dawson, Manager
Kansas City Chapter NECA
Mr. Michael Geller, Secretary
Contra Costa Electrical Industry Trust
Mr. Terry Hatch, Chapter Manager
Oregon-Pacific-Cascade Chapter NECA
Mr. Douglas Martin, Executive Vice President
St. Louis Chapter NECA
Mr. Todd Michaelsen, Chapter Manager
Ohio/Michigan Chapter NECA
Ms. Marilyn Oppedisano, Chapter Manager
Finger Lakes, NY Chapter NECA
Mr. Skip Perley
Thompson Electric Company, Sioux City, IA
Mr. David Raspolich
Dynalectric Company, San Diego, CA
Mr. Roy Richey, Chapter Manager
Long Island Chapter NECA
Mr. Don Surnbrock, President
Surnbrock ECS, Diamondale, MI |
This ELECTRI International research project has been conducted under the auspices of the Research Center.
©2007 ELECTRI International—The Foundation for Electrical Construction, Inc. All Rights Reserved The material in this publication is copyright protected and may not be reproduced without the permission of ELECTRI International.
Project labor agreements (PLAs) are prehire
collective bargaining agreements that establish the
terms and conditions of employment on one or
more construction projects. PLAs are typically the
product of negotiations between a group of unions,
usually represented by a building, construction
trades’ council and the representative of a construction
user, most often a construction management
firm. Unlike local construction collective bargaining,
contractors and contractor associations have
little or no role in such negotiations. PLAs require
all contractors working on a project to adhere to
collectively bargained terms and conditions of
employment, whether they are normally union or
nonunion contractors. PLAs have undergone considerable
evolution over the years. Once used
almost exclusively on very large projects that were
either extremely isolated or that overwhelmed the
capacity of the local construction labor market,
PLAs are now used on a variety of private and public
projects.
The use of PLAs in the public sector has raised
questions about possible conflicts with state or local
bidding regulations. As a result, all branches and
levels of government have become involved in the
controversy, which, in turn, has drawn both media
attention and spurred a fair amount of research.
However, as our review shows, most of the research
is of low quality and little use in determining
whether PLAs actually affect bidding behavior,
wages, construction costs, etc.
The current report is possibly the broadest ranging and most detailed study of PLAs conducted to date.While prior studies have focused on a particular PLA project and addressed one or two narrowly defined issues, in this study we examine a large number of projects using a variety of techniques, including archival research, interviews, case studies and the statistical analysis of original data.
We ask a number of questions, including the following:What is a PLA? How do PLAs differ? What does prior research tell us about the effects of PLAs on construction projects? How do individuals with experience with PLAs view these agreements? How do PLAs affect the outcomes of construction projects? In what ways can PLAs be used to address the strategic needs of a project?
There are several central findings of this study. Perhaps most important, we find that there is no substantial evidence that PLAs decrease the number of bidders or change the costs of construction projects. Although our findings run contrary to prior research, we believe that most previous studies failed to account for important influences on construction costs. Therefore, effects were falsely attributed to PLAs that actually belonged to unobserved variables.
We arrived at our conclusions on bidding behavior by studying two adjacent school districts in San Jose, California. Both began extensive school construction in 2002. In 2004, one school district
signed a PLA, while the other did not.While the number of bids per bid opening decreased after the PLA in the former district, they also decreased in the district that did not sign a PLA. The decrease in bids was better predicted by an increasingly busy construction market than the existence of the PLA.
To examine cost effects, we studied 108 school projects in New England.We found that such variables as the building’s size, the need for a new boiler, the construction of an auditorium, the construction of library and where the school was located had positive effects on construction costs. There is no evidence that a PLA either raised or lowered the costs of the projects studied.
We argue that if PLAs are cost neutral, then other reasons for using or not using PLAs must be examined. Through interviews and case studies, we found that users favored PLAs to reduce some of the uncertainty inherent in large scale construction projects. Obviously, no one can control the weather, and material shortages are always a concern. But construction users felt a PLA would ensured a steady flow of highly qualified labor. The flow of labor was guaranteed by the nationwide referral systems maintained by unions; the steadiness of the flow was buttressed by no-strike agreements, which are a nearly universal item in PLAs. Construction users told us that PLAs were particularly attractive on large projects that needed to be completed on a tight schedule. PLAs can be used to harmonize hours and holidays across the trades and to modify shifts and work schedules to meet the needs of construction users.
Although we lack good data on safety outcomes, interview evidence suggests that safety inputs are greater on PLA projects. Often PLAs include language establishing labor/management committees that deal specifically with safety and health issues.
