A major blow to women and minority-owned businesses
By Harry C. Alford, NNPA Columnist
(The following are excerpts from testimony I gave before the Civil Rights Commission explaining the discriminatory practices via an Executive Order placed by President Barack Obama).
A Project Labor Agreement (PLA) is between an owner of a specific construction project and applicable labor unions. It is an agreement that union rules must be followed from the beginning to end of the project. In essence it becomes very cumbersome for a non-union shop to participate. For instance, union wages must be paid to the non-union shop plus the union level medical benefits and pension plan even though the money will never be credited to the non-union shop employees. Also, the non-union shops must pay union dues. Consequently, a PLA pretty much blocks the use of non-union shops and their employees. PLA’s are mainly used on local, state and federal projects as private corporations find them wasteful and too expensive.
Ninety-eight percent of Black and Hispanic construction companies are non-union shops. Thus, a PLA greatly limits the opportunities for Black and Hispanic firms whenever they are used. The possibility of Black and Hispanic labor is greatly suppressed also. There was a serious matter over the use of PLAs when the Woodrow Wilson Bridge was about to be rebuilt. Maryland’s Gov. Glendenning demanded the use of a PLA while Virginia Gov. Gilmore insisted on no usage.
Through research we compared the utilization of Black firms and employment on highway construction work for the states of Virginia and Maryland.
Maryland had a state-wide PLA on its highway program while Virginia was a Right to Work program. Virginia’s utilization of Black firms and employees was greater than Maryland by a 3:1 ratio. That caught the attention of President George W. Bush and he ordered no PLA on the bridge project. From there he eventually banned all PLA’s on federally funded projects as they “discriminate against women, minorities and small business.”
Right after his inauguration President Barack Obama issued his first Executive Order (Feb. 9, 2009). E.O. 13502 ordered all major federally funded projects to operate under a PLA. This is a major blow to women and minority owned businesses and employees. Diversity is negatively affected. If the U.S. Civil Rights Commission would do an audit on construction union employees they would find these construction crafts are in violation of Executive Order 11246. They are discriminatory. The US Department of Labor hides this by reporting racial employment by unions as a total number. They never report exclusively on construction unions by craft. If they did, it would uncover a disgrace. The NBCC has been trying to get these numbers beginning in 1997 but to no avail.
Small business, which is 98 percent of Black construction firms, happens to be best developed in a Right to Work environment. This has a direct impact on jobs and the sustainability of such firms.
Section 3 of the HUD Act
This is also known as The Economic Opportunities for Low and Very-Low Income Persons. 24 CFR part 135 was implemented by former HUD Secretary George Romney in 1968. It was a response to urban unrest in Black communities, especially the Watts Riot of 1965. The program was strengthened by Secretary Jack Kemp in 1992 as a result of the Rodney King Riot in Los Angeles. Under the law thirty percent (30 percent) of all jobs created by HUD money are to go to people living in public housing or living under the poverty level (Section 3 workers). Also, 10 percent of all contracts should go to firms hiring those Section workers. Section 3 activity is broad. Waste removal, painting, landscaping, accounting, janitorial, day care, construction, secretarial are some of the activities that can be applied to Section 3 opportunity. There are billions of dollars that apply to the Section 3 requirement annually. The goal is to use HUD funding to bring people into the workforce and out of poverty. If properly applied the need for HUD activity in our cities would start diminishing year by year.
In 1998, the NBCC learned that only 4 HUD grantees out of nearly 6,000 were complying with Section 3. Also, each grantee is to comply with annual activity reporting. Over 90 percent of these grantees were not even submitting their annual report. To the benefit of the current administration, the majority of grantees now take the time to submit an annual report. However, there are still no more than four grantees actually in compliance with Section 3. If the vast majority of grantees would comply, this nation would have over 100,000 new jobs for the unemployed per year and approximately five billion dollars in contracts for new or small business owners.
An example of the missed opportunity is the Chicago Housing Authority. It was discovered during a three year review (2008 – 2010) by HUD that the CHA received over one billion dollars in HUD funding. Not once during those three years did CHA hire a Section 3 company or utilize a Section 3 resident. This is happening all over the nation. There is a lot of economic damage done via this noncompliance and HUD knows it – that is the tragedy.