Pro-labor politics could raise construction costs in Cambridge, where city councillors have been concerned about spiraling project expenses.
A motion in support of project labor agreements was passed unanimously Monday by the City Council, an endorsement of a bill in the State House for the pre-hire collective bargaining agreements between unions and employers. The agreements set terms and conditions on projects that some evidence shows increases costs for employers – and therefore for who pays for projects.
More than 60 percent of Massachusetts construction workers are unionized, according to a 2010 study by Cornell University, and the ability for unions to negotiate terms for construction projects before work begins would give union-represented workers an edge in securing better employment opportunities. The bill working its way through a committee on Beacon Hill would allow public agencies to require one of the agreements for construction projects to prevent legal disputes, promote project stability and integrate various unions and companies involved on a project into a single work plan.
While the agreements are undeniably good for unions and their workers, the evidence on whether they can reduce costs for employers is mixed – and that is not their primary goal, according to the Department of Labor.
They’re considered an effective tool to ensure timely completion of projects at or under budget, provide employers with a reliable source of skilled workers, increase diversity and support equitable workforce development and improve worker health and safety on the job, the department’s resource guide says.
“Although PLAs have been around for years and used on some of the most famous construction projects in American history, their use has become controversial as the nonunion sector of the construction industry has grown and as PLAs have been applied to relatively small projects,” Dale Belman and Matthew Bodah wrote in a briefing paper for the Economic Policy Institute. “Critics argue that PLAs place nonunion contractors at a disadvantage in bidding on projects and raise overall project costs. PLA opponents are particularly critical of the use of PLAs on public projects. They argue that such usage violates the spirit of public bidding statutes by requiring the adherence to collectively bargained terms and conditions of employment as a prerequisite for winning a contract.”
Some studies show PLAs have minimal or negative effects on building costs, such as a 2007 study of 126 Massachusetts school construction projects, which demonstrated a 9 percent to 15 percent rise in costs for projects under the agreements, while others show that carefully planned PLAs can reduce overhead costs in a variety of ways.
Cambridge has seen a “Cambridge premium” on projects that leaves the city struggling to control budgets, councillors have said, with the $299 million Tobin School and Vassal Lane Upper School as prime example.
At a December meeting of the council’s Finance Committee, councillor Patty Nolan said neighboring Watertown had built two net-zero-emissions schools for more than 1,000 students by the same contractor and architects as Cambridge for $170 million. “We’re spending almost double that for fewer students,” Nolan said, calling it “something we really need to take a hard look at.”
Deputy city manager Owen O’Riordan said there were always vagaries of bidding, and that Cambridge is somewhat at the mercy of which companies will take on work in a city where logistics are complicated. “The lack of availability of lay down space is a huge impediment,” contractors must subsidize employees for inevitable parking tickets, and “we have concrete suppliers who will not come into the city because of traffic – they’re concerned that the concrete will harden in their trucks,” O’Riordan said.q
Councillor Paul Toner proposed an amendment to make the bill sponsored by all nine members of the council, which passed unanimously.
“I’ll just say that this is supporting a bill in the State House that I think many of us are familiar with, that supports labor unions,” Councillor Burhan Azeem said.
The council adopted the bill unanimously after a few minute’s discussion.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Why must contractors pay for parking tickets? And why are they inevitable? Just park in a lots, take the T or bike like any other responsible person who commutes to work.
It is incredible how every business in Cambridge from retail to construction seems to believe they should be exempted from traffic safety laws and think complaining about parking tickets shows anything besides the fact that they regularly break the law rather than establish business practices centered on safety first. If you don’t want parking tickets, stop parking illegally because it’s easier.
Business owners blaming the city for their own failures to provide the parking their employees (seemingly all from outside of Cambridge) require is really not a good look to me, yet they just keep doing it over and over.
What is the average pay for a union vs. non-union construction worker in greater Boston or Massachusetts? That feels like important context. Is this a population that is underpaid?
The “Cambridge premium” is nothing new! Long-term home owners and business people in Cambridge know that many contractors and trades people prefer NOT to work here and will either pad their estimate or opt out of working here altogether. Too many restrictions, frustrations, tickets, and time wasted trying to find space to work or park and then making sure their trucks are not towed or broken into.
(BTW q99, the idea of parking in far-off lots makes no sense if one needs access to tools and equipment.)
“We simply have to break the law doing anything else is inconvenient”
And people say bicyclists are entitled…
q99 obviously knows nothing of construction workers. LOL Watch as they arrive and exit. They often carry enormous containers of food and drink and apparatus needed for the job. The idea that they should walk long distances or bike is ludicrous. q99 needs to do a days labor to understand how ridiculous his suggestion is. I have had a very difficult time getting contractors to agree to work on my home. We had a roofer with no recourse other than parking in our driveway with rear of truck extended minimally over the sidewalk. While up on fifth floor of gabled roof there was a parking officer yelling for him to come down and remove his vehicle. Just brutal treatment of workmen!! Also had stained glass repair artisans for local church who absolutely needed to park in front of church because of tools and supplies. City would not grant a permit for the truck. Poor guys parked around the block and lugged everything. To reload for literally one minute they parked in front of church and they were ticketed. Church called and no forgiveness and paid. Many months later the stained glass company got a ticked as if it were never paid. I could go on and on but truly Cambridge home owners are being reamed because the City is unforgiving and rigid and enamored with a certain group of “residents.”