Michigan Votes Forum

Another volley in the attack on labor. The republicans are moving closer to their utopia of a compliant and desperate low wage workforce.

Ban unions all together. They have bankrupted the State and taxpayers.

Follow the lead of our neighbor across the pond, Wisconsin.

Yes, let's turn the middle class into serfs for corporations. I'm not sure where or for whom you work but everyone I know lives in fear of their employer who has them by the throat. There are no pay raises for anyone even if the company is making plenty of money. Management pretty much defies employees to look for another job and there aren't any (and they know that).

Is this your paradise?  

Instead of envy of public sector employee benefits you should ask why are my benefits going down and down (until there are none). The goal of the wealthy/corporation cabal is to turn the middle class into sheeple who will work themselves to death for more and more corporate profit. And the corporations will control the government to make sure there are no changes that will endanger their power. 

Your economic ignorance is breathtaking.  Capitalism has produce a higher standard of living for more people than any other system in the history of mankind.  Yes, the laws of supply and demand affect the market for labor skills as well has goods and when demand for labor is low, it is likely the cost of may go down some.  Over time these cycles will balance out if left to market forces.  If government intervenes, they may temporarily raise the compensation to some people but ultimately everyone (except government) will suffer a lower standard of living.  We've already witnessed the result of "workers paradise" it was called the USSR.

After catching your breath, you should start breathing through your nose instead of your open mouth. It is much more comfortable.

There is not one generic kind of capitalism. Maybe the era of the Robber Barons, and textile factories populated with child workers has escaped your notice. That kind of capitalism did little to produce a decent, much less higher standard of living. It was organized labor that forced business to share the wealth of this nation with the workers that built it. That in turn created our middle class, the essential ingredient for a prosperous nation.

The law of supply and demand for labor has been turned on it's head with global corporations. These behemoths are able now to shop the world for the cheapest labor. I agree, in time this will balance out. But in that time, our standard of living will decline drastically, unless we take measures to make the process more gradual and fair. Only the government can do that. Banning project labor agreements is not the way to go.

How about a compromise ---- we continue with Davis-bacon act ,which of course the unions get no pocket lining money from and continue what has worked for public projects for 70 years. Discriminating with the use of public tax dollars has no value in this country. Of course in communist countries this may work well. Where it pertains to private industry union strong arm tactics some time work but in the long run a lot of companies will take their business to right to work states where the cost of doing business is less. Supply and demand runs our economy. This should be a wake up call to union membership about the new realities keeping their jobs

Your suggestion for a compromise is meaningless, since the Davis-Bacon act is law. Let me offer you a compromise. If a union contractor gets the job, he gets a project labor agreement. If a non union contractor gets the job, according to the Bacon-Davis act, he pays prevailing wages for the project. That is what has worked since 1931. So we don't need this new anti union law.

 wish that was true--Govt. in there infinite wisdom has decided low bid non-union contractors can not just pay Davis beacon but have to enter into a union pla in order to be awarded the job. I know this from experience. That's why this an important law. to end discrimination by public servants with our tax dollars.

Your information is wrong. The Davis Bacon act does not require contractors be unionized.

PLAs can be written to cover anything including working conditions, job rules and even how workers are selected for a project.  The details of a PLA are too often hammered out between union bought local politicians and the unions that elected them.  (construction unions focus their political efforts on politicians that make PLA decisions) Whereever possible, union leaders, through their political puppets, can write a PLA that essentially makes it impossible for a non-unionized employer to meet the agreement's standards thus opening the job only to bids from unionized employers.  

Davis-Bacon only covers federal contracts.  The proposed law being discussed on this thread addresses PLAs at the state and local level and has nothing to do with Davis Bacon unless the project in question is assisted by federal funds, which is often the case.  In those circumstances, while Davis Bacon only requires prevailing wage and benefits standards be adhered to, the PLA can still be written to extend far beyond Davis Bacon as described above.  The state also has prevailing wage laws similiar to Davis Bacon that are currently under legislative challenge.  

Davis Bacon has been suspended a few times in response to crises (like Andrew and Katrina).  One could argue that the extraordinary prolonged unemployment in Michigan construction  coupled with current state and local fiscal crises cries out for at least temporary suspension of Davis Bacon and PLAs so construction folks can get back on their feet and the bid process can move more quickly.  Of course, to union ideologues any threat to Big Labor's power must be demagogued to death.  

