 |
| John Cusick |
Is Northampton County's Responsible Contractor Ordinance irresponsible? Some members of County Council appear to think so. Since its enactment, a pattern has emerged in which the county is getting very few bids on construction projects. This problem was on display at last week's July 20 County Council meeting.
At issue was a proposed $340,000 contract with Wilmer R Schultz, Inc. a union general contractor located in Emmaus. The project was repairs to the courthouse steps as well as the retaining wall on 7th Street. According to Public Works Director Michael Emili, this proposal had gone out to bid at least twice. He received only one bid from Schultz, and after competitive negotiation with the sole bidder, he was able to knock down the price tag by $34,000,
This dearth of bids for public works projects started to become a pattern after Council's adoption, in 2018, of a "responsible contractor ordinance." It requires all contractors who are bidding on county contracts valued at or over $250,000 to have in place a Class A apprenticeship program for each craft or trade employed.
This ordinance was adopted despite claims that it would render nonunion companies ineligible to bid on future work. Their employees learn their craft through on-the-job training or a technical school instead of an apprenticeship that is more common in the trade unions. None union contractors argued that the ordinance, if adopted, would limit the labor pool and favor unions.
Then County Council member Bill McGee, a union agent who sponsored the ordinance, countered that this law would ensure that county work is done by skilled workers and ultimately save the county money.
A federal lawsuit attacking this ordinance failed because, as Judge Edward Smith observed, there was a rational basis - worker safety - for requiring an apprenticeship program.
Last October, the County received no bids at all for the plumbing of a bathroom replacement project at a county park. It was forced to seek out a union plumber located in Reading.
 |
| Kevin Lott |
Public Works Director Emili is unable to explain why the county is receiving so few bids. "I don't know what contributed to it in this particular case," he said. "It's a fairly substantial project. It was advertised for over 30 days. I know procurement does an excellent job of notifying contractors whenever these projects do get posted ... . "
Council member John Cusick agreed that these repairs are needed, but "[t]he lack of a competitive bid process is what troubles me, so I'll be voting No." Council member John Goffredo agreed with Cusick. "[W]e need to be looking for answers for why we're not getting competitive bids, and I think that looking at the Responsible Contractors Ordinance might be one of those avenues."
Cusick, Goffredo and Council member John Brown voted No to this contract. The other six Council members - Lori Vargo Heffner, Kerry Myers, Tom Giovanni, Ron Heckman, Kevin Lott and Tara Zrinski voted Yes.
If $340,000 is a small amount for a public works project, as Lott asserted, perhaps the county should revise the Responsible Contractor Ordinance to restrict its application to larger contracts.
17 comments:
9% of individuals are union members. My company employs individuals who are part of 91% who are not union. The responsible contractor ordinance is designed to protect work for 9% by discriminating against 91% who chose to work for a company where no union is present. Discrimination in favor of special interest donors has a cost, both in money from taxpayers, and in the lack of confidence and respect 91% of workers have for a crooked system that conspires against them as they attempt to pay their bills. Roughly 91% of step makers are non-union people. But I'm certain those union steps are better, somehow.
Norco council should have its own reality show - it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
If the Public Works person could get a 10% reduction in price for a job with no other bidders, you can bet the real cost of the project is far lower than that, on this and other projects.
So taxpayers are paying far more than what they should, and as a result other critical projects are being put off and not funded.
The “responsible contractor” ordinances in NorCo and elsewhere are nothing more than political payments by democrat politicians for union campaign support and funding. They have nothing to do with project quality and certainly aren’t saving money. They also result in the work going to union companies outside of NorCo, instead of the many companies (including non-union companies) based in the county that could do the work.
In short, democrat politicians are buying votes with our money. The ordinance should be repealed, and politicians supporting these ordinances should be booted out of office.
As Northampton County is seeing now, RC ordinances are anti-competitive and drive up costs.
According to the Dept. of Labor: "Workers with union representation enjoy a significant pay premium compared to non-union workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports non-union workers earn just 85 percent of what unionized workers earn ($1,029/week vs. $1,216/week)."
Nowhere is there any proof there is a significant increase in quality. If there is such proof, I'd love to read it.
In my opinion, RC ordinances are nothing but a political giveaway and should be overturned.
In the one large project the county has undertaken since the RCO was adopted, the forensic center, there were five contracts. Two went to nonunion bidders.
I get the need for worker safety. I also want the work done by US citizens or people who live here legally. But I'd agree that, if a contract is a smaller sum, perhaps the RCO should be inapplicable. It does seem the county is unable to get bids and this means it is paying more than it should.
Bernie same question - if there is verified statistical evidence that contractors with apprentice programs are safer, let's see it. If there is verified evidence that contractors without apprentice programs hire illegal immigrant labor, let's see it.
