Now that proponents of a ballot measure to block labor-friendly construction agreements have gathered enough signatures to qualify their petition for the June 2012 election, it’s spurred another round of heated debate between powerful business and organized labor groups, conservatives and liberals.

Though it’s easy to get lost in the jargon-riddled rhetoric, the issue boils down to money. Both sides view billions of dollars in future public construction projects at stake, and they’ve unloaded campaign treasuries and courted politicians to support their causes.

To help you understand why the debate over project labor agreements has come to San Diego, how the two sides have etched out their positions and the latest developments, here’s a rundown of a few common questions.

What’s a project labor agreement anyhow?

In this debate, it refers to a contractual pact between government and organized labor groups for typically large construction projects. In exchange for workplace concessions like guaranteeing no strikes, government agrees to require that contractors hire workers through the union’s hiring hall.

Here’s a video explainer we did with NBC 7 San Diego:

Why are the agreements union-friendly?

The pacts guarantee unions a slice of the construction project. Though both union and nonunion workers can be hired through a union hiring hall, they typically must pay the union a fee for that service. That’s money in the pocket for unions.

Why do some government agencies use them?

Subscribe to the Morning Report.

Proponents argue that dissolving the risk of delays and escalating project costs, especially for massive projects where delays can amount to steep bills, makes the deal worthwhile. The agreements can also give government greater control over who works on the projects, such as local workers, and how exactly they are compensated.

Has the city of San Diego ever used them?

It’s never signed a project labor agreement, but has considered them and has significantly funded contracts using them. In 2003, developers and labor groups signed a project labor agreement for Petco Park, which taxpayers shelled out about $300 million to build.

Why are we having this conversation now in San Diego?

In 2009, the San Diego Unified School District decided to use a project labor agreement for construction projects under a $2.1 billion bond. It marked a major victory for labor and business-backed groups vowed to prevent it from happening again.

Yeah, but do these agreements even happen very often?

Government agencies rarely use project labor agreements. But the San Diego Unified vote showed how a single decision could steer a significant amount of business toward unions for years to come. Similarly, the city of San Diego could hypothetically decide to use a project labor agreement for major public projects under discussion, such as a downtown Chargers stadium or Convention Center expansion.

Why do builders have a beef?

The Associated Builders and Contractors of San Diego, which has led the charge against project labor agreements locally, describes the pacts as unfair. It argues that bid requirements under the agreements favor union companies and deter nonunion companies from competing for contracts.

Labor groups, however, say the pacts make the bid process fairer. They say the agreements eliminate an advantage that nonunion companies might otherwise have in the process by requiring all contractors provide workers with the same wages and benefits.

Does the public end up paying more because of project labor agreements?

There’s no conclusive independent study or prevailing consensus among researchers. Locally, both sides have pointed to various studies, statistics and anecdotes to support their positions. Labor groups argue preventing costly strikes saves money while business groups say fewer bids leads to higher costs for taxpayers.

Organized labor says San Diego could lose money if the ballot measure is approved by voters? What’s the deal?

Last year, voters in Chula Vista, Oceanside and San Diego County approved similar ballot measures that banned their municipalities from requiring project labor agreements. Contractors in those places can still use them voluntarily.

This year, in response, state legislators drafted a bill that would prohibit project labor agreement bans and financially penalize charter cities that have them. The cities would be prohibited from receiving state funding for projects where the labor pact might have previously been an option.

Both the Senate and Assembly have approved the bill and it now awaits the governor’s signature or veto.

Keegan Kyle is a news reporter for He writes about public safety and handles the Fact Check Blog. What should he write about next?

Please contact him directly at or 619.550.5668. You can also find him on Twitter (@keegankyle) and Facebook.

Like VOSD on Facebook.

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.