Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger wants voters to believe she’s a moderate.
That’s understandable. At a time when the Democratic Party’s favorability is at 33% and with an avowed socialist as the party’s nominee in the most highly visible election in the nation, the smart money is for Democrats in Virginia to run far from their party’s reputation.
Spanberger is especially anxious to reassure large and small employers of her “moderation,” making much of her announcement that she would not “repeal” the state’s right-to-work law, but was merely open to “reform.” The problem for Spanberger, however, is that as a member of Congress she voted multiple times for the PRO Act, a bill that would repeal Virginia’s right-to-work law, creating negative consequences for the employment rate.
Voting records are annoying reminders of where one stands, so in a further effort to credentialize herself as a moderate, Spanberger recently released her plan for economic growth, the Growing Virginia Plan. As blogger Jim Bacon notes, most of the plan “does little more than restate the aims of existing state programs in workforce development, international trade and marketing.”
But while it uses soothing moderate language (“cultivate a supportive business environment” and “grow Virginia’s economy the right way”), a core of the proposal is anything but soothing or moderate—at least not for Virginia workers or the people who hired them.
Hidden in one paragraph on page four are essential promises reversing any good that might be done by the rest of the plan—prime among them a commitment to use project labor agreements (PLAs) for large state construction projects.
PLAs discourage nonunion contractors and subcontractors—who employ 96% of Virginia’s construction workers—from competing to build taxpayer-funded projects. By limiting the pool of bidders, contractors are forced to hire their workers exclusively from union hiring halls, to the detriment of local Virginians.
Just ask District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser. During debate over building a new Washington Commanders stadium, Bowser expressed her concerns about PLAs, “arguing that, in the past, unions tended to source too many of their workers from outside the city.”
“Do you know how many times I go to jobsites and somebody from Ward 8 will say, ‘Why isn’t it somebody from Ward 8 on this jobsite?’” she asked. “’I don’t see anybody from my neighborhood working here. Why do I see Pennsylvania and West Virginia tags at this jobsite?’”
Even California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a measure requiring PLAs on state construction projects—the kind of requirement Spanberger appears to have in mind. Newsom’s concern: That increased costs would divert funds from education, health care, public safety, and other essential programs.
Spanberger’s support for using project labor agreements places her firmly to the left of California’s governor and D.C.’s mayor. Some “moderation.”
Indeed, project labor agreements have other effects, all of them hurting economic growth.
Under PLAs, contractors are forced to exclude their existing employees, change their existing practices and instead bring on new workers who may never have worked together, don’t know each other and don’t share common quality-control procedures. Not only does this affect the quality of work, but it also negatively affects local employment.
For example, the Fairfax County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors recently asked for bids to rehabilitate the Accotink Wastewater Pump Station. Because of the PLA requirements, only two companies even bothered to bid—a condition which, if it had been written so narrowly under other circumstances, would certainly raise ethical questions. The company winning the $71.7 million contract is based in New Jersey, partnering with the Baltimore-DC Building Trades Council, which has invested heavily in Virginia political outcomes.
Now, to be clear: Local workers can still find a job. All they have to do is agree to join the union, pay upwards of $1,500 in dues each year, and agree to work only at jobs arranged by their local union representative. The union wins. The elected officials receiving campaign donations win. Everybody wins except Virginia taxpayers and workers.
A RAND Center on Housing and Homelessness study found that PLAs increased the cost of new affordable housing projects by 21%, and delayed projects by 27%.
That means other public works projects like schools and roads will cost more and take longer. This echoes previous studies conducted in New York, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and others—all of which show massively increased costs.
Either taxpayers foot the bill, or other worthy programs (think: schools or police) will be reduced to shift added expenditures.
Start-up firms trying to build a business for themselves and their employees are frequently nonunion. Importantly, this includes a significant number of small, women and minority-owned (SWAM) businesses.
This is why the National Black Chamber of Commerce has opposed PLAs, arguing they “will have a negative impact on Virginia’s taxpayers and African-American businesses and construction employees” and that they constitute a “license to discriminate.”
While candidate Spanberger claims to want to “grow Virginia’s economy the right way,” her plan will succeed only in growing the rising tide of special-interest union donations to her party, rather than for the benefit of Virginia’s economy. Then again, perhaps that was the objective.
So, there you have it: A gubernatorial candidate’s proposal to eliminate local workers’ jobs, increase the cost and time it takes to build things funded by taxpayers, cut start-up employers out of the bidding process, and discriminate against black and Hispanic businesses.
That’s not be the way you’ll read about it in the legacy media, but it is, in fact, the effect of enacting such a proposal. Voters should know that the policies behind moderate platitudes can be harmful to Virginia’s economy.