I see these flags thrown up by unions, but the last time I checked, nonunion contractors like Sean Boyle and Ron Jerdon hire US citizens, run safe job sites, and are more than capable of tackling any project Northampton County has coming up, and at significantly less cost to the taxpayer.
You can tackle the safety and labor force questions without an RCO.
Union worker are being paid a fair price, and perhaps all skilled laborers need to start working for unionized employer’s. The union makes sure the workers are skilled in their work, that’s why you hire a competent contractor.
8:35, I have done no survey, but a Google search reveals that the use of undocumented workers in construction is prevalent. Between 21-40% of construction workers are immigrants, which is fine. The problem is that a good percentage are undocumented. https://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+immigrants+constuction&oq=illegal+immigrants+constuction&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDkyMDRqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1
We can argue statistics, I'm sure. What I can say with some certainty is that in NorCo, there have been several detentions at construction sites of undocumented workers. Here's one example. https://www.mcall.com/2006/12/04/complaint-led-to-arrest-of-12-illegal-immigrants-they-worked-building-homes-in-hellertown-morganelli-says/
These workers are often paid substandard wages and have nowhere to go if they get stiffed by their employer. They also take away jobs that should be done by people who are here legally.
I am casting no aspersions on the numerous nonunion contractors out there who are highly ethical.
I agree that we should review the RCO and perhaps increase the threshold at which it applies. This would create opportunities for smaller businesses who do good work.
Bernie O’Hare (8:55 am) said:
“…but a Google search reveals that the use of undocumented workers in construction is prevalent. Between 21-40% of construction workers are immigrants, which is fine. The problem is that a good percentage are undocumented.”
Gasp! Do you mean that undocumented (aka illegal) immigrants are a problem? So one political party’s policy of having open borders is HARMFUL? How shocking! Or is the harm just limited to the construction trade?
Please don’t try to sell us that the democrat responsible contractor ordinance at the county level is protecting us from the failed democrat open border policy at the national level.
We ain’t buying.
The RCO is a trojan horse weapon authored and paid for by the unions. Just follow the money and the union, political allies and law firm sponsors who introduced it to various municipalities in eastern PA. NC was an early and willing victim. Allentown and Bethlehem exposed it for what it is where it was defeated on the merits. If one seeks a compromise option, consider an earned bid credit system that rewards contractors with a proven track record of performing on time and within budget, and participate in trades training programs. Total exclusion of proven responsible contractors - the trojan horse strategy - is a political power play and an expensive scam forced on tax payers.
Based on some of the work I have seen in the past around the county (The Parking Garage). I think we should consider the union workers skills safety. Pay a little extra now before you have a disaster in the future.
Now, you've completed your circular logic by biting your own tail. A party that supports open borders is now conniving to keep illegal immigrants from working, via a responsible contractor law. You're also conveniently painting contractors and illegals with your only brush - a very broad one. You've admitted to your racism. I'll leave it here. You don't like the remotest possibility of dark people doing union work. Understood.
Like no one saw this coming..... (eye roll). Union favoritism, and blatant discrimination to non-union shops. Even though they are qualified, vetted, etc.
Political shell game. One hand washing the other.
I have to wonder, if NCC members, use the same "vetting" process when they do their own projects? Or are they not as concerned when using taxpayer funds?
"Now, you've completed your circular logic by biting your own tail. A party that supports open borders is now conniving to keep illegal immigrants from working, via a responsible contractor law. You're also conveniently painting contractors and illegals with your only brush - a very broad one. You've admitted to your racism. I'll leave it here. You don't like the remotest possibility of dark people doing union work. Understood."
I have no problem with making it possible for everyone to participate in the American dream, and think it's ridiculous to deport children who were brought to this country illegally. I believe we should grant asylum status to people escaping violence, dictators and drug cartels. But no, I have never supported people just prancing in here. Don't attribute positions to me that I've never taken.
I also have no problem with "dark people doing union work." What I do have a problem with is slavery, i.e bringing in illegals as domestics or hiring them at restaurants or putting them at construction jobs and not paying them or giving them miserly wages because you know they can't go to authorities. Now that's racism.
250K is way too low. The companies that fit the parameters spelled out in the ordinance aren't going to bother with a 250K job anyway. Raise the requirement to a million and let the small guys have a shot at it. It will save the taxpayers money.
11.18
" putting them at construction jobs and not paying them or giving them miserly wages because you know they can't go to authorities"
So one question is why not fine employers who hire illegals?
Say one thousand a day for every day the illegal worked.
Take that money and fund the border enforcement.
Racist Unions and their racist supporters outrank illegal invaders in Democrat's woke poker. Union good. Any possibility of a Mexican is bad. You're Trumpists that won't admit it. Lol. #buildthewallright?
Post a Comment