Awesome! Rick Snyder got a spanking!!

[Whitehouse]

From Crooks and Liars.

Federal Judge Victoria A. Roberts struck down as unconstitutional a ban on project labor agreements signed into law last year by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder [[R). The ruling was a major victory for working families in Michigan and preserves one of the most widely-used and effective tools in protecting laborers in the U.S. Roberts ruled that PLAs are explicitly legal and encouraged under a law passed by Congress, and that the state not only doesn't have the right to ban them, that it was being dishonest in its attempt to enact the ban.

In Michigan, the court recognized that by effectively prohibiting the use of PLAs on public works projects, the Act interfered with the Section 7 rights of employees to engage in concerted activity to convince public entities to use PLAs, and the rights of employees and their unions to enter into the kinds of agreements authorized by Sections 8[[e) and [[f) of the Act. The court went on to find that this across-the-board rule is a regulation, not proprietary conduct, which is preempted under both Garmon and Machinists preemption principles.
But Judge Roberts did not stop at simply striking down the law, she went on to question the motives of those who put it in place, suggesting that anti-union sentiment was at the root of the legislation:
In her ruling, Roberts disputed that the laws intent was to level the playing field.
“The problem with the Michigan Legislature’s attempt to impose its own definition of fairness on labor relations is that Congress already decided what the proper balance of power should be between unions and employers when it amended the [[National Labor Relations Act) in 1959,” Roberts wrote. “Here, ‘fairness’ is a disguised way for the State to upset the balance of power established by Congress.”

The lawsuit was brought by the Building and Construction Trades Council and the International Union of Operating Engineers, among others. PLAs are widely used to set specific worksite rules and wages, including requirements for minority hiring, and are widely cited as effective. Snyder and his supporters claim that they increase costs for taxpayers and hurt non-union workers, claims rejected by the state's own researchers:

"Judge Roberts' ruling is a clear victory for Michigan small businesses, workers and taxpayers," John Hamilton, general vice president and business manager for the IUOE, said in a statement.
"The Legislature's ban of PLAs came as a result of heavy lobbying by some low-quality construction contractors who didn't want to be held accountable for their work... . When taxpayers are footing the bill for a construction project, they deserve the right to hold contractors accountable," Hamilton said.
...
Roberts said state lawmakers never proved that PLAs increased costs for taxpayers, citing the House Fiscal Agency's legislative analysis of the bill, which found the bill would have no clear fiscal impact, and characterized the research on the cost impact of PLAs as mixed.
"The fact that the Legislature was unaware of any cost savings the Act would bring strengthens the inference that it was motivated by concerns for labor policy," Roberts wrote.

The ruling is similar to one recently made about another PLA ban, this one in Idaho. The same type of bans on PLAs are being pursued in Kansas and elsewhere as part of the recent surge in conservative attacks on labor in the wake of the 2010 midterm elections.

Snyder is now crying at the shoulders of his lobbyists.

[Novine]

I don't recall Snyder pushing this bill. This was more of a Bolger baby. The Republicans are going to do their best to push through a lot of anti-union legislation this year knowing that they'll likely lose their House majority in November.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

A lot of Republicans secretly like to be spanked.

[Scottathew]

Well, it's a win for over-paid unions, but a loss for taxpayers needing services, especially those in cities that have failed in part due to unfair labor agreements.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, it's a win for over-paid unions, but a loss for taxpayers needing services, especially those in cities that have failed in part due to unfair labor agreements.

Union workers are "overpaid"? But the bankers who crashed the economy aren't, I suppose...

[rb336]

Well, it's a win for over-paid unions, but a loss for taxpayers needing services, especially those in cities that have failed in part due to unfair labor agreements.

define over-paid. I seriously doubt that you have even a vague understanding of what goes into PLAs. Often they include fairly large concessions by various trade unions

[Whitehouse]

define over-paid. I seriously doubt that you have even a vague understanding of what goes into PLAs. Often they include fairly large concessions by various trade unions

...or so you were told by Snyder....

[rb336]

...or so you were told by Snyder....

that doesn't make any sense.

but, just to clear it up, I have read more than a few of them

[JBMcB]

Often they include fairly large concessions by various trade unions

How do you concede something you don't have? If I go into compensation negotiations for a new job, and I ask for $100,000 and they come back with $50,000, I haven't "conceded" $50,000 - as I didn't have it to begin with.

PLA's are confusing. Isn't it a bit like having to negotiate how many bushels of bananas and at what price you are going to buy them at before even walking into Eastern market?

[Scottathew]

define over-paid. I seriously doubt that you have even a vague understanding of what goes into PLAs. Often they include fairly large concessions by various trade unions

Define over-paid...

Making above market wages, then throwing in no-deductible insurance, then throw in a pension on top of it. Then add on top of that zero accountability for doing your job.

I'm not a fan of unions at all. They contributed to the near demise of the domestic auto industry. They cause local governments to pay big bucks for labor.

