Quoted Text

Wicks reform is really something else
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.

   Perhaps you have heard that one of the bills tied up in our state Legislature while Gov. Spitzer and Sen. Joe Bruno do personal battle is a bill to reform the Wicks Law — the Wicks Law being the muchmaligned mandate on local governments to award separate contracts on their major building projects for such things as plumbing and electrical work rather than just one general contract for all the work.
   Local governments and school districts complain the requirement drives up costs, as it no doubt does.
   What you may not have heard is that the bill pending in the Legislature is only incidentally about reforming the Wicks Law but more importantly is a giveaway to the construction trade unions, to the extent that I would be willing to wager a nickel that the unions wrote it themselves and simply handed it to the governor and the Legislature for rubber-stamp approval.
   The reform part of it is this: The threshold at which Wicks requirements kick in will be raised in most of the state from the current $50,000 to $500,000 — more in New York City and environs — which means that not all public construction projects will be covered by Wicks, but most of them still will be. To which you might reasonably say, big deal.
   The far more significant part of the bill is that local governments and school districts will be able to dispense with the onerous Wicks requirements altogether simply by agreeing to have their construction work done exclusively by trade unions rather than by non-union contractors.
   That’s the main thing. If a school district authorizes what is euphemistically called a “project labor agreement” between a contractor and the trade unions, it will be home free.
   Terry Burke, an Albany attorney who represents the Northeastern Subcontractors Association, says, “This bill might better be referred to as a union bill. All the provisions detrimentally affect open-shop contractors and maybe even put them out of business.” Reform is “really a misnomer,” he says.
   One small non-union businessman who will be affected is John Busino, owner of a steel-fabrication operation in Scotia. If all public jobs come under these so-called project labor agreements, “basically I’m knocked out of the work,” he told me. Which presumably is the purpose, to knock non-union shops out of work.
   There’s another requirement in the bill which Busino can’t meet either, and which likewise has nothing to do with reforming the Wicks Law. That is a requirement that in order to qualify as a bidder on public construction jobs a contractor must not only have an apprentice program following the union model, which Schenectady and other municipalities have already adopted at the behest of the trade unions, but must have had that apprentice program in place for at least three years.
   Yes. It’s not enough that the program be run outside of the contractor’s own premises, which already makes things extremely difficult for non-union builders, but now even if you manage to get an off-premises program approved by the state Labor Department, you still have to wait three years before you can compete for a job.
   What public interest is served by such a requirement? Obviously none. It’s just another device by which the trade unions can bust on non-union contractors, with the connivance of our legislators, both Republican and Democratic.
   Never mind that the small operator like John Busino pays his taxes like everyone else. If this misnamed reform bill passes, he will not be able to compete for the kinds of construction work he has been doing right along — at Schalmont, at Shenendehowa, at Schenectady High School.
   He can’t get an apprentice program approved for the simple reason he has no apprentices. He has four workers in the field, assembling steel components, and he has no need to hire another one to be trained. Though of course a “project labor agreement” would put him out of the picture in any case, apprentice program or no.
   What exactly is a project labor agreement? I have heard apologists contend such agreements don’t really limit work to trade unions, and indeed if you read one, it will be so dense with legalese that it’s hard to be sure.
   But the bill in the Legislature leaves no doubt. It defines a project labor agreement (and please bear with me) as: “a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement between a contractor and a bona fide building and construction trade labor organization establishing the labor organization as the collective bargaining representative for all persons who will perform work on a public work project, and which provides that only contractors and subcontractors who sign a pre-negotiated agreement with the labor organization can perform project work.”
   Which I think is clear enough.
   There’s more in the bill which opens the door to mischief and which points to the likely authors. In order to qualify as a bidder on a public job the bill specifies that a contractor must have a record of “complying with existing labor standards and maintaining harmonious labor relations.”
   Since it is routine for trade unions to harass non-union shops at construction sites by picketing, photographing and filing petty complaints with the state Labor Department and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, you can see how they could use those activities of their own to argue that a non-union contractor doesn’t meet standards: We’re badgering him, therefore he doesn’t maintain harmonious labor relations.
   Who do you think wrote that language? Gov. Spitzer? Sen. Bruno? Speaker Silver?
   Please note that the trade unions long ago closed the door to genuine competition with non-union workers on public jobs by getting the state to require that all workers equally be paid union wages, misleadingly called prevailing wages.
   But that has not been enough. The pressure continues to be relentless to prevent non-union shops from working on public construction jobs altogether. That’s what this misnamed reform bill is all about.

Quoted Text

But that has not been enough. The pressure continues to be relentless to prevent non-union shops from working on public construction jobs altogether. That’s what this misnamed reform bill is all about.

