Last week, the United States House of Representatives considered and defeated two amendments to the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill that would have weakened or eliminated prevailing wage protections or the use of Project Labor Agreements on federal construction projects.

Democrats were joined by a significant number of Republicans in defeating the two amendments. The vote on the Davis Bacon amendment was 183-234, with 52 Republicans joining all but one Democrat to prevent passage. The PLA language lost by a smaller, but still significant 207-213 vote. Twenty-eight Republicans joined Democrats on that vote.

Neither Republican Congressmen from New Hampshire--Charlie Bass or Frank Guinta--joined the side of union members to defeat the amendments. They are the only two Republican members of the House from New England.

The following Op-Ed piece by Mark Erlich was published in The Boston Globe on Saturday, July 3, 2010. You can read the article online by clicking here.

LAST MONTH the University of Massachusetts Building Authority voted to put the proposed $750 million overhaul of UMass Boston’s campus under a project labor agreement that would require the use of unionized workers. The reflex reaction of hostile voices was predictable. “This is the kind of thing,’’ said Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, “that makes people crazy about state government.’’

A flurry of newspaper columns and radio rants revived the standard anti-PLA view that these agreements exclude the majority of potential contractors and add expense to a project. The problem with these arguments is that they are fundamentally wrong. Comments like Baker’s are what make people crazy about ideological screeds based on flawed research.

PLA critics like to claim that 80 percent of the construction workforce is non-union. This is based on Census figures where occupational identities are self-described and where handymen and summer house painters are considered part of the workforce. It does not reflect the real numbers of career trades workers in commercial, institutional, industrial, and highway construction — the only parts of the industry where PLAs are ever applied.

A far better indicator is to consider the presence of union firms in non-residential construction based on a review of Dodge Reports, the most comprehensive source of information in the industry. According to the Carpenters Labor Management Program’s analysis of the 2009 Dodges, 65 percent of the dollar value of Massachusetts projects was attributable to union contractors.

Furthermore, PLAs are used only on large projects where the complexity typically demands the sophistication of a sizable company. That universe is overwhelmingly union, as confirmed by the recent Boston Business Journal list in which 23 of the largest 25 general contractors in the area have collective bargaining agreements.

It is also simply not true that non-union firms cannot participate in public PLA projects. Any company can bid and use its existing labor force, as long as it is prepared to comply with the terms of the PLA, a situation that non-union contractors resist because it raises expectations for their traditionally lower-paid workers.

The claim about added costs is based on a 2003 Beacon Hill Institute report that concluded that there was a $32- per-square-foot premium on public schools built with PLAs. After an initial rush of favorable publicity, economists from Michigan State University and the University of Rhode Island analyzed the report and determined that the estimates were “inflated and unreliable.’’ The authors of the report had based their calculations on bid prices rather than final costs, failed to compensate for urban vs. suburban sites, ignored some schools that were built with PLAs and included others that never had PLAs.

The Beacon Hill Institute was forced to issue a revised report that reduced the PLA “premium’’ by 40 percent. Even then, critics utilized the institute’s own data to demonstrate that there was no appreciable difference between construction costs on PLA and non-PLA schools.

On one level, this can be seen as an academic squabble over a poorly designed study. Unfortunately, the study results still serve as gospel in certain circles and have become uncritically accepted as a legitimate part of public policy discussions. Reviewing the entire debate at the time, Peter Cockshaw, the widely respected independent construction industry commentator wrote that there is “no solid data from any study to prove PLAs cost more or non-PLAs cost less’’.

PLAs are not designed for the expansion of Aunt Martha’s deck. They have been used on large public projects as well as private buildings for Harvard, Partners, and the Museum of Fine Arts where owners seek a level of comfort regarding scheduling, training, workforce diversity, productivity, uninterrupted work progress, and known costs. The courts have looked favorably on the agreements, particularly in cases when a project’s “size, complexity, and duration’’ are an issue.

It is frustrating to hear the same tired arguments repeated and, to a surprising degree, accepted. But there are political points to be scored and, as is so often the case in public debate, some folks don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Mark Erlich is the executive secretary-treasurer of the New England Regional Council of Carpenters.

The Sheet Metal Workers recently filed a jurisdictional dispute under the PLA at Gilmartin School project in Waterbury Connecticut. H Carr & Sons, Inc. was the subcontractor with the exterior siding package on the project, which included composite wood, fiber cement panels, and flat-lock zinc panels.

The Sheet Metal Workers filed the dispute under the PLA, claiming the zinc panels. It went to arbitration under the PLA and the arbitrator ruled that there was no basis for overturning H. Carr’s assignment of the panels to the Carpenters Union.

This is the fifth time in the last several years that the Sheet Metal Workers have filed jurisdictional disputes under the PLA regarding the assignment of exterior metal panels (of various types) to the Carpenters. They have now lost all five of the cases, the last three involving flat-lock zinc panels.

President Barack Obama yesterday reversed another Bush administration policy by issuing an Executive Order lifting a prohibition on the use of Project Labor Agreements on Federal construction projects and encouraging departments to use PLAs on projects valued at more than $25 million. The order specifically cites problems that may occur on large-scale construction projects when a structure for ensuring a steady supply of labor is not present, and when there is no formal process for resolving disputes, which are more common on sites with multiple employers on large sites.

The order stated, in part: "The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement."

Project Labor Agreements had been used by the Federal Government for years before George W. Bush issued an Executive Order prohibiting their use. Though anti-union advocates lobbied hard for that move, private companies and state governments continued to use the agreements to establish fair standards and procedures for managing projects.

The Executive Order also directs the Office of Management and Budget to study and make recommendations on broader use of PLAs "with respect to both construction projects undertaken under Federal contracts and construction projects receiving Federal financial assistance."