San Diego Unified School District Project Labor Agreement

Signed by Lease-Leaseback-contractor. “A project employment contract is an agreement we have with the union that would set out the work rules we want to create,” said Superintendent Linda Kimble. “In principle, they add a level of definition that does the job and under what conditions. This will be a certain percentage, typically of union work, guaranteed by this agreement. We will work through the union, and if a non-union person wants to work, they have to follow certain rules, including payment in unions.┬áJim Ryan, executive vice president of the Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc., said, “The reason for the 21.9% premium is obvious. With respect to purely unionized projects, the district was only able to attract an average of 5 reactive general contractor bidders, compared to 10 reactive general contractors for proposal-S projects for which PSA was not a contractual condition. General contractors also inform us that PSA projects receive only about 50% of the offers from subcontractors who receive non-PSA projects. If there are more bidders, the borough will receive better construction offers. It`s so simple. Psa was negotiated in 2009 between the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council and the District. The first project imposing PSA`s terms was proposed in February 2010.

Ten draft S-proposals were proposed in 2009 prior to the implementation of the EPI and six other projects were proposed in 2010 and 2011, which did not fall under the epipment requirements. In 2010 and 2011, 17 projects were proposed under the EPI. Since 2009, the BCA has been under constant threat from project work agreements. These GPs promise “local rent” and contact with minority neighbourhoods, but union promises have always been empty. Starting with projects for the San Diego Unified School District, the result of the PLA was far from an asset to the community. The number of local rents decreased when neighbourhood workers were excluded from projects on their own roads: schools that attended their children and were paid with their own taxpayers` money. Learning about the BCA has been ravaged by this lack of opportunity. One of the documents, “Proposition S Construction Contracts Bidding Review”, shows that the district pays an average premium of 21.9% for projects proposed under PSA`s purely union terms. This 21.9% premium amounts to approximately $16 million in additional construction costs incurred by the district during the two years during which it imposed a pure union condition on projects.

Comments are closed.