Quoted Text

Don’t just reform Wicks Law; kill it

   The people of New York have once again witnessed a legislative debacle from our leaders in Albany. The debacle in this case is the failed but ongoing initiative to reform the state’s antiquated Wicks Law.
   The Wicks Law is an old statute originally intended to reduce corruption in public construction. The law specifi - cally requires that public construction bids be divided into four areas. At one time, many states had similar laws, but only New York has failed to retire its version of the law. The taxpaying public suffers the negative consequences, as the process required by the law causes public projects to cost between 10 and 20 percent more than projects bid to single general contractors who then hires sub contractors.
   During his campaign, Gov. [Eliot] Spitzer promised reform of the law that would exempt from its provisions projects below $3 million in New York City and $1 million outside the city. After the two branches of the state Legislature finished negotiations, the threshold for exemption was set much lower. They then failed to enact the compromise.
   The state School Boards Association lobbied for a threshold of $10 million — which would have placed most projects outside the Wicks Law framework. Such a change would have been meaningful. Unfortunately, the construction unions believe they have a dog in the fight and lobbied strongly against meaningful reform. The end result: all our courageous leaders in Albany caved in. The public continues to pay and our fearless leaders avoid the wrath of those who supply the lion’s share of their campaign funds.
   It’s time that the public makes its voice heard and votes felt. We are tired of being the victims of spinelessness. What Wicks Law needs is termination, not reform. If our leaders can’t do the right thing, at least give us meaningful improvement!
   GARY DILALLO
   Clifton Park

Quoted Text

The law specifi - cally requires that public construction bids be divided into four areas. At one time, many states had similar laws, but only New York has failed to retire its version of the law.

Quoted Text

State needs to abolish, not reform, Wicks Law  
First published: Friday, July 6, 2007

The people of New York state have once again witnessed a legislative debacle from our leaders in Albany. The debacle in this case is the failed but ongoing initiative to reform the state's antiquated Wicks Law.
    
The Wicks Law is an old statue originally intended to reduce corruption in public construction. The law specifically requires that public construction bids be divided into four areas. At one time, many states had similar laws, but only New York has failed to retire its version of the law.

The taxpaying public, you and me, suffer the negative consequences of this law. Specifically, the process required by the law causes public projects to cost between 10 and 20 percent more than projects bid to single general contractors who then hires subcontractors.

Governor Spitzer promised, during his campaign, reform of the law that would exempt projects below $3 million in New York City and $1 million outside the city. After the two branches of the state Legislature finished negotiations the threshold for exemption was set much lower. They then failed to enact the compromise.

The New York State School Boards Association lobbied for a threshold of $10 million that would have placed most projects outside the Wicks Law framework. Such a change would have been meaningful. Unfortunately, the construction unions believe they have a dog in the fight and lobbied strongly against meaningful reform.

The end result: All our courageous leaders in Albany caved in. The public continues to pay and our fearless leaders avoid the wrath of those who supply the lion's share of their campaign funds. It's time that the public makes its voice heard and votes felt. We are tired of being the victims of spinelessness. What Wicks Law needs is termination not reform. If our leaders can't do the right thing, at least give us meaningful improvement.

GARY DiLALLO
Clifton Park

Quoted Text

For Immediate Release:
June 22, 2007

Silver, John Announce Assembly
Passage Of Wicks Law Reform Legislation

Speaker And Labor Committee Chair Look Forward To Senate's
Approval Of Agreed-Upon Bill To Lower Costs Of Public Works Projects



Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Labor Committee Chair Susan John announced the passage of legislation aimed at reforming the state's Wicks Law to bring about lower construction costs for state and local government public-works projects.

"These reforms will help municipalities reduce the cost of public works projects and assure quality construction to taxpayers. With these new Wicks Law changes, municipalities will be able to assess their project costs better as they make decisions to build, modernize, refurbish, and expand public facilities in ways that will benefit their communities now and into the future," said Silver.

"Wicks Law reforms were needed for local governments and their constituents, but also to protect the ability of subcontractors to compete for projects and provide jobs for their workers. With this legislation, skilled and safe performance on public construction projects is also assured," said John.

Dating back to the 1920's, the Wicks Law requires multiple contractors on major public-works projects.

The bill (A.9204) would extensively alter the Wicks Law by increasing the statute's $50,000 threshold for the first time in more than 40 years. Under the reforms, the project cost levels at which the law would apply are increased to $3 million in the Downstate region, $1.5 million in the suburbs and $500,000 Upstate.

Silver and John cited three key reform measures in the bill that would ensure prompt payments to contractors by reducing the payment period from 15 to seven days; require subcontractor bids to be sealed when submitted; and authorize the enforcement of public-works projects and prevailing-wage laws through the issuance of stop-bid orders by the Department of Labor.

In addition, the bill would allow project labor agreements to be reached between contractors and workers; encourage skills training in trades and crafts; and allow for contractors to be placed on a pre-bid qualification list to expedite project schedules.