I just found this web site, and although I may not be as familiar with  2011 HR 165 as some of you, I would like to say that if we elect to "ban" something, we should consider all the consequences, intended or otherwise.  Anytime we make a special allowance we run the risk of having the government get in the way (how do you think we got in the mess in the first place).  Projects should be awarded based on the merits of the bid, not the political associations of the company or work force.  If a bid-winning company uses union labor ...more power to them, but don't expect any special treatment.  If the awarded company fails to meet the terms of the contract because of union related issues, the union should be liable for the losses. Lets make the playing field fair to everyone...no special treatment to anyone PERIOD.

Senators Gleason and Gregory, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the 

passage of Senate Bill No. 165 and moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the bill be printed 

as their reasons for voting "no." 

 The motion prevailed. 

 Senator Gleason's statement is as follows: 

 For over 20 years, project labor agreements have been utilized across the country as a tool to upgrade the skill 

requirements of the workers on these projects. Many communities call this a labor harmonious act, not a project labor agreement, because it offers a sense of responsibility and a transparent form of communication between the 

investors, the developers, and the workers.  

 In 1993, some would suggest at that time, certainly not a liberal Supreme Court of the United States, some would 

suggest an obligation that should be extended to American workers. They were discussing at that time the cleanup of 

the Boston Harbor, and the U.S. Supreme Court validated the use of project labor agreements across our country. 

Project labor agreements are a course of action that is utilized to sit down with those who are investing in the 

project, those who will be performing the work, and the individual workers as well.  

 Recently, a Supreme Court that had the wherewithal to  interject itself in the U.S. presidential election and 

overturned, many would say with the decision of the state  of Florida in regard to the Gore and Bush election of 

2000, they interjected themselves in that decision. The Supreme Court, who many would suggest has become even 

more conservative in their tendencies, recently, once again, submitted their opinion in the Santiago Community 

College project; that this was a fair and equitable way to negotiate agreements.  

 I am not only speaking on behalf of those who are under attack today, those who belong to collective bargaining 

units--the carpenters union, electricians, teamsters--all of those who have typically implemented and utilized this 

agreement in the past, but on behalf of all Michigan citizens and those who will be paying for these projects, not 

only with their personal investment, but in many regards those who will be using the facilities themselves, will be 

visiting the facilities, and those who will be in the immediate area of the buildings. This is serious business when 

you are constructing multistory structures that need spans, and the public is going to be circulating in that area. 

 Of all the safety concerns of our citizens thought of during this process and of all the concerns about a fair and 

legally-accepted fashion of negotiations when we sit down across the table from our contractors and workers 

represented by the collective bargaining units, that is most definitely a concern of mine. My trouble is that we are 

continuing a trend that we began in the new year. Once again, we are trying to really prostitute in a political fashion 

the collective bargaining process itself. 

 Who are we carrying the water for in this continuing of the trend to interfere with those who belong to collective 

bargaining units? I am troubled about this. I am one who believes fervently that government can be too big. I have 

displayed it in my action, votes, and remarks over the past several years. Once again, it seems that in this chamber 

there is the thought that government is not too big; that, once again, we can have an expanse of government; that we 

can interject ourselves in this process. This is easily defined as an overreach by state government in the local 

obligations and negotiations. There is not a single person in this chamber who can say that the state of Michigan, 

through this action, is not interjecting itself. Big Brother in Lansing knows more than the local units and the local 

investors, and we will tell them how to do their business. Project labor agreements have been around for decades.  

 Typically, and I can't site one example where there has been a cost overrun or a calendar that hasn't been met by 

using a project labor agreement. They have been used in my county and others, probably yours as well. But, once 

again, here is Lansing telling our communities that we know more than they do; that they don't have the wherewithal 

to sit down and negotiate in a responsible fashion on behalf of their communities and investors. Our community 

college, Mott Community College, universally implements a project labor agreement. Genysis Hospital, a local 

medical facility, used a project labor agreement and came in way under cost and way ahead of schedule. So both of 

the obligations that are typically agreed upon in a contract were met and indeed exceeded. 

 So the U.S. Supreme Court says we should be able to use these and local communities have. But, once again Big 

Brother here in Lansing, as I mentioned before, says no, we know more than our local communities. I think this 

trend is troubling because it seems like every few weeks, we are doing something that is not to the benefit of the 

state, but is actually a full-force attack on those who belong to unions. If anyone can show me an example that 

project labor agreements haven't been fruitful, I would like to see it. Project labor agreements guarantee--they flatout guarantee--that you will use the highest-skilled workers, and the safety records cannot be met with projects that 

haven't used the labor agreements. 

 So with regard to the safety issue itself and the impediment to local decision-making, I think this is another stretch 

to hurt our Michigan workers. I ask that we quit interfering with local decisions. 

