Back on topic, there is no evidence that PLAs increase costs on public construction, which is basically what the nonpartisan legislative analysis of this law said, and which the judge cited in support of her decision. Regardless, you get what you pay for. If you want to hire a cheapo fly by night contractor using low wage, low-skilled workers to build your house, that's your business. But when it comes to my kids or your kids in a public school I want the best quality and the best value. I don't want shoddy workmanship threatening the health and safety of our kids, and one thing no one seriously questions is that union construction workers are the best trained and most highly skilled in the business.

We are not talking about public employees here. This is about private sector workers employed by private sector construction companies. And no one forces a city or local unit of government to use PLAs. They only use them when they decide, just like any serious player in the construction business, that a PLA makes good business sense for a particular project. This law takes away the right of local governements to make their own decisions about what is best for their citizens.

And by the way it is not legal for government to be anti union, at least not when that means a state government passing an unconstitutional law taking away the right of private sector unions and workers to collectively bargain and engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection. Those rights have been protected by federal law under the National Labor Relations Act since the 1930's, and state lawmakers are not allowed to interfere with these federally protected rights. [[If you're a "constitutionalist" this part of the Constitution is called the Supremacy Clause.)