The Merit Construction Alliance has formally requested Governor Healey wield her veto pen and strike language from two pieces of legislation that create new systemic barriers to fair and open opportunity for all qualified contractors. The purpose of the union-only provisions of the bill is to create a monopoly for organized labor, wrapped cynically in the flag of inclusion.
An Open Letter to Governor Healey
The Honorable Maura Healey
Office of the Governor
State House, Room 280
24 Beacon St.
Boston, MA 02133
Via electronic mail and U.S. Mail
Re: H.5100 and S.2967
November 15, 2024
Dear Governor Healey,
It was a privilege to serve on your Public Construction Projects Advisory Council, which recently completed its report on “opportunities to expand inclusionary contracting for small, emerging, and diverse Massachusetts businesses in public construction projects.” The Council’s report also identified “barriers to small, emerging, and diverse businesses created by the existing procurement and bidding process for public building construction projects.”
Incredibly, in this day and age, new systemic barriers are being advanced by the Legislature. Two bills on your desk would impede the participation of small, emerging, and diverse contractors in public construction. Inclusion of so-called project labor agreement language in H.5100 and “labor harmony” requirements in S.2967 will exclude qualified construction firms, including most minority- and women-owned firms, because they are merit shop and choose not to join with organized labor. I urge you to veto the offending language.
During listening sessions with MWBE firm owners, the Council heard first-hand how PLAs require the use of union labor, and MWBE firms are mostly merit shops (i.e. non-union) for many legitimate reasons. We heard from general contractors about the difficulty finding MWBEs to meet current hiring goals. Rather than increase diversity, PLAs will reduce diversity. This is because the sole purpose of a PLA is to block merit shops from competing with unions shops. Any other alleged purpose of a PLA, even when wrapped in the flag of inclusion, is false cover intended to hide its true purpose.
The so-called “labor harmony” requirement for private clean energy projects uses a tactic employed by the Legislature when legalizing casino gambling. Making a state permit contingent on a “labor harmony” requirement gives all the leverage to organized labor which can effectively deny the issuance of a lucrative permit unless all its demands are met. This guarantees that all work on these projects will go to organized labor and not to merit shops, including MWBEs.
It is disingenuous and dishonest for PLA proponents to claim a merit shop contractor can bid under a PLA. Multiple state court judges have ruled PLAs are anti-competitive and circumvent the state’s procurement laws. ”Notwithstanding the lip service the PLA pays to being open to all bidders, it most assuredly is not,” wrote Hampden Superior Court Judge Michael K. Callan in a May ruling striking down a PLA on a public project in Springfield.
It should not be state policy to favor union labor over merit shop employees, who are 82% of the state’s construction workforce. (Source: unionstats.com). Both systems are valid. While perhaps not perfect, the public bidding process tries to be fair to all qualified contractors and their skilled, trained employees.
In addition to denying opportunity to small, emerging, and diverse construction companies, PLAs severely reduce competition. Studies have shown PLAs increase project costs by 20% or more without delivering discernable benefits. State and federal laws protect employee rights, wages, benefits, and safety. Merit shops also provide a host of competitive benefits, job training, apprenticeship programs, and opportunities for career advancement. Given this, it’s little wonder four out of five construction workers choose not to join a union.
A reduction in bidders on public and private projects will increase costs. This means taxpayers will pay more for public projects and clean energy will be even more expensive when built by only unions. The Boston Globe reported on concerns voiced by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities about a housing bond bill amendment that would have restricted the number of contractors available to bid on public housing.
“Eliminating the majority of the state’s contractor pool, the housing office wrote, could escalate construction costs for projects,” the Globe reported on July 19. “As a general rule, the housing office found the more bids, or more competition, for a project, the less expensive it would be.” Fortunately, the amendment never passed.
The Globe cited a memo, which EOHLC refused to provide to me. Perhaps if you request it, you can see for yourself the analysis of your housing staff that concluded fewer bidders result in higher costs. Allowing PLAs on public construction and forcing private energy projects to use only union labor will have an even larger impact, far beyond affordable housing.
In 1981, the Ward Commission issued its findings on corruption in the state’s procurement process. The Commission concluded, ““Political influence, not professional performance, is the prime criterion in doing business with the state.” Enabling the widespread use of union-only provisions in public contracting would signal that, once again, political influence, not professional performance, matters most. The Pioneer Institute and The Boston Globe – two ends of the ideological spectrum – both publicly oppose PLAs.
Having served two Massachusetts governors, I know this is a tough decision given the political pressure from labor leaders. However, I implore you to do what’s right, reject state-sanctioned job discrimination,and refuse to take part in erecting new systemic barriers to opportunity for all. Otherwise, what was even the point of the Public Construction Projects Advisory Council?
Sincerely,
Jason Kauppi
President