From Governing: The Best Way to Do Infrastructure Projects

This is an opinion offered by a man affiliated with the Illinois Economic Policy Institute. It supports the use of "project labor agreements" when awarding bids on construction projects. They argue these agreements are beneficial, though at least two interest groups used the courts to stop them. 

Think of this when we look at the street level bureaucracy and the tendency to occasionally farms these out to private organizations.

- Click here for the article. 

Before the ink was even dry on President Joe Biden’s executive order on the use of project labor agreements for large federally funded infrastructure projects, some interest groups started crying foul and filing lawsuits.

While courts will ultimately adjudicate the legal merits of these claims, the bigger and more important question is what real-world data tells us about project labor agreements. How do PLAs impact projects out in the country, their workers and the construction industry as a whole? New research suggests that they have a positive effect, bringing more cost-saving efficiencies to projects for businesses and the taxpayers who foot the bills while strengthening and diversifying our infrastructure workforce.

PLAs, often regarded as “de-risking” mechanisms, function as construction management tools. They are pre-hire agreements between construction companies and labor organizations that establish the terms of employment, coordinate workflow among different crafts, promote investment in apprenticeship programs that train next-generation construction workers, and ban strikes, lockouts and other costly labor disruptions.

They’ve been in use since at least the 1930s, including on the Grand Coulee Dam project in Washington state. The Tennessee Valley Authority has used a master PLA since 1991. Today, PLAs are employed on many large projects, including NFL stadiums. Yet there is a lot of mythology out there about PLAs, largely due to the dearth of comparative research that can isolate their impact on specific project outcomes.

It is for this reason that a recent study conducted by our organization, the nonpartisan Illinois Economic Policy Institute, along with the Project for Middle Class Renewal at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, is especially timely and instructive.

. . . The results were telling. PLA-covered projects had an average of 16 percent more bidders than non-PLA projects and were more likely to be awarded at a cost below the original project engineering estimate. Moreover, projects covered by PLAs employed more apprentices training for construction careers, particularly from the historically underrepresented demographics of women and people of color that the industry sees as critical to meeting its long-term workforce-supply goals.

. . .

Wikipedia: Project Labor Agreements.

A Project Labor Agreement (PLA), also known as a Community Workforce Agreement, is a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor unions that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project. Before any workers are hired on the project, construction unions have bargaining rights to determine the wage rates and benefits of all employees working on the particular project and to agree to the provisions of the agreement. The terms of the agreement apply to all contractors and subcontractors who successfully bid on the project, and supersedes any existing collective bargaining agreements. PLAs are used on both public and private projects, and their specific provisions may be tailored by the signatory parties to meet the needs of a particular project. The agreement may include provisions to prevent any strikes, lockouts, or other work stoppages for the length of the project. PLAs typically require that employees hired for the project are referred through union hiring halls, that nonunion workers pay union dues for the length of the project, and that the contractor follow union rules on pensions, work conditions and dispute resolution.

PLAs are authorized under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169. Sections 8(e) and (f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(e) and (f) make special exceptions from other requirements of the NLRA in order to permit employers to enter into pre-hire agreements with labor unions in the construction industry.

From the Texas Tribune: GOP operative John Colyandro to lead "school choice" lobbying group

The doors keep on revolving.

- Click here for the article.

Longtime GOP political operative John Colyandro has been tapped to head a new organization that will aggressively push Texas lawmakers to approve education savings accounts, the latest controversial proposal in private "school choice" and a priority of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

The advocacy group Texans for Education Opportunity announced Colyandro's hiring in a press release Thursday morning as a key move in their push for legislation that will allow parents to send their children to private schools using tax money.

Now the executive director of the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute, Colyandro "easily rose to the top" of a large talent pool of prospective leaders, said Stacy Hock, TEO's board chair. "As we are moving into session, we found that John has been a trusted voice and a champion of smart policy in and around the capitol for decades now. As he started to engage from a board perspective, it became clear that his engagement became more and more active," she said.

