On February 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13202, “Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Government Contractors` Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects,” which prohibits the use of PLA for construction projects with federal funds. [21] In that decision, it was said that federally funded construction projects could not impose project work contracts. [22] In practical terms, the decision specifies that neither the federal government nor a federal aid agency can compel or prohibit construction contractors from signing union contracts as a precondition for carrying out work on federally funded construction projects. [21] The contract allowed all previously agreed-upon LASs to proceed and did not result in projects that did not receive federal funding. [23] Bush`s ordinance overturned the previous executive order regarding the PLA, the Clinton Ordinance of 12836, which annulled The Executive Order of President George H.W. Bush in 1992. [16] In April 2001, President George W. Bush issued an amendment to exclude certain drafts from the order if, at the time of the contract, a contract had already been awarded under an existing PLA. [24] Another area of discussion is the proportion of trade unionists.
Opponents say that after the PLA, business leaders must hire their workers through unions[66] and unionized workers are the majority of those working on PLA projects, although non-unionized workers make up the majority of construction workers. [56] Estimates of the proportion of non-unionists cited by PLA opponents are about 85%,[67] based on figures from the Us Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics[68] and more recent data put the figure at 86.9%. [69] This figure is disputed by Denas, who indicates that the figures of opponents of the PLA are misleading and are based on census data that included an overly broad concept of a construction worker. [70] According to a 2010 Cornell University study cited by Mary Vogel, Executive Director of the Construction Institute, 60% of construction trades are unionized in Massachusetts. [71] Since its inception in 1998, The Construction Institute, a non-profit organization, has focused on the needs of the construction union sector in Massachusetts. Payment in pension plans of underfunded and poorly managed unions can expose entrepreneurs to massive pension withdrawal obligations. Depending on the status of a unionized pension plan for several employers, signing a PLA could bankrupt a contractor or prohibit contractors from qualifying for the construction obligations necessary to build future projects. With respect to the broader economic impact, a Price Waterhouse Coopers study commissioned by the Los Angeles Unified School District in November 2000 was unable to confirm whether the stabilization/work agreement for the construction of the BB Proposal Borough had a positive or negative economic impact.
[128] In March 2006, the Public Interest Institute published a study that concluded that the PLA approved the construction of the Iowa Events Center project in downtown Des Moines and represented an “unnecessary burden” for local workers, businesses and taxpayers. [129] […] The hearing will focus primarily on the impact of anti-competitive and costly public project employment contracts on the construction industry, but it will also be […] The agreements have been used in the United States since the 1930s and were first used in the 1980s for publicly funded projects. In these cases, the public authorities have made the signing of ATPs a prerequisite for working on taxpayer-funded projects. This type of ALP, known as a government-mandated ALP, is different from a PLA that is voluntarily carried out by public or private works contractors – as NNRA allows – and a PLA that has been mandated by a private agency for a privately funded construction project.
