Search legislation

Vote In Favor Against Not Voting Undecided

Democrat 0% 100% 0% 12 total votes

Republican 100% 0% 0% 26 total votes

Voters 100% 0% 0% 1 total vote

Comments

1) Re: 2011 Senate Bill 165 (Ban project labor agreements )  by Admin003 on June 16, 2011 

Senators Colbeck and Moolenaar asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that 

the statements be printed in the Journal. 

 The motion prevailed. 

 Senator Colbeck's statement is as follows: 

 I was honored to sit on the Reforms, Restructuring and Reinventing Committee where my collegue from the 36th 

District presented this bill to us, and we had a lot of discussion during the course of the hearings. One thing I would 

like to point out is I am surprised to hear the term "project labor agreement" used a lot. If you search this bill there is 

not one instance of that term posted in this bill. That is not just to be cute, like is sometimes done, but it is because 

this does not impair project labor agreements. 

 In the heart of this bill, in Section 5, it merely prohibits bid propsals that are going out that prohibit unions from 

bidding in it. It also precludes prohibiting the exclusion of private enterprise and companies from bidding. This is 

truly about fairness in competition.  Currently, 85 percent of perspective bidders on government contracts are 

excluded from bidding on those contracts. What kind of impact do you think that has on the bid price for some of 

these contracts? 

 One of the questions posed by my colleagues was who are we carrying the water for? I will tell you who we are 

carrying the water for on this one: for Michigan taxpayers and those of us who still hold to the ideals of free market 

competition. We need to stop interferring with this free market, and we need to stop picking winners and losers in 

the assignment and appropriation of taxpayer funds. 

 I strongly urge the support of this bill. 

2) Re: 2011 Senate Bill 165 (Ban project labor agreements )  by Admin003 on June 16, 2011 

Senator Moolenaar's statement is as follows: 

 I want to address some of the concerns that were  raised. During this process in committee, we added two 

amendments--one that affirms that this act does not affect the prevailing wage act, and second, that this act does not 

prohibit parties from entering into agreements or engaging in activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. 

The National Labor Relations Act is what allows parties to enter into project labor agreements. So what we are doing today is not eliminating those agreements. Project labor agreements will still exist. They 

just won't be able to discriminate anymore. So I would urge my colleagues to vote "yes." 

3) Re: 2011 Senate Bill 165 (Ban project labor agreements )  by Admin003 on June 16, 2011 

Senator Gregory's statement is as follows: 

 I also rise in opposition to Senate Bill No. 165, which is eliminating project labor agreements under the guise of 

fair employment practices. This bill is the opposite of fair, and it continues the Senate majority's unwarranted, 

relentless, and ongoing attack on organized labor. As my colleague spoke about a lot of the project agreements, I 

would like to go through some of the important roles that they have played. 

 Project labor agreements play an important role in enabling our local units of government to create safe and 

secure worksites and a reliable and productive workforce, union and nonunion alike. They significantly increase the te of employment among urban residents and minority workers on both publiclly- and privately- financed 

construction, alteration, repair, and improvement projects in Michigan. 

 Many labor associations and organization, as well as private construction companies, have all attested to and 

testified on the importance of project labor agreements. They improve workplace safety, promote community and 

public goodwill, lower costs, maintain timeliness, and ensure high-quality projects. Project labor agreements help 

standardize safety requirements, safety orientations, and communication of expectations to all parties. Standardized 

work rules cover all workers. 

 PLAs facilitate promoting and meeting worker residency and diversity requirements and help deter the hiring of 

undocumented workers or subcontractors who skirt paying taxes. Hiring requirements under PLAs improve 

employments opportunities for Michigan residents, indirectly support Michigan businesses, and ensure proper wages 

and benefits are offered. 

 PLAs stabilize and define wages for the project duration, require proper payment of overtime, and abide by state 

and federal laws. They can help prevent work stoppages through strikes and lockouts, and provide scheduling 

acceleration tools that reduce shift-work premiums, reduce overtime hours, and make-up days. 

 But, you know, after saying all this, the thing that bothers me the most about eliminating the PLAs, as my 

colleague said, is this will eliminate the local municipalities from being able to implement them. I represent 14 

communities, and in those communities, some have them and some don't. The communities that do have them have 

been presented to the council and the council has vetted these PLAs out and decided to accept them and have done a 

good job with them; so much so that they have saved money. Now for the this Legislature acting as if they are the 

great and all-knowing Oz, saying that we know better than you, you cannot perform to your best, and we must tell 

you what to do, and this body wants to eliminate PLAs. I have a community that has it and it works well. Now for 

me to come to Lansing and have my colleagues say, well, your community really doesn't know what to do, we are 

going to tell them what to do, I think, is totally disheartening. We have colleagues who want to take power away 

from the very units of government that serve the people we represent and say they don't know what they are doing.  

 So I am asking my colleagues to reconsider this--to table it, pull it off the table, reconsider, go over it, but do 

justice for the communities. For those communities that have it, don't just wipe it out for them saying we can do a 

better job. Those communities that don't want it don't have it. But the ones that do, please reconsider the 

ramifications of this to the local communities.  

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.