I want to thank voiceofsandiego.org for allowing me to share my views today. I hope that at least one of you will be start looking at political claims with a more critical eye. If that happens, we will be one step closer to a democracy that consistently works in the people’s interest.

To Charter Boondoggle and Chip, it sounds like you understand what happened with the Vista charter vote. I have two questions for both of you: “Had there been an honest debate, do you think the residents of Vista would still have passed the charter amendment?,” and “What do you think the people who voted for the amendment are going to do when the promised construction cost savings never materialize?”

To Rick K., I usually do not like to promote our competition, but if you want more information about the ABC, their website is www.abcsd.org. Eric Christen has his own website at www.ericchristen.com. I feel confident that the more you know about them, the more you will appreciate us.

The final comment received so far came from Point Loman:

“Union contractors choose to be union voluntarily” Interesting that you use this argument when the very thing you are attempting to do with PLAs is eliminate the choice of the developer/contractor to hire whomever they want. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I am glad to receive a comment from someone with an opposing point of view. The entire premise of today’s blog is that honest political discourse is good for our society and Point Loman makes some points that need to be addressed.

The problem with his (her?) argument is that the premise is incorrect. Point Loman assumes that PLA’s eliminate non-union contractors from bidding on and performing the work. In fact, non-union contractors can bid on PLA’s. If you don’t believe me, maybe you would believe the California Supreme Court (Associated Builders and Contractors v. San Francisco Airport Commission, S. Ct. No: SO66747 (August 16, 1999)) and the United States Supreme Court (Building and Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, 507 US 218 (1993)). The state Supreme Court, after reviewing both the law and the facts, specifically rejected ABC’s arguments that PLAs violate competitive non-union contractors from public works projects.

Not only can non-union contractors bid on PLA’s, but they do; every day. In fact at the Los Angeles Unified School District, where the state’s largest PLA is under way, there are more non-union electrical contractors working than there are union electrical contractors. Doesn’t pass you “smell test?” Look it up, because it is a fact.

PLA’s are accepted by developers because they provide many benefits that are not available to them absent the PLA. Perhaps if I have this opportunity again, we can go into greater detail about some of those benefits such as local hire requirements, no strike/lock-out clauses, and trade standardization.

If anyone has further comments, I will make an effort to respond through the comment section.


Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.