A controversial “responsible contractor agreement” is back on Luzerne County Council’s work session agenda for this evening, but this version should be more appealing to critics, an advocate said.
Eight of 11 council members had voted in December 2015 to terminate the county’s last agreement, which had been in effect since 2009, based on complaints it decreased competition because a majority of workers had to be from local unions. Some businesses said they should be permitted to use their own workers.
Warren Faust, president of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Building and Construction Trades Council, said Monday the condition requiring a majority of local union workers was kept out of the new proposal.
Also missing is a requirement that gave county residents first dibs on a job assignment, he said.
Faust still wants those provisions but said he compromised because he does not sense they would have majority council support.
Instead, the new agreement forces prospective contractors and subcontractors to obtain “responsibility certifications” demonstrating they have met a lengthy list of conditions.
For example, firms that were suspended by a government agency or defaulted on a project within three years cannot obtain certification. Minimum requirements for occupational safety training and apprenticeship program participation also are included in the certification mandates.
The new ordinance would apply to projects over $125,000, compared to the previous $25,000, he said.
All types of county construction projects would fall under the mandate, including demolition, alteration, renovation, repair and contract maintenance work, the proposal says.
Faust, who plans to attend Tuesday’s work session, said he can’t conceive any reason for rejecting the revised proposal. He had unsuccessfully urged the council to reconsider cancellation of the original agreement early last year.
“We’d like to see stronger language, but this at least levels the playing field knowing we would have only responsible contractors bidding on county work,” he said. “We want to protect taxpayers.”
He has publicly complained of some non-union contractors improperly categorizing job titles or shortchanging the pay of workers on prevailing wage projects, but getting away with it because the impacted workers don’t want to be out of a job.
“It’s the ones that cheat who are hurting us,” Faust said Monday.
Citizen Brian Shiner, who regularly attends county meetings, said he forwarded a copy of the proposal to representatives of non-union contractors who objected to the old agreement to ensure all impacted parties are informed, including Joe Perpiglia, head of the state’s eastern chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors Inc., a national construction industry trade association.
Perpiglia, who publicly urged the council to stand firm in rejecting the agreement a year ago, said Monday he is reviewing the new proposal to determine if there is any “exclusionary” language that places unwarranted burdens on non-union contractors.
Hazleton area electrical contractor George Hayden, who also had publicly complained about the last agreement, said Monday he also is examining the new version.
Hayden, a non-union contractor in a family business operating more than four decades, has said he won’t bid if there’s an agreement requiring union labor because he built a team of trained workers and wants to use his own local employees.
Projects involving public funds already require the payment of prevailing wages to workers, which means there’s no reason for an agreement assuring fair wages, he has said. Bid bonds and insurance also are required to protect the county if work does not meet expectations, he has said, describing the old agreement as “discriminatory” to a county business.
