County moves toward project labor agreements

Union contractors bidding for Clark County construction projects could have a distinct edge over nonunion rivals and such projects could cost the county as much as 20 percent more under a system that one commissioner proposes.

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani asked today that building contracts estimated at $100,000 or more be run under project labor agreements, a national system for ensuring union participation.

Her fellow commissioners reacted cautiously to the proposal. And two opponents on the issue debated the merits in an auditorium packed with a spirited nonunion contingent.

Giunchigliani said these agreements would enable the county to put skilled tradespeople on the job and avoid wrangling with contractors and unions.

“It’s accounting for taxpayers’ dollars,” Giunchigliani said. “We probably wouldn’t have any lawsuits if we were under a PLA.” The agreements wouldn’t be a radical step, as they’ve been used for a decade at McCarran International Airport and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, she said.

Commissioners told county staff to form a panel made up equally of contractors and labor representatives who will spend a month working on a compromise to bring before the commission.

Warren Hardy, representing a builders’ group, said the agreements could drive up project costs by as much as 20 percent because they discourage competition from nonunion contractors.

Hardy estimates that 80 percent of contractors in the valley are nonunion, so to exclude them would hurt the labor market and local economy.

He said it was futile to oppose the agreements given that most commissioners seemed in favor of them.

He asked that the county dispense with national guidelines that he argued were unfair.

One of the national rules requires a nonunion company to hire one worker from a union labor pool for each employee it uses on a project, Hardy said. This contractor is limited to using seven of its own employees and after that must hire only union workers.

A nonunion shop also must pay premiums on the union’s benefits even if it already offers benefits to its employees, Hardy said. That typically results in a company cutting its workers’ benefits because it can’t afford to pay both.

Workers wind up with no health care because the employer hasn’t paid into the union’s medical plan long enough for the workers to qualify, he said.

Contractors should be able to use their own workers without pulling from a union pool, Hardy said. And they should be allowed to augment medical benefits so they’re on par with a union’s, rather than paying double premiums, he said.

Steve Ross, a regional labor spokesman, agreed that double premiums were a disincentive for nonunion contractors. That method was created back when nonunion shops typically offered little or no worker benefits.

Ross said he would speak to his national union office in Washington, D.C., and see if officials would loosen a few of the rules. County Commissioner Rory Reid noted that the two opponents had a conciliatory tone in their dialogue. He agreed that no labor guidelines should lead to workers losing benefits.

Commissioner Larry Brown said he needed more information. He questioned why the county should shift away from a system that’s been in place for decades.

“We have competitive bidding,” Brown said. “That system has worked pretty darned well.”

After the meeting, Hardy said a compromise was crucial for local contractors.

“We’re hoping the county commissioners say, 'We want a PLA that makes sense to our community,’ ” he said.

Contact reporter Scott Wyland at swyland@reviewjournal.com or 702-455-4519.