Rancho Santiago Community College District runs out of construction money…could it be their PLA?
The OC Register is reporting that the Rancho Santiago Community College District has apparently run through their bond money, and now they are considering asking voters to approve yet another bond measure, in order to finish their construction projects. They are blaming high land and material costs for the funding shortfall, but there is of course no mention of the union-only project labor agreement (PLA) that they passed after the first bond measure was approved by unknowing voters. Not so this time.
Voters should demand a full explanation from the District’s Board of Trustees, and their administrators. Did the district end up overpaying for construction projects after passing the PLA? Did the PLA limit the number of bidders by essentially shutting out non-union bidders (who don’t want to hire from the union hall or don’t want to send their employees to the hall)? Has anyone audited the bond expenditures to determine the full extent of the PLA as a contributory measure to the shortfall?
Voters should say “no” to the district’s attempt to raid our wallets again. If there is to be another bond measure, the PLA on the first measure should first be either rescinded or put to the vote – let the voters decide if there should be a PLA in the first place. Moreover, if there is to be a second bond measure, we should demand a guarantee that there not be a PLA on that second measure.
Personally, I will vote against the second measure as it is the only way I can show my displeasure with the district for passing the PLA in the first place.
You can read more about the push for a new bond measure at http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_1123963.php. To learn more about the detrimental affects of union-only PLA’s, go to http://www.stoppla.com/.
What do Measure C and Rancho Santiago’s construction fund have in common?
Alfredo Amezcua.
I agree with Art; this taxpayer will not vote for any new bond money for Rancho Santiago
I’m sure after they see thier wonderful SAC students protesting down Bristol today that the taxpayers will be only too happy to vote for new taxes to help our yutes get ahead:) You are right about Amezcua, he IS the problem. And some say he wants to run for Mayor on a ticket with his friend Michele Martinez. Who knows????
From what I’m told, Rancho’s expenditure increases are no greater then districts such as Coast, North Orange County and K-12 districts that don’t have such an agreement. It may be hard to fit in with your ideology Mr. Pedroza but that’s what it is. Everyone is being hit hard thanks to a shortage of supplies and high land costs.
And why should they capitulate to your seeming non-negotiable demands? You’ll oppose their bond anyway.
My question is are they going to do this or are they exploring their options?
Silver Acres,
I don’t know the answers to your question, but I am looking into this and will post an update when I get the information.
As for the PLA, all I am saying is let’s audit the spending and see if the PLA was a factor in the budget shortfall. That’s fair isn’t it?
The district misled voters by not introducing the PLA until after the first bond measure passed, so it is only fair now for the voters to know up front if there will be a PLA on the second measure. If the district honestly intends to pass another PLA, let’s tell the voters. My guess is they will reject the bond measure if there is a PLA attached to it. Nobody wants to pay more and get less!
whatever the truth may be, don’t you think you are throwing away your leverage by demanding things for any new bond and then saying regardless of whether they do what you want, you’ll vote against it anyway?
Silver Acres,
So I am supposed to reward the Rancho board for implementing the PLA only after the first bond measure passed – without first advising the voters that they were going to do this? I think not…
Art–What is more important to you….changing policy for what you think is the better or settling an old score?
Silver Acres,
The arrogant board members at the RSCCD need to learn a lesson. When they passed the PLA, many of us testified against it; but our please fell on the deafest of ears. Now it is payback time. The voters have not had the chance to give their feedback to the board re the PLA, but now they can do so by exercising their right to vote. I hope that we will also see new candidates emerge to take out the old guard.
Mr. Pedroza,
As a VOTING conservative Republican mom who is working, supporting two daughters, and attending Santiago Canyon College in the evenings (along with one of my daughters), I can tell you that the college is providing a much needed service to many tax paying citizens who want to continue their education in order to improve their incomes. The addition of new buildings to the college campus has already improved the facilities and services needed by students. The college district needs to complete constructing all of its planned buildings in order to be a comprehensive college.
You and I, and every other Republican in Orange County know that the cost of land, property and construction has indeed
Republican Mom –
Art’s “payback philosophy” is consistent — that’s why he opposes Daucher. Art prefers to endorse a Minutewoman candidate, Lupe Moreno, who has demonstrated, two times, she cannot win a school board election. She drapes herself in the American flag claiming Jesus spoke through her heart to run for office.
Speak with her one-on-one and you will learn that she is not well schooled on the issues. And her masturbation oration at the last Rep. Central Committee meeting is one for the books.
If Art’s so concerned about school districts and PLA’s then he should run for office.
Art seems to forget the electorate voted the arrogant men, he dislikes, into office.
5:53,
I teach at Cerritos College, so of course I appreciate what JC’s do for all of us.
We need to audit the Rancho PLA and find out if taxpayers got the short end of the stick – I am sure they did. PLAs limit bidding pools to union-only contractors and they RAISE costs! Go to http://www.stoppla.com and see for yourself.
There you go again Art. The PLA’s do NOT limit the bidding pools to union only companies.
You know this to be true yet you continue to tell this lie.
