California’s Prop 2: Unions Win, Students and Taxpayers Lose

California, where I live, is often considered a trendsetting state, providing an example that others frequently choose to follow. As a long-time resident, however, I can attest our policy examples are often very bad ones to follow, if we are to judge by their adverse effects.

Proposition 2 on November’s ballot is a good example. On the surface, it appears to be a relatively standard “we need more money for our schools” bond issue, except for its $10 billion price tag. And given the well-earned distrust voters have learned to apply toward our state government, it comes with now-standard boilerplate assurances that if it passes, things will be done right this time. The pro-Proposition 2 ballot argument claims there will be “strict taxpayer accountability protections,” “local control,” and assurance that the funds will be “used efficiently.” But it comes with a hidden surprise that contradicts those promises.

That surprise, not mentioned at all in the Official Voter Information Guide, is that every specific project with a Project Labor Agreement will be given preference over one without a PLA. And PLAs not only routinely discriminate against the vast majority of Californians, studies have found they inflated the costs of school construction projects by 15 percent or more, and sometimes far more, and resulted in fewer total projects. When voters hear about the burdens of projects subject to PLAs, they become far less likely to vote for initiatives imposing them. The hiding is deliberate.

How that was hidden is also instructive. Proposition 2 began life as AB 247 in the California legislature. The PLA was included there as something the union leash-holders of California Democrats demanded as tribute (and 15 percent or more of $10 billion is a pretty hefty “tip” for them). But even then it was still “camouflaged” by its placement near the end of a section about a point system that would be used to compute matching funds, in order to minimize how much it was noticed. But not all of AB 247 made it to the ballot. Only the bond authorization is there as Proposition 2; the rest of the legislation takes effect if voters say yes (without ever hearing about the PLAs) to the debt.

That does not seem like how one would go about producing “strict taxpayer accountability protections,” or “local control,” or ens uring that the funds will be “used efficiently.” And understanding how PLAs work strongly reinforces that conclusion.

PLAs are agreements typically drafted by construction unions, without any input from nonunion contractors or workers, that all bidders on particular projects must accept. They typically force union representation, including mandatory membership and union fees for all workers (including those working for nonunion employers), following union work classifications and rules, getting all workers from union hiring halls and all apprentices from union apprenticeship programs, and contributing to union benefit and multi-employer pension plans that few if any non-union members will ever get a penny from.

Examining union claims that they just &am p;#147;level the playing field” for all competitors reveals how discriminatory as well as inefficient they are.

PLAs level the playing field only by forcing everyone to follow union-determined policies and pay union-determined wages. They give unions an overwhelming home field advantage by handicapping nonunion firms’ ability to utilize their superior abilities.

Nonunion contractors have no say in PLA negotiations. They cannot incorporate terms that allow them to use their resources most efficiently. They must give up their flexibility, as with workers who can cross highly inflexible union job boundaries. They can no longer hire nonunion apprentices. They can’t use less-skilled and -costly “helper” workers efficiently, stymied by union limitations. They even give up the ability to choose their own workers, whom they trust and who already work well together in teams, to the requirement that all workers come through union hiring-halls. In sum, they make nonunion contractors act like union contractors while extracting fees from workers. PLAs, together with prevailing wage laws, as in California, also keep nonunion contractors from passing on lower costs to taxpayers from a labor force who choose market pay rates less than inflated union scales.

Nonunion workers, even under a PLA that requires prevailing union wages, also take a hit. They must pay dues and contribute to union benefits without ever getting those benefits, which many already get from their employer. Those substantial deductions leave them paid less as a result. Further, the added burdens on nonunion contractors often leads them not to bid on PLA contracts, reducing the demand for nonunion contractors’ and workers’ services and the competition to win contracts. Roughly 83 percent of all construction workers in California are nonunion; they share the burden imposed on taxpayers by preferential union contracts.

Black, minority and women’s groups in construction oppose PLAs since the vast majority of them are nonunion. Requiring journeymen and journeyman pay for most tasks, reducing helper jobs, likewise crowds out minority workers, who are, on average, skill acquiring skills. The National Black Chamber of Commerce has called PLAs “a license to discriminate against black workers.”

All of those inefficiencies and inequities produce higher costs. They also run up against some embarrassing questions. Should taxpayers be charged more for school projects, just to ensure public funds flow only to Democrats’ supporters? Why are the vast majority of construction industry workers in non-union organizations, if using union organization and rules was generally superior for worker s and results? Proposition 2, like most legislation favoring interest groups, punishes and extorts the many for the benefit of the influential few.

Governments often find themselves beholden to special interests, prioritizing the demands of concentrated groups over the broader interests of taxpayers. When these groups provide significant financial and logistical support during elections, policymakers tend to favor their agendas, even when the resulting policies impose hidden or underappreciated costs on the public. This dynamic undermines transparency and fair representation, as the true impact of these decisions is often concealed.

Citizens should not be forced to bear the burden of special interest demands in exchange for essential public services, such as infrastructure upgrades. Until we are presented with policies that genuinely reflect the promises made to voters, rejecting such initiatives would be the best path forward.