The legislation builds upon the bi-partisan agreements reached earlier this year to improve the state's business climate with measures to reform the workers compensation law, provide middle class property tax cuts and reduce taxes to businesses.

With the 2007 legislative session soon to be completed, Silver and John said they look forward to the Senate's return to pass the agreed-upon measure that aims to lower construction costs for municipalities.

Quoted Text

SPITZER & BRUNO
Carl Strock
   I was at the Capitol for the dueling press conferences of Sen. Joe Bruno and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who had reached agreement on new limits to campaign contributions among other things, which was a very big deal in the hermetic world of the Capitol, though I can’t say it rattled my own bones to any great degree.
   At the governor’s event I managed to squeeze in a question on another subject, to wit, would he sign or would he veto a bill passed by the Legislature mandating outside arbitration of police discipline, a bill that would deprive Schenectady and some other cities of the ability to discipline their own cops.
   It’s what was on my mind, but alas, it was a klutzy question. As I should have known, the governor does not announce his intentions in advance but waits until he actually acts on bills to explain himself, so my efforts went for naught.
   I would have liked to ask him about the so-called Wicks reform bill hanging fire also, a bill that as I earlier explained is approximately 10 percent reform and approximately 90 giveaway to the construction trade unions, with the clear aim of freezing non-union workers out of public construction jobs altogether.
   I didn’t get a crack at that one, but afterwards I did manage to ask his press secretary, Christine Anderson, and she told me, “The governor has been very clear — he supports Wicks reform. We’re waiting for the Senate to act.” Apparently Sen. Bruno, who runs the Senate, has not gotten around to passing the bill even though he says he supports it too. May he continue to dither, is my humble prayer.
   For the state to make a law that effectively prevents the non-unionized work force from competing on construction projects that their own taxes help pay for strikes me as singularly insulting — though what do I know?
   All the chatter at the Capitol was about campaign finance reform and “congestion pricing” in New York City. I wasn’t aware of any interest in either the undermining of the ability of cities to discipline their police or in freezing non-union workers out of public construction jobs.
   Those things just kind of slide through, backed by the unions, rubber- stamped by the legislators and sometimes by the governor.

Quoted from Shadow

It would seem that our elected officials are afraid to go againt any of the unions for fear of losing votes. Where do we fit into this sceme of things and who really represents us and our interests?

Quoted Text

Contractor groups balk at Wicks Law reform
BY BOB CONNER Gazette Reporter

   Two organizations representing the construction industry came out this week against the pending bill to change the Wicks Law, saying it is “labor legislation disguised as Wicks reform.”
   The Wicks Law has since the early 1960s required separate bids on the plumbing, heating/air conditioning and electrical contracts of public building projects worth more than $50,000, and is widely blamed for driving up costs. The current bill, arrived at after partly public negotiations among state leaders over the past few months, raises the dollar threshold at which the law becomes operative to $500,000 upstate, $1.5 million in the New York City suburbs, and $3 million in the city. Those increases, which some say do not go far enough, have not stirred much controversy.
   But the General Building Contractors of New York State and the Northeastern Subcontractors Association are objecting to other provisions in the bill, that they say unfairly benefit labor unions at the expense of nonunion contractors.
   Those include a provision waiving the Wicks Law if a project labor agreement is made with a union, and another provision that the two groups say could require contractors to have a union apprenticeship program.
   The Wicks reform bill passed the Assembly on June 22 by 113 votes to 19, and is supported by Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Minority Leader James Tedisco, R-Schenectady, voted for it. His chief counsel, Michael Cuevas, said Tedisco had weighed the “pros and cons” of the legislation before voting.
   Also voting in favor of the bill were Assemblymen Ron Canestrari, D-Cohoes, Paul Tonko, DAmsterdam, Bob Reilly, D-Colonie, Jack McEneny, D-Albany, and Roy McDonald, R-Saratoga. Voting against were Assemblymen Marc Butler, R-Newport, and Peter Lopez, R-Schoharie.
   Robert Farley, a Schenectady County legislator who is also counsel to state Sen. Vincent Leibell, RPatterson, said the bill should not be regarded as a giveaway to labor, because unions have historically been in favor of the current law requiring multiple bids for almost all projects.
   Asked Wednesday about the bill, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, said it is not the union issue that is holding it up, and he still intends for it to pass his house. A spokesman for Bruno, Mark Hansen, said Thursday he was not aware of substantive objections to the bill among Senate Republicans, but could not say when it would pass.
   Issues and bills are often linked in Albany, and Bruno appears to be holding up the Wicks reform to advance other items on his agenda. Spitzer and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, have both urged the Senate to pass the bill.
   An AFL-CIO spokesman could not be reached for comment Thursday.