Public commenters urge University of Washington regents to adopt project labor agreements and expand apprenticeships

Members of the public told the University of Washington Board of Regents that adopting a project labor agreement and using apprenticeships would protect workers, raise quality on campus construction projects and keep public dollars in the local economy.

At a special meeting called by Blaine Tamaki, chair of the Board of Regents, union representatives and community members gave public comment in advance of an executive session. Matt Davies described a PLA as “a pre hire agreement that establishes the terms and conditions for construction projects before work begins,” and said it sets standards for wages, benefits, safety protocols and working conditions.

The comments emphasized three recurring points: PLAs, commenters said, promote local hiring and apprenticeship opportunities; they help prevent wage theft and unsafe practices by contractors; and they protect taxpayers by promoting higher‑quality, on‑time projects. Alexi Gergalo urged “apprenticeship utilization for all campus projects,” saying apprenticeships “provide hands on training and prepare workers for a stable and well paying career in the trades.” Mike Brown, who said he was filling in for Paul Clower, described the issue as one of ethical leadership, saying a PLA would ensure “only responsible contractors, those that pay fair wages, follow the law, and meet high standards are hired.”

A representative speaking for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters said the council has documented videos and other evidence of wage theft and illegal practices and argued a PLA would be a necessary safeguard. Ryan Hike, representing a union that said it represents about 17,000 members in Washington state, told the regents the union had requested a meeting with university facilities and the Project Delivery Group (PDG) months earlier and had not been offered a meeting date.

Chair Blaine Tamaki asked staff to provide commenters’ materials to the regents, and Regent Rice requested a copy of a PLA for review. The board did not take action on the topic during the meeting; the public‑comment period ended before the board moved into executive session to interview finalists for university president.

The regents’ procedural remarks reminded attendees that the board would not debate or act on issues raised during public comment at that time. Commenters repeatedly requested follow‑up meetings with facilities and PDG staff; the transcript records a request that the secretary provide additional materials and videos to regents for review.