Senator Gregory's statement is as follows: 

 I also rise in opposition to Senate Bill No. 165, which is eliminating project labor agreements under the guise of 

fair employment practices. This bill is the opposite of fair, and it continues the Senate majority's unwarranted, 

relentless, and ongoing attack on organized labor. As my colleague spoke about a lot of the project agreements, I 

would like to go through some of the important roles that they have played. 

 Project labor agreements play an important role in enabling our local units of government to create safe and 

secure worksites and a reliable and productive workforce, union and nonunion alike. They significantly increase the te of employment among urban residents and minority workers on both publiclly- and privately- financed 

construction, alteration, repair, and improvement projects in Michigan. 

 Many labor associations and organization, as well as private construction companies, have all attested to and 

testified on the importance of project labor agreements. They improve workplace safety, promote community and 

public goodwill, lower costs, maintain timeliness, and ensure high-quality projects. Project labor agreements help 

standardize safety requirements, safety orientations, and communication of expectations to all parties. Standardized 

work rules cover all workers. 

 PLAs facilitate promoting and meeting worker residency and diversity requirements and help deter the hiring of 

undocumented workers or subcontractors who skirt paying taxes. Hiring requirements under PLAs improve 

employments opportunities for Michigan residents, indirectly support Michigan businesses, and ensure proper wages 

and benefits are offered. 

 PLAs stabilize and define wages for the project duration, require proper payment of overtime, and abide by state 

and federal laws. They can help prevent work stoppages through strikes and lockouts, and provide scheduling 

acceleration tools that reduce shift-work premiums, reduce overtime hours, and make-up days. 

 But, you know, after saying all this, the thing that bothers me the most about eliminating the PLAs, as my 

colleague said, is this will eliminate the local municipalities from being able to implement them. I represent 14 

communities, and in those communities, some have them and some don't. The communities that do have them have 

been presented to the council and the council has vetted these PLAs out and decided to accept them and have done a 

good job with them; so much so that they have saved money. Now for the this Legislature acting as if they are the 

great and all-knowing Oz, saying that we know better than you, you cannot perform to your best, and we must tell 

you what to do, and this body wants to eliminate PLAs. I have a community that has it and it works well. Now for 

me to come to Lansing and have my colleagues say, well, your community really doesn't know what to do, we are 

going to tell them what to do, I think, is totally disheartening. We have colleagues who want to take power away 

from the very units of government that serve the people we represent and say they don't know what they are doing.  

 So I am asking my colleagues to reconsider this--to table it, pull it off the table, reconsider, go over it, but do 

justice for the communities. For those communities that have it, don't just wipe it out for them saying we can do a 

better job. Those communities that don't want it don't have it. But the ones that do, please reconsider the 

ramifications of this to the local communities.  

Senator Moolenaar's statement is as follows: 

 I want to address some of the concerns that were  raised. During this process in committee, we added two 

amendments--one that affirms that this act does not affect the prevailing wage act, and second, that this act does not 

prohibit parties from entering into agreements or engaging in activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. 

The National Labor Relations Act is what allows parties to enter into project labor agreements. So what we are doing today is not eliminating those agreements. Project labor agreements will still exist. They 

just won't be able to discriminate anymore. So I would urge my colleagues to vote "yes." 

Senators Colbeck and Moolenaar asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that 

the statements be printed in the Journal. 

 The motion prevailed. 

 Senator Colbeck's statement is as follows: 

 I was honored to sit on the Reforms, Restructuring and Reinventing Committee where my collegue from the 36th 

District presented this bill to us, and we had a lot of discussion during the course of the hearings. One thing I would 

like to point out is I am surprised to hear the term "project labor agreement" used a lot. If you search this bill there is 

not one instance of that term posted in this bill. That is not just to be cute, like is sometimes done, but it is because 

this does not impair project labor agreements. 

 In the heart of this bill, in Section 5, it merely prohibits bid propsals that are going out that prohibit unions from 

bidding in it. It also precludes prohibiting the exclusion of private enterprise and companies from bidding. This is 

truly about fairness in competition.  Currently, 85 percent of perspective bidders on government contracts are 

excluded from bidding on those contracts. What kind of impact do you think that has on the bid price for some of 

these contracts? 

 One of the questions posed by my colleagues was who are we carrying the water for? I will tell you who we are 

carrying the water for on this one: for Michigan taxpayers and those of us who still hold to the ideals of free market 

competition. We need to stop interferring with this free market, and we need to stop picking winners and losers in 

the assignment and appropriation of taxpayer funds. 

 I strongly urge the support of this bill.