OP-ED; AS YOU WERE SAYING . . . Big Dig fiasco proves it's time to end union welfare
Boston Herald; Boston, Mass.; Aug 5, 2001; Lawrence C. Allen;
Full Text:
Copyright Boston Herald Library Aug 5, 2001
The latest news from the Big Dig raises this question: Haven't the taxpayers funded union welfare long enough?
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority recently announced that the Big Dig's cost has grown again, to $14.4 billion. Why has this project been so expensive?
Part of the answer is that the Big Dig operates under a so-called project labor agreement, which in effect allows only union companies to bid on contracts. The agreement shuts out merit-shop, or non- union, contractors - who make up 80 percent of the construction industry in Massachusetts - by forcing them to operate as if they were unionized if they want to work on the Big Dig. In other words, a project labor agreement creates a monopoly consisting of 20 percent of the industry. It's no wonder that the Big Dig's cost has grown to obscene levels.
Not only does the project labor agreement hurt taxpayers by increasing costs, it also prevents the vast majority of construction workers in Massachusetts from participating in the biggest public works project in U.S. history because four out of five of them do not belong to a union.
Experience has shown that whenever competition replaces a union monopoly, construction costs fall. The city of Boston originally included a project labor agreement in plans to renovate Hyde Park High School. But a Superior Court threw out the PLA, saying it impeded competition. When the project was re-bid, the number of bidders increased by 60 percent and the lowest bid dropped by 7 percent.
That translated into savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars for Boston and Massachusetts taxpayers - and the Hyde Park High renovation is just a fraction the size of the Big Dig.
The politicians at the State House are now saying that since the federal government is no longer willing to write blank checks for the Big Dig, Massachusetts taxpayers or drivers, or both, will have to pick up the extra cost.
Are the politicians so indebted to organized labor that they are willing to give special treatment to 20 percent of the construction work force at the expense of the remaining 80 percent that made the decision not to join a union?
President Bush, realizing that project labor agreements are expensive and discriminatory, has implemented a new policy that denies federal funds for construction projects containing PLAs. But the Turnpike Authority, which claims to be trying to control costs, successfully sought a waiver from Bush's policy. In doing so, the Big Dig's managers have proven themselves to be kowtowing politicians rather than strong managers. No wonder the federal government no longer believes Massachusetts when it says it is doing everything it can to control costs.
None of this is the fault of the unions, which are simply doing their job of getting work for their members - and doing it well. The fault lies with the politicians who are willing to sacrifice the interests of the silent majority for those of a vocal minority.
Acting Gov. Jane Swift, who is trying to position herself as the voice of fiscal responsibility on Beacon Hill, has been strangely silent on the topic of PLAs. She said nothing when the turnpike authority sought the waiver from Bush's prohibition on PLAs.
Beacon Hill has cracked down on welfare for single mothers. Many legislators have railed against "corporate welfare" in the form of tax cuts targeted to specific industries.
It's long past time for the Swift administration and the Legislature to end welfare for labor unions by dropping project labor agreements from state construction projects. The federal government was right to say "enough" when it comes to Big Dig cost overruns. It's time for Beacon Hill to do the same.
Lawrence C. Allen is executive director of the Merit Construction Alliance of Burlington, an association of non-union companies. As You Were Saying is a regular feature of the Boston Herald. We invite our readers to contribute pieces of no more than 600 words. Mail contributions to the Boston Herald, P.O. Box 2096, Boston, MA 02106- 2096, fax them to (617) 542-1315 or e-mail to oped@bostonherald.com. All submissions are subject to editing and become the property of the Boston Herald. |
