Some of the common agreement clauses that can be used in THE AEPs include: studies have shown that PLA project owners and local communities have benefits and penalize contractors and non-union employees. A 2009 study by Fred B. Kotler, J.D., associate director of Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, found that there was no evidence that PMAs discriminate pending employers and workers, limit the number of bidders and increase construction costs. [110] In a 2009 report by Dale Belman of Michigan State University; Matthew M. Bodah of the University of Rhode Island and Peter Philips of the University of Utah said that instead of increasing costs, the agreements would bring benefits to the community. According to your report, the cost of the project is directly related to the complexity of a project, not to the existence of an agreement. They found that AEPs are not suitable for all projects, but some projects are good candidates for their use, such as very complex construction projects. [111] Studies have also been conducted on how GPs can benefit local communities by hiring aboriginal people. In a paper that focused on whether the AEPs met local hiring targets for projects developed by the District Community College of Los Angeles (LACCD), the District of Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) and the City of Los Angeles, the author found that the 30% local rent target set by the PLA has been met. [112] PPPs are referred to as preliminary leases because they can be negotiated before the contractor votes on the union representation of employees or workers. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally prohibits pre-leases, but an exception in the law allows these agreements only in the construction industry. In short, PLs deprive construction workers of the opportunity to choose a private election or a card control process overseen by the Federal Union when deciding whether or not union representation is correct for them.

A “project employment contract” is when the government awards public works contracts exclusively to unionized companies. Opponents of PLA say the agreements affect competition for project offers, which can lead to increased costs. [57] Opponents of the PLA, such as former CBA President Henry Kelly, argue that THE PLAs discourage non-unionized contractors from competing, or even preventing, construction projects, particularly federal ones. [55] The tendering statutes disincentive public sector EPS to discrimination against non-union and union contractors, since discrimination between bidders would generally constitute a violation of these statutes. [85] [86] Non-union contractors have been awarded contracts for public sector projects. B, including the Boston Harbor project. [5] In the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision on the use of a PLA for the Boston Harbor project, it was established that project owners have the right to choose a contractor willing to enter into a pre-lease agreement and that contractors have the choice of whether or not to enter into such an agreement. [5] However, in a subsequent case, the Supreme Court found the following restriction of the Boston Harbor holding company: “When we found that the public authority had acted as an operator, we emphasized that the impugned complaint was “specifically designed for a particular job.” [87] These agreements define the conditions under which construction unions agree not to strike or remove the workplace, which could avoid construction delays.

Ha tetszett oszd meg másokkal is:
Posted in Egyéb kategória