Editor’s Note: In the most recent issue of “Construction Equipment Guide” [April 10, 2002; No. 8] we interviewed Associated Builders and Contractors’ (ABC) National Chairman Ken Adams. In the article, Adams outlined his organization’s strategy to elect a Senate that “advocates free enterprise and open competition.” He also strongly criticized unions and projects labor agreements (PLA). Consequently, “CEG” offered the AFL/CIO an opportunity to respond to Adams’ criticism and to explain its stance on PLAs.
Ray Abernathy, a press spokesperson for the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL/CIO, gives a fresh perspective on the role of unions in the construction industry in the following exclusive interview with Construction Equipment Guide.
CEG: What is the Building and Construction Trades Department?
Abernathy: The department is an umbrella organization representing 14 AFL/CIO unions in construction. We have over 300 building trade councils assisting local unions throughout the United States, forming a political and legislative action network assisting them on functions like contacting state legislatures. We’re headquartered in Washington, D.C.
CEG: We see people operating cranes and bulldozers on job sites such as highway projects. Do you represent them?
Abernathy: One of our unions is the Operating Engineers, who operate heavy equipment. They are the most heavily union. Other members include specialists like plumbers, pipefitters, bricklayers, laborers, teamsters, painters, and drywall workers.
CEG: What do feel are the advantages or benefits that unions offer to construction?
Abernathy: The advantages of unions on construction projects are that our people are very highly trained. They have to go through an apprenticeship and a journeyman program. When they get on the job, they know what they’re doing, with a higher degree of skill and productivity. That’s why we get jobs done on budget and on time with union people as opposed to non-union workers who may not be properly trained or highly skilled.
CEG: What is your opinion on project labor agreements [PLAs]?
Abernathy: Project labor agreements are one of the chief ways that any manager or owner can control costs and complete projects on time and on budget. They have been in use since the 1930s and have been used on practically every major public works project in the history of the United States. They are very much used by private enterprise — companies like Cat, Chevron and Toyota — to hold down costs and increase productivity. Every project labor agreement is different, but most of them establish common workloads, common grievance procedures, things as simple as what time do you come to work, what time do you go home. A lot a different trades are involved. Everybody is different and must establish things like common work rules and minimum wage rates. Most project labor agreements prohibit the right to strike during the life of the project. Without that, when the market contract expires for the Bricklayers Union, for instance, during a project, the union has the right to go on strike if they want to. If they go on strike, costs go up. So PLAs are terrific vehicles for controlling costs.
CEG: Does a project labor agreement usually preclude a non-union person from participating?
Abernathy: No it doesn’t. One of the things which bothers me the most is when organizations like ABC [the Associated Builders and Contractors] continuously infer that these agreements are union-only. We wish to hell they were but that’s not true. On federal projects it is illegal, on state projects, local projects, government projects, it is illegal to discriminate against any worker on the basis of whether they belong to a union or not. As you know, on most federal projects as much as 25 percent, 35, or 40 percent of the work force are non-union contractors. You cannot discriminate against them.
CEG: How about project labor agreements in non-government projects?
Abernathy: We try to negotiate them that way if we can and in that case we are using them in the private sector.
CEG: What is the stance of the Bush Administration on these agreements?
Abernathy: President Bush gave an executive order outlawing all project labor agreements. Fairly quickly thereafter, however, we were able to persuade him that projects already underway should not be abandoned. He backed off on that and we won a decision overturning the order. The Administration has appealed that. We’re confident that we’ll win. Project labor agreements are not only as American as apple pie; they’re extremely legal. We’re winning the legal battle and we think that the Administration will eventually back off.
Quite frankly, project labor agreements are supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Gov. Pataki of New York will tell you that it’s impossible to run a big state construction project and not use a project labor agreement.
CEG: So the outlook for the future is pretty optimistic?
Abernathy: Yes, the outlook for them looks good, especially on federal projects.
CEG: Shifting gears, could we discuss your political activities?
Abernathy: We are very active in politics, lobbying and election politics, routinely enlisting support from members of both parties, probably more so than any other segment of organized labor. For instance, Ed Sullivan, president of the Construction Trades, recently was at the White House introducing President Bush as the President called on the Senate to enact legislation fighting terrorism. We’re non-partisan and not in bed with either party. We have friends and supporters in both. We regularly receive support from members of the Republican Party, for instance, on full funding for building highways, constructing airports, and expanding treatment plants. We receive support from both sides of the aisle on the prevailing wage standard. So we are very non-partisan but we’re very hard-nosed.
