Groups such as the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), [60] Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), [61] Construction Industry Roundtable (CIRT), the National Federation of Independent Affairs (NFIB), the National Black Chamber of Commerce(U.S. Chamber of Commerce)[62] have actively opposed the use of PLA, particularly for government projects. These groups have questioned the application of such agreements through litigation, lobbying and public relations campaigns. [61] Opponents of the PLA supported Bush`s executive order, which prohibits government-mandated LBAs, and argued that between 2001 and 2008, when the executive order was in effect, no federal project had experienced significant work problems, delays or cost overruns due to the absence of ALP. [63] According to the applicants, who oppose THE ACCORDS, the agreements restrict the recruitment and work practices of contractors and may result in higher costs for project owners. [64] One of their objections to the PLA is that the agreements require contractors to contribute to union performance plans[23][65] and comply with the labour rules of trade unions. [61] In addition, they oppose the use of LDCs to limit the hiring of projects to construction workers who have been chosen by unions through tenant unions, and argue that this does not improve the quality of workers, since all those who are admitted to a trade have at least the same level of education and qualification. , whether or not they belong to a union. [56] A Project Laboratory Agreement (PLA), also known as the Community Workforce Agreement, is a pre-employment collective agreement with one or more labour organizations that sets the terms and conditions for a particular construction project.
[1] Before workers are hired for the project, construction unions have the right to negotiate, determine wage rates and benefits for all workers working on the project concerned, and approve the provisions of the agreement. [2] [3] The terms of the agreement apply to all contractors and subcontractors who offer success for the project and replace all existing collective agreements. [2] PLAs are used for both public and private projects and their specific provisions can be adapted by the signatory parties to the needs of a given project. [3] The agreement may contain provisions to prevent strikes, lockouts or other work stoppages during the duration of the project. [2] As a general rule, TTPs require that employees recruited for the project be returned to union rental premises, that self-employed workers in trade unions pay trade union rights for the duration of the project, and that the contractor comply with union rules on pensions, working conditions and dispute resolution. [4] One of the main arguments was the impact of PTPAs on the cost of the project. [78] Those who oppose THE ACCORDS say that agreements impede competition for project offers and reduce the number of potential bidders, since non-union contractors are less likely to offer benefits because of the potential restrictions that a PLA may have. [66] Opponents of the agreements say that reduced competition leads to increased bids and costs for the project owner. [55] In addition, opponents argue that costs could also be increased as contractors would have higher costs under a PLA. For example, according to Max Lyons of the Employee Policy Foundation, the cost of a PLA project is increased by 7% because of the workload that contractors must give their employees the union salary and not the state-set remuneration. [57] Opponents also argued that there is evidence that PLA mandates increase costs by requiring non-union contractors to contribute to union performance plans and existing performance plans.
[79] Proponents of the use of PLA argue that the final costs of projects are not increased where there is a LLP, compared to projects without such an agreement, as the agreements prevent cost overruns. [80] In response, opponents of the agreements cite