Colyandro has had an up-and-down career in Texas politics. In 2004, he was indicted by a Travis County grand jury on charges of money laundering after serving as the director of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee. DeLay, Colyandro and aide Jim Ellis were accused of illegally funneling corporate contributions to GOP candidates in key 2002 Texas legislative races. DeLay was convicted in 2011, and the conviction was overturned in 2013 by the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals. Colyandro pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges, was hit with a fine and his record was expunged after a year.

For 2305 today

Checks and balances:

- Cruz kicks off Internet oversight countdown with subcommittee hearing.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz today announced that he’ll hold a Senate subcommittee hearing to explore the “dangers” of an Obama administration plan to turn over technical internet oversight to a nonprofit just weeks before the plan is to take effect.

There are just 23 days left until the U.S. Commerce Department cedes oversight of the technical functions that make the internet work to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). But the plan is not guaranteed to go through, given that Republicans, led by Cruz, continue to fight it.

Cruz’s latest move is scheduling a Sept. 14 hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, which he chairs, to investigate the “possible dangers” of the transition plan, he announced Sept. 7.

- Click here for the subcommittee's website.


And more checks and balances:

- 5 Texas judge nominees have broad support but won't be confirmed anytime soon.

Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz lavished praise on them. President Barack Obama said they had displayed an “unwavering commitment” to justice and integrity. They are desperately needed in Texas, where 10 long-standing vacancies on the federal bench have created a lengthy backlog of cases.

But when will the five recent nominees to serve as Texas district judges get a confirmation vote in the Senate?

“We’re going to have to work that out,” Cornyn said Wednesday. “If we can’t get it done before the election, then perhaps after the election that’s something we could work on.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for the five nominees, ostensibly providing hope that the long-open vacancies could soon be addressed.

Texas has more judicial openings than any other state. All 10 have been designated “emergencies” by the federal government, based on the backlog of cases each district faces, and seven have been empty more than a year.

- Click here to see the hearing - if you wish.
- Click here for American Association for Justice - which was mentioned in the article.
- Judicial Confirmation and the Constitution.


A story about federalism:

- Closure of private prisons could hit Texas in pocketbook.

Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in lucrative government contracts could be in jeopardy in Texas with the Department of Justice's decision to phase out the use of privately run prisons.

Of the 14 private prisons facing the loss of federal contracts, five are in Texas - the most of any state. The impact will be felt not only in prison yards but also in the tax rolls and cash registers of small towns and local communities.

"We are very concerned about what is going to happen," said Howard County Judge Kathryn Wiseman in Big Spring, where the GEO Group employs 480 people at its detention facility.

Wiseman said she fears that nearly all the jobs at the prison will be lost when the company's federal contract expires in March.

"These are our friends and neighbors; these are people who coach Little League baseball and belong to our civic organization," she said. "They will leave a hole not just in our economy because they pay taxes, but in our community."

The Department of Justice recently directed the Bureau of Prisons to phase out its business with private corporations as contracts expire over the next five years. The Department of Homeland Security followed the move by announcing it would also evaluate its partnerships with private companies in running more than two dozen immigrant detention centers.

- Click here for the website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- Review of the Federal Bureau ofPrisons’ Monitoring of Contract Prisons.


And one more about federalism.

- In Debate Over ‘Sanctuary Cities,’ a Divide on the Role of the Local Police.

Mr. Trump is coming down on one side of a vigorous partisan debate over the degree to which local law enforcement should be involved in enforcing immigration laws. There is a deep split among law enforcement officials, not to mention elected officials. Just last year, after a young woman was shot by an immigrant here illegally with a criminal record who had been released by the authorities in San Francisco, the Republican-led House voted to withhold some federal funding from jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal officials. In the Senate, Democrats this summer blocked a similar bill, which the White House had vowed to veto.

In limiting cooperation with the federal immigration authorities, some local law enforcement officials contend that they are making their jurisdictions safer by encouraging undocumented immigrants to take the risk of coming forward to report crimes. But those who see immigration violations as serious offenses contend that such policies lead to criminality.

The issue has bedeviled the Obama administration for years. In his first term, President Obama expanded nationwide a program allowing the Department of Homeland Security to receive the fingerprints of every person booked by the state and local police. After many immigrant communities rebelled, the administration canceled some of its efforts in 2014, and replaced them with a single, less intrusive one, hoping to court big cities to cooperate rather than to coerce them.

On state and local economic policy

Both of these articles are form Governing Magazine. The first investigates whether private efforts to spur economic development are preferable to public efforts and finds mixed results. The second questions a standard line made about cities, that they are economic entities oriented towards growth, but growth can upset existing power structures - so there can be resistance to it.  

- Welcome to Jobs Inc., Where States Have Little Say in Economic Development.

Go down the list and every apparent advantage of privatization seems to have an equal and opposite downside as well. Proponents claim that private economic development corporations are more responsive, but looser rules open up the possibility that they’ll cut corners in dubious ways. And they may not be more nimble at all, since new entities add their own layers of bureaucracy to the mix. The privatized entities typically are more flexible when it comes to managing their own personnel, but there have already been examples of staff being grossly overpaid as a result.

In short, while it might make sense to give development officials a leash longer than is the norm for government work, that approach offers no guarantee of success. “There is no evidence that privatizing economic development either helps or hurts economic development,” Timothy Bartik, an economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, says flatly.

- Do Cities Really Want Economic Development?

. . . economic struggle can be a cultural unifier in a community that people tacitly want to hold onto in order to preserve civic cohesion.

Jane Jacobs took it even further. As she noted in The Economy of Cities, “Economic development, whenever and wherever it occurs, is profoundly subversive of the status quo.” And it isn’t hard to figure out that even in cities and states with serious problems, many people inside the system are benefiting from the status quo.

They have political power, an inside track on government contracts, a nice gig at a civic organization or nonprofit, and so on. All of these people, who are disproportionately in the power broker class of most places, potentially stand to lose if economic decline is reversed. That’s not to say they are evil, but they all have an interest to protect.

From the TSHA: Historic World War II pipelines sold

The Texas State Historical Association tells us that on this day in 1947 the Big Inch and Little Inch pipelines were sold by the US government to a private company - Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, which was headquartered in Houston. Both pipelines also connected Houston with the northeast, which helped solidify Houston as the center of the oil and gas industry.

This might be an interesting read for both 2305 and 2306 students. 2305 students should consider the interplay of interests involved in the construction of the pipeline before and during WW2, and the decision about what to do with the pipeline once the war was over. 2306 students ought to think about the role government policies played in the development of the local area and the degree to which local power brokers were able to ensure that these policies benefited them, as well as the local area.

WW2 was very good for the local economy and the business interests located here.

Here's the note sent out by the TSHA:

On this day in 1947, the Big Inch and Little Big Inch, two strategic pipelines laid during World War II from East Texas to the Northeast, were sold by the U.S. government to a private company. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes realized as early as 1940 that shipment of petroleum to the Northeast by tankers would be impossible in time of war because of German submarines. In 1941, at Ickes's urging, oil industry executives began to plan the building of two pipelines. One, twenty-four inches in diameter, called the Big Inch, transported crude oil. The other, twenty inches in diameter, called the Little Big Inch, transported refined products. The Big Inch ran from Longview to Southern Illinois, thence to Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. Twenty-inch lines continued from there to New York City and Philadelphia. The Little Big Inch began in the refinery complex between Houston and Port Arthur and ended in Linden, New Jersey. Together the pipelines carried over 350 million barrels of crude oil and refined products to the East Coast before the war in Europe ended in August 1945.

And from the TSHA entry on the Big Inch and Little Inch Pipelines:

After the war, the pipelines became the focus of a clash of interest groups, with the oil and gas industry wanting to convert them to natural-gas pipelines and the railroad and coal industries opposing this. The Surplus Property Administration, given the task of determining future use, hired an engineering firm to study options; this study recommended that the pipelines be converted to natural-gas transmission. At the same time the United States Senate held hearings on their future use. In January 1946 the SPA recommended that first preference should be to continue use as in the war to ensure availability of the lines in a national emergency. However, by June 1946 the War Assets Administration announced an auction for the lines. All bids were ultimately rejected because no defined use preference had been established. After a strike by coal miners in November 1946 the WAA solicited bids to lease the lines, with Tennessee Gas and Transmission Company awarded a lease for natural-gas use to run from December 3, 1946, to April 30, 1947. Once it was established that the lines were viable for natural-gas transmission, the WAA again offered them for auction. The high bid of $143,127,000 came from a new corporation, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, formed by George Rufus and Herman Brown and their partners. The purchase was final on November 14, 1947. As of 1993, Texas Eastern had its headquarters in Houston.

Who is CGI Federal?

It's one of the contractors responsible for the creation of HealthCare.gov. A total of 55 were involved according to Kliff:

Who built this thing?

Mostly federal contractors -- 55 of them were involved in the project, according to the Government Accountability Office. Two of the biggest contractors are CGI Federal -- more on them here -- and QSSI, which both do a lot of big government contract work. CGI was “in charge of knitting all the pieces together, making Quality Software Services's data hub work seamlessly with Development Seed's sleek user interface and Oracle's identity management software,” Lydia DePillis explained earlier on Wonkblog.

Or, to put it in the contractor’s own words, CGI Senior Vice President Cheryl Campbell said in September that her company was responsible for “designing an IT solution that is adaptable and modular to accommodate the implementation of additional functional requirements and services.”

QSSI, which is owned by the health insurer UnitedHealthCare, built the “federal data hub,” which is essentially responsible for ferrying data from different agencies (like the Internal Revenue Service and Homeland Security) to and from the insurance marketplace.

“Simply put, the Data Services Hub is a pipeline that transfers data – routing queries and responses between a given marketplace and various trusted data sources,” QSSI’s Andrew Slavitt wrote in prepared testimony for Thursday morning’s hearing.

Wonkblog has a separate article that describes the number of federal contracts CGI gets and how they get them. Their efforts are a consequence of past efforts to downsize the federal government by outsourcing work that was once done in-house to private contractors. One of the questions raised by the failures of the healthcare.gov is whether outsourcing and privatization might be to responsible. Would these project be better performed in-house?

Should prisons be privatized?

Texas - and a handful of other states - have been privatizing prisons for many years now. Private providers of services are assumed to be able to do so more efficiently then the public sector. But some argue that private organizations should not be granted the coercive power that properly should only belong to a government whose powers rest on the consent of the governed.

Here are thoughts about that issue.

The author points out that: In 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that prison privatization violates “the constitutional rights to personal liberty and human dignity of inmates who are supposed to serve their sentence in that prison. This is because of the actual transfer of powers of management and operation of the prison from the state to a private concessionaire that is a profit-making enterprise.”

This is likely also applicable to the increased tendency of private entities to carry out military and security functions.

2301s: we can talk this out next week when we start in on federalism.
2302s: this applies to our discussion of the ever expanding power of the executive.

The Private and Public Sector

E.J. Dionne wrestles with the distinction and how the gulf oil spill muddies it.

Socialized Police Forces

While people are talking mostly about the pros and cons of socialized health care, the same question is being applied elsewhere. We have socialized police protection. Should it be privatized?

ADHD: Real or Made Up?

From the Financial Times comes a story regarding Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They tell us the following:

A fascinating neurological study published this week by the US National Institute of Mental Health holds out promise of resolving many controversies. The study looked at the way the right brain cortex, which helps control attention and planning, thickens during childhood. Scientists compared brain scans of hundreds of children diagnosed with ADHD with scans from a non-ADHD group. They found that, for non-ADHD children, the cortices reached maximum thickness at about 7½ years. For the ADHD group, that stage came three years later. But it did arrive eventually, and by puberty, most of the hyperactive kids had normal-looking brains.

The study also suggests that measures of student's ability to pay attention in the classroom are less important than basic math and English skills in determining future academic success.

So what's the big deal?

In 2302 we will soon be discussing the pros and cons of privatization--a topic we hit in 2301 when we covered federalism. Is this an unforeseen negative consequence since the profit motive causes the private sector to convince individuals of the need to purchase their products, be they iPods, cars, detergent or drugs?

Yes it can be argued that the private sector creates incentives for more people to get involved in finding cures for existing diseases, which makes it more likely that cures will be found, but doesn't it also make it more likely that the companies will try to convince more or us that we have physical conditions that we didn't know we had in order to expand demand for their products?

How about restless leg syndrome? Whats with that?

Is this the root of the increased costs of medical care?