This is a copy of a great response to Art in the “PLA Retirement Party” invititation thread:
Art Pedroza suggests that 85 percent of the nation
6:53,
The 85% figure applies to all labor – I don’t know what the percentage is for construction only.
Non-union contractors can bid on PLA projects – however you fail to mention the fact that they have to either 1) send their workers to the union hall (where they will have to pay dues and most likely will not see a benefit, if they leave the union thereafter); or 2) they have to hire from the hall.
With regard to the latter, my union paint contractor friends tell me that the hall in the LA area is full of old guys who are too slow, or young guys who have no idea what they are doing. No middle ground!
PLAs also force contractors to abid by archaic union work rules. Those slow down production and add to the expense of the project.
By the way, there have indeed been strikes on PLA projects – but if you are worried about strikes the best solution is to not hire a union contractor. End of problem!
The Rancho case, by the way, has not been settled. My understanding is that the litigants are waiting for some related cases to be decided, as they may establish relevant precedents.
Finally, it is a FACT that most minority and women contractors are NOT unionized. PLAs hurt them terribly – and you know it.
Again, go to http://www.stoppla.com for the truth regarding union-only, government-mandated PLAs. Only union members benefit from PLAs – the public, and most workers, do not!
Art, you have conceded you lied about claiming that non-union companies are shut out of bidding. Why did you lie? This is what Caludio busted Nativo doing.
Closely held employees in these PLA’s don’t need to go thru the union hall. The PLA does not force employees to join a union. Like your wife and possibly you, it does require that they at least pay a reduced rate for the benefits that come with the union..but does not force them to pay for lobbying or political contributions. And when they leave they can stop paying dues if they don’t like it..or I should say, their employer doesn’t like it.
There have been work stoppages at union and non-union construction sites around the country. A PLA has an expedited provision that stops the strike right away. Non-union contractors have walkouts or slowdowns. But its really the potential for a slowdown or shutdown that public agencies just can’t afford. Time is money. And while your painter “friend” thinks the LA local has old guys who can’t work, the union halls in Orange are filled with skilled tradesmen.
I don’t know about this Rancho suit other then the non-union electrical contractors sued the elctrical workers union and got thumped–the union was dismissed. More frivilous lawsuits clogging up the courts.
12:17,
As I said, if you are afraid of strikes, then don’t hire union contractors. End of problem.
And it is a hardship for employees to have to go to the hall, when they most likely won’t stay in the union.
Why do this to taxpayers in the first place? Why not let union and non-union contractors go at it in the bidding process? Why do we need PLAs? The answer is – greedy union bosses like to reduce the competition. That is not good news for taxpayers.
Mr. Pedroza,
Hi, it
Hey Art
You and your wife belong to SEIU?
Maybe your not as bad and conservative as they make you out to be. More power to you!
SEIU rules!
testing
Wow! The comments from Mr. Anonymous are amazing. Also, any audit would be a waste of time. While it may show you what the costs ultimatley were, what they will not show you is how much of an effect the PLA actually had. You see boys and girls you cannot compare apples and oranges in an audit. The only way you could really understand how much of an impact the PLA has would be to have two projects go out to bid both ways. One way with a union agreement and one way without. This has happened only twice in California and both times the taxpayer was ripped off by the unions. PLA’s are not tools that owners or agencies want or need. They are something politicans want and need. If you expect to rise up the democrat ladder, you better listen to the good ol’ boys pulling the strings down at labor hall who spend their time worrying more about issues of no concern to them than they do about actualy changing the publics perception of them which is horrible. PLA’s are nothing more than 1940’s style organzing – join our group and we’ll provide safety, for a cost… The God Father would be proud…
Implicit or explicit discrimination? PLA’s are both actually. Art was right in that non union contractors are effectively barred from bidding. They are barred do to the restrictions the PLA imposes. Any non union contractor on a PLA project is required to send his workers down to the hall to sign up. In some cases, RSCCD is one of them, the contractors core workers can be used but only in a one for one type ratio and only up to a certain number of core workers, usually around 10 employees. That means that if you needed 10 guys to complete a project, you would have 5 of your snad 5 that didn’t want to do squat, they are there to organizign your firm or make you look bad. Also, those 5 of your employees who would be paid the same wage even without a PLA (these projects are already covered by prevailing wage laws)would be forced to divert their existing fringe benefit programs into the union program. The only problem of this for the workers is as soon as they go to work on another project that is not covered under the PLA, they commit what the union bosses refer to as “breakage”. This means that all the money paid into their pension programs is forfeited to the unions. Sound fair? Not even. Also, apprentices must be used on prevailing wage projects. These apprentices must be enrolled in state approved training programs. The PLA forces apprentices to only go through the union program. So for a non union apprentice worker enrolled in a different program, would be forced to leave that program (same curriculum and same stanards as the unions) just to be “qualified” to work on the project. What happens when the project is finished? That’s right, the apprentice gets the shaft… So much about caring for the workingman… Most in the construction industry do not care who builds a project, union or non union. What we do care about is that we are all allowed to freely make those decisions and not have some bloated politican who owes his or her election to some special interest to make an individual decision like joining a union for us…