PLAs may also be crafted to achieve wider social ends, such as increasing minority employment and participation on projects by minority
business enterprises. As in a case study of the East Side Union High School district in San Jose, PLAs may also be used to create highly developed structures for training and recruiting young workers into the building trades, a critical need in light of the reported looming skills shortage in the industry.
A possible downside of PLAs is their effect on local labor relations. Some interviewees told us that power relations at the bargaining table may be skewed when too much work is covered by PLAs and their accompanying no-strike/no-lockout clauses.With workers protected from job actions, compromises in local bargaining may be harder to affect, leading to unusual settlements and protracted negotiations.
Another problem with PLAs is the general lack of contractor participation in bargaining. This sometimes leads to the needs of an industry not being addressed in an agreement. One complaint of local electrical industry representatives is that most PLAs do not allow them to use their longstanding, bipartite system of dispute resolution.
A possible solution to the problem, and one that is used in many areas, is to develop model PLA language through standing labor/management committees, which can be established as Taft- Hartley trusts and supported through per capita assessments on work. Typically, contractor organizations have high levels of participation on such committees.
Most interviewees agreed that PLAs are not suited to every project in every location. In considering whether to use a PLA, owners usually consider the importance of scheduling, the size of the project, the need for skilled labor, whether there are a sufficient number of union contractors in the major trades needed for the project to support competitive bidding and whether the work is likely to be done by union contractors with or without the PLA. In general, larger and more complex projects, for which scheduling is important, are good candidates for the use of a PLA.
PLAs are valuable tools for the construction industry because they can be used to create the conditions needed for a superior construction project. More than one hundred PLAs were reviewed for this study. The provisions of those agreements varied widely. The most sophisticated agreements had been crafted to address project specific issues such as local hiring, scheduling, work rules, employment of minorities, or the staffing of projects. We also found many bare bones PLAs that were little more than no strike/no lockout agreements. Based on our review of these agreements, and the findings of this research, we believe that there is great potential, much of it unrealized, for using PLAs to improve construction projects and promote union construction. Realizing this potential will require the education of contractors, construction users, and union officials on how PLAs can be crafted to promote the interests of all parties and provide better construction outcomes.
PLAs are nothing new.McCartin1 noted that something like a modern PLA was used during WWI when the War Department worked out a compromise between the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and defense contractors who were building cantonments. All workers would be paid union scale in exchange for dropping a demand for a closed shop.
The use of PLAs increased during WWII. Dunlop2 writes of the stabilization agreement between the Office of Production Management and the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFL. The agreement provided for uniform overtime rates of time-and-one-half, standard shifts at regular rates and declared that there shall be “no stoppage of work on account of jurisdictional disputes or for any other cause.”
Until the 1980s, PLAs were used in both the private and public sectors with little notice. So why have PLAs become so controversial? Why have virtually all branches and levels of government been dragged into the fight over PLAs? We explore these questions in this study.Moreover, we examine the contents of PLAs, present comments from interviews with stakeholders concerning PLAs, assess the economics of PLAs and provide details of the strategic use of PLAs from several case studies of actual projects.
| Using archival sources, interviews and both qualitative and quantitative methods, we try to determine how Project Labor Agreements affect construction costs, scheduling, safety, training and minority employment. |
- Chapter One of this report defines PLAs, discusses the reasons for the controversy over PLAs and gives an overview of previous PLA research.
- Chapter Two presents and analyzes the contents of PLAs. The results are based on a review of nearly one hundred agreements from all parts of the country.
- Chapter Three discusses the comments of several dozen stakeholders concerning PLAs. Interviews were conducted with, among others, construction users (both public and private), contractors, construction managers and union officials. Interviews were held in southern New England, the sorthern Midwest and the West.
- Chapter Four examines the economics of PLAs through original research. It presents findings of bidding behavior based on evidence from two adjacent California school districts and research on PLAs and school construction costs in New England.
- Chapter Five presents several case studies of PLAs, including a highway project in Utah, an automobile plant in Texas, an airport terminal in Rhode Island and a set of school projects in California. Chapter five tells how PLAs can be used to address specific needs on a project.
- The end of this report contains a list of principal findings.
This paper appears in the eLCOSH website with the permission of the author
and/or copyright holder and may not be reproduced without their consent. eLCOSH is an
information clearinghouse. eLCOSH and its sponsors are not responsible for the accuracy of
information provided on this web site, nor for its use or misuse.
© 2007 ELECTRI International The Foundation for Electrical Construction, Inc.
All rights reserved. Index No. F2702
|