PD Editorial: County fails to make case for favoring unions

Few issues can touch off a heated debate in the construction industry more than project labor agreements — a management system for projects that essentially ties workers to union rules, benefits and oversight.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is expected to draw a boisterous crowd when it wades into this debate on Tuesday. Why it is doing so is not entirely clear.

The board will be discussing a policy that would require project labor agreements on all county projects of more than $25 million. It's a high threshold for sure, but it essentially would cover the plum of all upcoming construction projects, the $54 million Sonoma County airport expansion.

Project labor agreements have been around since the 1930s, and they have their benefits. They provide dispute-resolution systems and other tools that can help projects come in on time and on budget. They also provide support for apprenticeship programs and ensure that local workers — or a least a good percentage of them — are hired for local projects.

But there are other ways for the county to achieve these goals without employing something as broad and heavy-handed as a project labor agreement.

Here are the chief downsides:

They are unfair, pure and simple. They would essentially lock out the roughly 80 percent of contractors in Sonoma County who are non-union or at least force them to act as union contractors should they bid on a portion of the project.

This is not about pay. Union and non-union contractors are already required to pay prevailing wages. This is about benefits and management control.

To participate in PLA projects, non-union contractors would have to make contributions to union health and retirement benefits system

, a scenario that could force some to double pay for benefits. Meanwhile,

. Some contractors would be paying retirement benefits for workers who would never receive them, unless they join the union. That's why critics argue the system is a recruiting tool for unions.

Critics contend project labor agreements drive up the cost of public projects by discouraging competition and creating unnecessary expenses. Opponents note studies by the Beacon Hill Institute of Suffolk University that, among other things, show project labor agreements can drive up project costs 12 percent to 18 percent. Supporters point to other studies, including ones from Cornell University, that

, which rebutted

the Beacon Hill studies and

found some project labor agreements provide job stability and cost savings. Either way, the financial benefits are unclear at best.

So here's the primary question we have: What problem is being resolved by adopting a policy such as this? Amid all the material being presented to supervisors, there's no evidence of construction delays, cost overruns or unfair labor practices on county projects that might warrant such a solution.

And why now? Given that so many in the building industry are struggling to find work, the timing couldn't be worse.

We also question why this needs to be decided at a policy level. At the least, project labor agreements should be considered on a project-by-project basis, not as a blanket policy.

There may be an argument for project labor agreements in some circumstances. But the county has not made its case to contractors or to taxpayers. As it is, it's a solution in search of a problem and should be shelved.