In general, labor unions are very good for the people the benefit, it's own members, and not good for the people they provide services for.

The UAW recently has done a good job being more competitive in terms of labor costs, but they're still providing labor far above market prices.

[Novine]

"Making above market wages, then throwing in no-deductible insurance, then throw in a pension on top of it. Then add on top of that zero accountability for doing your job."

Perfect description of many corporate CEOs.

[Scottathew]

"Making above market wages, then throwing in no-deductible insurance, then throw in a pension on top of it. Then add on top of that zero accountability for doing your job."Perfect description of many corporate CEOs.

LOL, can't argue that point much!

[rb336]

How do you concede something you don't have? If I go into compensation negotiations for a new job, and I ask for $100,000 and they come back with $50,000, I haven't "conceded" $50,000 - as I didn't have it to begin with.

PLA's are confusing. Isn't it a bit like having to negotiate how many bushels of bananas and at what price you are going to buy them at before even walking into Eastern market?

actually, they are usually used on projects that would fall under the state-issued wage rate schedules

[Wesley Mouch]

LOL, can't argue that point much!

Quite agreed. Doesn't make it feel better for those of us outside those clubs.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

"Making above market wages, then throwing in no-deductible insurance, then throw in a pension on top of it. Then add on top of that zero accountability for doing your job."

Perfect description of many corporate CEOs.

Right, don't hear a firestorm about these CEO's making outlandishly ridiculous salaries. I suppose that's ok too.

[Wesley Mouch]

Right, don't hear a firestorm about these CEO's making outlandishly ridiculous salaries. I suppose that's ok too.

Not much value in heading into Union-bashing here -- opinions are pretty much locked-down .... but for what its worth ....

The reason this is a bigger deal than CEO pay is because you and I pay for these wages from our taxes.

Public sector unions, and 'prevailing wage' rules protect workers from market forces -- at taxpayer expense.

btw, the Judges ruling is offensive. Apparently, its not legal to be anti-union...."But Judge Roberts did not stop at simply striking down the law, she went on to question the motives of those who put it in place, suggesting that anti-union sentiment was at the root of the legislation:
In her ruling, Roberts disputed that the laws intent was to level the playing field."

I didn't know you couldn't have anti-union motives in America.

[Det_ard]

Right, don't hear a firestorm about these CEO's making outlandishly ridiculous salaries. I suppose that's ok too.

You don't pay those CEO salaries, unless you're an owner of the company in question.

Case in point, Alan Mulally at Ford. His big payday that's in the news today is from a stock grant. The private owners [[not taxpayers) chose to dilute their ownership of the company by a marginal amount and give that ownership stake to Mulally based on his excellent performance. It's not money from taxpayers, or even from the privately-owned company's bank accounts. Essentially, it's no one else's business.

[Novine]

"You don't pay those CEO salaries, unless you're an owner of the company in question. "

But those CEOs, especially in the banking sector, ravaged our national economy and then had to be bailed out by the taxpayers.

[rb336]

Tell ya what, Wesley, give up your 5-day work week, ANY health care, 8-hour work day, paid vacations, decent wage. Then you will be where these anti-union folks want us. Hell, some of the repubs have actually inferred that they would get rid of child labor laws

[Whitehouse]

Right, don't hear a firestorm about these CEO's making outlandishly ridiculous salaries. I suppose that's ok too.

The day Rick Snyder signs a bill into law dealing with those fat cats, I'll eat my shoe. It's always the little guy that suffers.

[Det_ard]

"You don't pay those CEO salaries, unless you're an owner of the company in question. "

But those CEOs, especially in the banking sector, ravaged our national economy and then had to be bailed out by the taxpayers.

Hey, I'm a banker-hater too. I don't approve of the "privatize gains, socialize losses" approach inherent in the bail-outs.

But that's pretty different from the situation at Ford.

[rb336]

The day Rick Snyder signs a bill into law dealing with those fat cats, I'll eat my shoe. It's always the little guy that suffers.

are you talking about leather or the wooden shoes y'all make tourists buy?

[Gianni]

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.)

[Cincinnati_Kid]

You don't pay those CEO salaries, unless you're an owner of the company in question.

Case in point, Alan Mulally at Ford. His big payday that's in the news today is from a stock grant. The private owners [[not taxpayers) chose to dilute their ownership of the company by a marginal amount and give that ownership stake to Mulally based on his excellent performance. It's not money from taxpayers, or even from the privately-owned company's bank accounts. Essentially, it's no one else's business.

I understand how they get paid in principle, but that doesn't make it right. Executive Compensation is out of control.

[Wesley Mouch]

Tell ya what, Wesley, give up your 5-day work week, ANY health care, 8-hour work day, paid vacations, decent wage. Then you will be where these anti-union folks want us. Hell, some of the repubs have actually inferred that they would get rid of child labor laws

What self-serving crap.

I do hope that Union members feel better thinking that their greed has helped others. But I for one don't buy it