Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate hearing on bill to bar mandated project labor agreements draws labor and contractor split
Summary
Senate Bill 88, which would prohibit state agencies from requiring project labor agreements (PLAs) on state-funded construction projects, received divided testimony Wednesday with construction trade groups and merit-shop contractors supporting the bill and unions and allied groups opposing it.
Sen. Regina Bartzell, sponsor of Senate Bill 88, told the Commerce Committee that the bill would protect small, nonunion construction businesses from what she described as federal "mandates" that funnel work to a minority of unionized firms. "The New Hampshire construction labor force is over 90% nonunion," Bartzell said, arguing that government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) can "increase the cost of construction up to 20%."
The bill would bar state agencies from requiring a PLA as a condition of bidding on state-funded projects while leaving open the ability of contractors to enter PLAs privately.
Supporters of SB 88 said the measure preserves open competition and prevents state agencies from effectively compelling firms to adopt union labor practices as a condition of performing public work. Joshua Reap, who identified himself as CEO and president of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) New Hampshire, told the committee: "All it's saying is government won't get in between the contractor and the workforce." Daryl Lueder, president of Fulcrum Associates, and Michael Guillemette of Rose Steel told the panel they support the bill because they said mandatory PLAs exclude many local merit‑shop firms and raise costs.
Opponents said PLAs are a proven tool to ensure on‑time, on‑budget delivery and that they create jobs with family‑sustaining wages and training. Alan Rath, representing the New Hampshire AFL‑CIO and reading prepared testimony from union leader Glenn Brackett, said: "This bill is simply understood as a ban on project labor agreements" and noted that, to date, the AFL‑CIO had not identified any state‑funded project that used a PLA in New Hampshire but warned a ban would tie the hands of state agencies.
Alex Katroubas of the Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire testified that government‑mandated PLAs would reduce the state's ability to secure the "best value" for taxpayers and could force contractors to change labor policies to compete for state work. During questioning, Sen. Reardon asked how PLAs relate to federal Davis‑Bacon prevailing‑wage requirements; witnesses responded that PLA wage scales are commonly at or about Davis‑Bacon rates because federal surveys reference union collective bargaining agreements when setting prevailing wages.
No committee vote on SB 88 was recorded during the hearing; the chair closed the public testimony and indicated the committee would consider additional action later.
Ending: The committee heard more than a dozen witnesses on SB 88 representing unions, merit‑shop contractors, trade associations and individual businesses. The discussion centered on competition, cost, and workforce access; the committee did not take a final vote at Wednesday's hearing.
