Construction Law Monitor : Construction Lawyer & Attorney : Wolfe Law Group : New Orleans & Seattle Law Firm : Construction Law Monitor Blog

This week we reported that a bill tentatively named the Worker Privacy Act had been stricken down in the Washington Legislature. Scott Wolfe, of the Construction Law Monitor provided the report after the Seattle Times ran a story about an email interception which allegedly divulged information about potential illegal campaign contributions linked to the bill.

Again, the bill would prevent employers from forcing employees to attend employer sanctioned "anti-union" information events, if the event interferes with the employees religious or privacy rights.

Well things are heating up once again in regards to that bill. The Washington State Labor Council has launched a full-fledged attack on legislators who have allegedly hid behind the controversy, in order to avoid the issues behind the bill itself.

The Labor Council believes that the inadvertent email slip was merely a scapegoat for state politicians to toss away the bill. The Labor Council firmly believes that Gov. Christine Gregoire has slid the bill under the rug, not because of the email slip, but instead in response to pressure from local employer bigwig, Boeing.

In response to "email-gate" (which is not being considered an illegal communication by the state police), the Labor Council sent a lengthy statement to the press, demanding that the bill be raised from the dead. The statement shows illustrates the Council's great dismay for the manner in which House Speak Frank Chopp, has handled the matter:

No, Mr. Chopp, the bill is NOT dead. It is well within your power as House Speaker, and it is well within the power of Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and Gov. Chris Gregoire to allow a vote now that the State Patrol investigation has concluded there was no criminal wrongdoing. The three of you have extraordinary powers to bring bills to a vote of the legislature. It is a power you have exercised before, including on one memorable occasion in 2003 when you ordered a 2 a.m. vote on a Boeing-supported bill that hadn't even had a public hearing but dramatically changed our state's Unemployment Insurance system

It no longer passes the straight-face test to blame what was clearly an internal email among labor leaders -- one that had inadvertently been forwarded, not to you, but to a handful of legislators who already supported the bill -- for denying a vote on the Worker Privacy Act.

For more on the matter, continue to check in at Construction Law Monitor and the SeattleTime.com Politics Northwest column.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Around the Web this week, there seemed to be a lot of news related to dirty politics in Washington and Louisiana, as well as some interesting blog posts and news articles related to the successes and failures in arbitration.

• Dirty Politics in LA:   After months of investigation related to the New Orleans Affordable Homeownership program (NOAH), the city has sued six contractors seeking repayment of $217,877.
   
• Dirty Politics in WA:  A big "one-sided" labor bill in the Washington legislature was killed this week when emails were discovered linking the success of the bill to campaign donations.   It's believed that labor organizations are behind the bribe.  Read about the matter in the Seattle Times.
  
  
• Arbitrate or Litigate?   The Real Estate and Construction Law Monitor posted an interesting article about the pros and cons of arbitration / litigation this week.  At the same time, the Wall Street Journal blog posted about a recent study that found success for consumers in arbitrations.  All this referred to by our very own Doug Reiser here.
   
• The Illinois Construction Law Blog tries to answer a tired question in construction litigation:  Is Time Really of the Essence?
  
  
• Avvo, a lawyer rating website based in Seattle, WA, launched in Louisiana this week.   Scott Wolfe's profile was already in the database from practicing in Washington, but we're all happy that Avvo's now launched in the Sportsman's Paradise.
   
• Wolfe Law Group's resident french bulldog, Oscar, is featured in a video at Wolfe Law Group's new YouTube Page:   Oscar:  Document Security Officer.
  
  
• New Orleans City Business Magazine has inducted Scott Wolfe Jr., founding member of Wolfe Law Group, into the Leadership in Law Hall of Fame.   Scott is one of 7 total inductees, and was a Leadership in Law honoree in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

On February 6, 2009, President Obama overturned previous Bush administration policy regarding labor usage on federal projects, by passage of an executive order. The order eliminates the Bush prohibition of the use of "project labor agreements" on federally-funded projects. In the past, the Bush administration had sought to limit the use of these agreements to lessen Union strength in the bargaining process.

"Project labor agreements" ("PLA") are similar to collective-bargaining agreements but they are issued prior to the initiation of work on a project. The Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., states that a typical PLA requires that all contractors become bound to:

• recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job
• use the union hiring hall to obtain workers
• obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs  
• pay into underfunded and mismanaged union benefit plans 
• obey costly, restrictive and inefficient union work rules

In the end, the alleged benefit to the federal government, and to the contractors down the chain, is that labor rates are set, benefits are provided, and strikes are prevented.

Duane Morris LLP, a San Francisco multi-purpose firm, first reported the effect of the order against large construction firms:

"......many construction firms may be compelled to agree to PLAs on federally-funded construction projects for the first time. Not only will these firms face likely difficulties in navigating the uncharted waters of participating in the negotiations for a PLA, but they may also be forced to pay higher, union-level wages and benefits to their workers than they are otherwise accustomed to paying on projects. Many construction firms may be compelled to agree to PLAs on federally-funded construction projects for the first time. Not only will these firms face likely difficulties in navigating the uncharted waters of participating in the negotiations for a PLA, but they may also be forced to pay higher, union-level wages and benefits to their workers than they are otherwise accustomed to paying on projects."

Duane Morris also finds that the order will only promote the use of PLAs on projects over $25 Million. However, the order opens the gate for the use of PLAs on lesser projects, where they are no longer prohibited.

While several organized units are certainly thrilled at the reinstatement of PLAs on federal projects, construction companies raise considerable concern. The Associated Builders and Contractors states:

"ABC strongly opposes union-only PLAs on construction projects. These agreements not only exclude merit shop contractors from bidding on projects paid for by their own tax dollars, but also drive up the cost of construction by reducing competition for the work."

Construction companies who engage in federal projects should be keen to new changes in labor law. One thing is for certain, President Obama aims to bring swift changes to the way the U.S.A. does business with private interests.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks