State Of The State Analysis
Jan 5, 2012
by Nora Niedzielski-Eichner, Ph.D.
Attached please find the written version of the Governor’s State of the State address, which was delivered yesterday afternoon. Maintaining the new "tradition" he launched last year, Governor Andrew Cuomo again delivered the speech in the Empire State Plaza Convention Center and accompanied himself with a Power Point presentation to drive home key messages. The delivered version was substantially shorter than the written version, and it was the economic development aspects of his text that he dwelled on most heavily in the speech.
Key priorities appear to be building the nation’s largest convention center in Queens ( the Daily News is reporting this morning that the Cuomo administration has already signed an agreement with the company that operates the Aqueduct racino); redeveloping the resulting Javits Center site; devoting $1 billion in economic development funds to Buffalo; legalizing casino gambling; building an "Energy Highway" to transport energy from Upstate to Downstate; and a second round of Regional Economic Development awards. The Governor also signaled his intention to turn his attention this year to education reform, declaring himself the "students’ lobbyist."
In contrast to last year's State of the State announcement of the Medicaid Redesign Team (MRT), no mention was made either of the MRT's achievements over the past year or of any future Medicaid-related initiatives. The text contains a reference to the need to pass legislation authorizing the Health Benefit Exchange, but that issue was not included in the Governor’s delivered speech.
The Speaker of the Assembly and the Majority Leader of the Senate were both invited to speak by the Governor prior to his own speech. Their statements are also attached. Speaker Sheldon Silver called for an increase in the State’s minimum wage and the full funding of the State’s obligations to its community colleges. Majority Leader Dean Skelos spoke more generally about mandate relief, a statewide transportation plan, and encouraging job creation.
NLRB Rams Through Changes to Union Elections
Dec 21, 2011
Employees Come Out on Losing End - Lawsuit Filed to Block Rule
Contact: Gerry Fritz
Washington, D.C. – Portions of a controversial proposal to radically shorten the time frame of union representation elections were rammed through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by the two-member Democratic majority before the end of 2011. According to Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), the new procedures are drastic departures from precedent that speed up the election process and leave the door open for the full “ambush” election rule to be implemented.
In response, the ABC-led Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in federal court Dec. 20 to block implementation of the rule.
“It is indefensible that the NLRB majority not only misused the federal regulatory process, but also denied workers the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about union representation,” said ABC Vice President of Federal Affairs Geoff Burr. “While we are concerned that the new procedures take away employers’ free speech rights in the union election process, it is the employees that come out on the losing end.”
The original “ambush” elections proposal specified the amount of time between when a petition is filed and a union election takes place would be reduced from the average of 38 days to as few as 10 days, as the NLRB would have required pre-election hearings within seven days and provided employers only two days to produce contact information for employees. Under the modified rules, announced in late November and finalized on Dec. 20, the board disposed of the rigid seven and two day requirements, but limited the issues an employer can raise at a hearing as well as the employer's opportunity for appeals. The impact will still shorten election time frames, with experts estimating elections within 14 to 24 days.
“It’s no secret that the board was racing to beat the clock and finalize this rule before controversial recess appointee Craig Becker’s term expired at the end of this year,” Burr said. “What’s most disturbing is that the NLRB continues to move forward with policies and rules that are a political payoff off to Big Labor, yet harm the construction industry and stifle job growth.”
Dec. 13PLA Does Not Guarantee Minority Goals and Shackles Non-Union Shops with Union Pension Cost
by Andrew Claus, Vice President, Rochester Region
To City Council President Warren, distinguished members of the City Council, we represent the Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national construction association devoted to merit contractors. ABC is a resource for over 23,000 merit contractors and other construction industry professionals committed to safety, training, employee benefits, and community involvement. The Empire State Chapter serves over 550 members throughout New York State from Long Island/Metro NYC to Buffalo and here in Rochester.
There is no question that the renewal of our city’s core is vital to the success of the greater Rochester region. The Midtown Redevelopment Project has the potential to be a catalyst needed for a brighter future for Rochester. However, in a time of economic hardship and tight municipal budgets, the use of a Project Labor Agreement is unnecessary and potentially costly. We suggest bidding the project with the PLA as an option.
Under the PLA you have drafted, contractors and subcontractors must agree to recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job as well as contribute to union pension plans and other funds - funds which without the PLA would end up in the workers paychecks.
Independent studies have shown PLA’s increase costs 20-30%. A recent construction project in Orange County, the Exit 122 project, revealed that the lowest bidder was able to beat the PLA cost savings estimates by $4.5 million dollars while still exceeding the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goal, of which most were open shops unable to sign onto the PLA. We are suggesting the PLA here be bid as an option.
A PLA is a burden on non-union companies interested in bidding the project eliminating them from competing. 72.5% of all construction workers in NYS are non-union. A vast majority of minority and women owned construction companies choose to incorporate as small, open shop firms. We know this locally because of the 115 women and minority owned construction and construction services firms here in the Finger Lakes region certified by Empire State Development, 83 of them are under 1 million in gross revenues per year. A PLA will require them to give up their workers to the union hall without a vote and no guarantee that they will get them back or that they will get the work crippling their small businesses. Requiring this PLA does not include disadvantaged businesses, it excludes them from the competition.
We recognize that it is the intent of this council to employ a diverse workforce on this project. The achievable goal of 20% minority and 6.9% women participation does not require a PLA to be reached. These requirements can and should be set regardless of the PLA. More importantly, with or without a PLA, union or merit shop, the goals set forth are exactly that, goals. Targets requiring best effort but not a guarantee. By requiring a PLA you are essentially eliminating a significant portion of the potential bidders on the project who might help you to achieve that goal.
We urge you, the council and representatives of the taxpayers, to give all bidders an equal opportunity and level playing field by making the PLA optional. Taxpayers deserve the best construction at the best price. All construction workers should have the ability to fairly compete for publicly funded construction projects.
by Stephen M. Lefebvre, President, Empire State Chapter
Rochester Mayor Thomas Richards and City Council President Lovely Warren jointly proposed local legislation to require a wasteful and discriminatory project labor agreement (PLA) for the upcoming construction of the Midtown Rochester Redevelopment project. If adopted, this requirement will increase construction costs by as much as 20 percent and can not guarantee the minority hiring goals the mayor cited last week as rationale for the proposal. It is a bad deal for Rochester and should be rejected when the city council considers it on Tuesday, Dec. 13.
Although the mayor said employing a diverse workforce on this project is the goal of this proposal, the minority workforce provisions represent just a few paragraphs in the proposed PLA contract. The rest of the document is filled with requirements designed to discriminate against nonunion workers. Nonunion workers comprise 72.5 percent of New York construction workers.
A PLA is a union scheme that discourages competition from nonunion contractors. Under a PLA contractors and subcontractors must agree to recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job; use the union hall to obtain workers; obey the union’s restrictive apprenticeship and work rules; and contribute to union pension plans and other funds - funds which would normally end up in the nonunion workers paycheck.
Aside from using PLAs to discriminate against nonunion workers, Big Labor also has a history of failing to meet local and minority hiring goals contained in the agreements. In other words, the unions may not be able to deliver on their promise to build this project with a diverse workforce in exchange for their near monopoly on the project. For example, labor officials in Buffalo were confronted in 2004 when they failed to meet minority goals in a PLA that covered approximately $1 billion in school renovation work.
It’s clear the minority hiring goals are exactly that: goals. Union leaders are pledging to do their best and in return, essentially securing a monopoly on the Midtown Rochester Redevelopment project.
Taxpayers deserve the best construction at the best price. And all construction workers should have the opportunity to fairly compete for publicly funded construction projects.
We can have a diverse workforce without giving union bosses an early Christmas present. This proposal is bad public policy and our leaders should reject it.