Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Labor Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trade leaders urge St. Louis County to keep project labor agreements
Summary
Union representatives and local workers told the St. Louis County Board in Lavelle that removing project labor agreement (PLA) language would lower standards, enable wage theft and shift jobs away from county residents; speakers urged commissioners to retain PLAs and offered union oversight of contracts.
Union leaders and local workers urged the St. Louis County Board during public comment in Lavelle to retain project labor agreement language in county contracting, saying PLAs protect prevailing wages, curb wage theft and preserve local hiring.
At the meeting, Jack Carlson of Auburn told commissioners, “They mean equal opportunities for our contractors,” saying PLAs level the bidding process and include prevailing-wage and certified-payroll requirements. Jeremy Bruin of the Northern Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters said his council represents roughly 1,000 members in St. Louis County and asked the board to “let us help you guys police these projects” to prevent contractors from bringing wage or tax fraud into the area.
Why it matters: PLAs are contract clauses that, according to the speakers, set standards for wages and contractor conduct on public projects. Speakers said removing PLA provisions could lower labor standards countywide and create a precedent affecting roads and other public investments. Kyle Bukovich, president of IBW Local 242, warned the board against making a long-term decision “based on short term pressure,” saying, “Removing them doesn't create flexibility. It lowers the standard.” He also described the proposed rollback as “political revenge at the highest.”
Speakers described practical effects they associate with PLAs: certified payroll tracking, prevailing-wage enforcement and local-hire protections. Several speakers framed the issue as more than local preference, saying it shapes the region’s long-term labor standards and can influence whether outside contractors supplant locally based employers and workers.
What the board did: The comments occurred during the public participation portion of the board meeting; no vote or formal action on PLAs was recorded during the public comment period documented in the transcript. The chair closed the public-participation window and invited further sign-ups but did not announce any immediate next steps on county contracting policy during the recorded segment.
Context and next steps: Commenters referenced federal funding and litigation risks as complicating forces but did not cite a specific statute or pending ordinance in the recorded remarks. Commissioners were addressed directly but offered no policy response in the segments provided. The matter remains in the discussion stage pending any formal proposal or board motion.