CEG: Do you regard the upcoming election this November as a very pivotal one?
Abernathy: Yes, it is pivotal. The Democrats control the Senate right now by 50 to 49; they have an independent so it’s a very important election. We are far more interested in electing a person who will support our position. As far as electing a particular party, we let somebody else worry about that. We reach across the aisle often. We’re not the Democratic party. We don’t have to worry about “us” having control of the Senate. What we’re concerned about is the individual people who are running for office, electing individual candidates who will support our business, our people and our positions.
CEG: Do you have a political action committee?
Abernathy: The unions have PACs, which raise money. Our activities involve educating and registering the members of our union; that purpose is not done by a political action committee.
CEG: So you are not affected by the new Campaign Finance Reform legislation?
Abernathy: No. Individual unions are affected by it.
CEG: As far as your members are concerned, you can’t tell them to vote a certain way?
Abernathy: We give them information on things like voting records. We’re involved in federal elections. We invite members to compare the records. Now, local unions, at the local level, very often endorse candidates. That’s done by a Democratic process. You don’t tell building and construction tradespeople what to do; they don’t take kindly to that.
On the issue of pay, your pay is generally better than for non-union workers. That’s criticized for raising the price of contracts compared to a merit shop.
We’re concerned about providing a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work. What the ABC tries to do is to drive down wages where you cannot make a living and where the contractors rake in the profits. It’s an absolute lie to say that using non-union labor drives down the price of construction. It doesn’t, it just fattens the pocketbooks of the non-union contractors. Our people get paid a decent wage because they are very highly skilled and very highly trained. They are real productive members of their local communities.
They can spend money, they can save money, they can be part of the American economy. They don’t have to be like non-union construction workers who barely make enough money to get by; who have to send their children to emergency clinics to receive medical care, and who live in substandard housing.
CEG: What are some of the things that you would like to see happen if you can get the right people in office?
Abernathy: We’ve got roads, highways, bridges, railroads, airports — they are important all over this country. Unfortunately the Bush Administration has cut back on some of this construction. There have also been significant cuts in money for job training. All these activities are very vital and we would like to see the funding restored.
CEG: What’s the job training situation?
Abernathy: We have training schools, apprenticeship training programs, trade schools all over the country. These are a very important way of supplying skilled construction workers. None of that is paid for by public funding. Some of it is supported by workers giving up pay and benefits. We would like to work with the federal government in places like inner city areas to provide better basic training because there is a serious shortage of skilled construction workers and we have to close that gap.
CEG: How much of the construction industry is unionized?
Abernathy: Right now we estimate that about 25 percent of construction workers belong to unions. If the percentage were higher, the wages and benefits would be better and it would attract more people to the field.
CEG: Anything else you would like to mention?
Abernathy: Currently, there is a big project in Washington, D.C., a convention center, which is coming in on time and under budget. It’s one of the most successful construction projects. The general contractor is Clark Construction. The convention center is a good example of a project labor agreement. Clark Construction is one of the largest “open shop” non-union construction firms in the state. They got the bid. That particular project finished ahead of time, and about 30 percent of the contractors were non-union.
Another good example is the Boston Harbor Project, which is credited with reducing costs from about $6.1 billion to $3.1 billion under a project labor agreement. This is the largest environmental project in history. They went 20 million man hours on their work without a single minute being lost through strikes or lockouts because there was a project labor agreement on the work. Nobody in their right mind wants to go into a big public works operation without a project labor agreement.
Other examples of PLAs down through the years include the Grand Coulee Dam in Colorado, the Shasta Dam, the Oak Ridge reservation, Cape Canaveral in Florida, and the Hanford Nuclear Test Lab in Washington State. To deny that those were terrific projects is just silly. By contrast, a comparable project, the Springfield Intersection, one of the largest construction projects ever in the state of Virginia, is being built without a PLA because Virginia is a right-to-work state. It’s an eight-year project; it’s 55 percent over budget in its second year. That’s proof positive that if you don’t have a project labor agreement, you’re in big trouble. CEG
Today's top stories
