As You Were Saying

As You Were Saying...

Pro-union tilt hikes housing costs

By Greg Beeman

As appearing in the Boston Herald on June 5, 2016

A federal probe of strong-arm tactics by area unions is heating up with the indictment of a Boston city official for "union-related extortion." It's impossible to know what else the investigation might uncover, but one thing is clear: when it comes to the construction industry, Boston has been off-limits to nonunion workers since long before the feds decided to focus their attention on the problem.

There's nothing wrong with a political culture that supports unions, so long as it's not to the exclusion of everyone else. According to the latest data from Unionstats.com, 83 percent of the Massachusetts construction workforce chooses not to join a union. Locking out so much of the industry makes it even more expensive to build in Boston by dramatically reducing competition.

A Boston Foundation study recommended using more modular construction to make housing costs in the city more affordable. But when a project that would have used modular construction came before the city's Zoning Board of Appeals, it was rejected.

Opposition was led by a construction union representative on the board, who alleged there weren't enough local people working on the project. Modular construction allows much of the work to be done off-site, and potentially outside Boston, where open-shop contractors can more easily compete.

The fact that one of the city's own boards thwarted a means to reduce building costs is telling. So too is the fact that no one on the board questioned why themethodof construction was even a consideration for azoningboard.

Construction unions have said they will reduce wages on Boston housing projects in exchange for a commitment to use only union labor. The unions should be applauded for this, but the city of Boston should say "thanks, but no thanks" as long as it's tied to a monopoly on the work.

The reasons typically offered up to justify union exclusivity don't hold up. First, no label, union or other, guarantees quality work; the union-only agreement on the Big Dig did not guarantee a problem-free job.

Massachusetts has standards that apply to all contractors, such as trade licensing. Bidders on public projects must be certified annually and pre-qualified for the project. Wages on government-funded and assisted housing construction are set, generally at union scale, for all contractors under state and federal prevailing wage laws.

Municipal officials say it is a priority to attract more local workers, women and minorities to construction projects. Yet a virtual ban on nonunion construction only exacerbates the problem. A number of Boston-based, minority-owned businesses are among those victimized by the political culture that enables a union stranglehold on construction in the city.

Dramatic headlines are an understandable part of a federal investigation of big-city politics. But for Boston, the best result would be for the probe to prompt movement toward a more inclusive construction marketplace.

Many political leaders are on record with their support of unions. Do we have any who will say that support can't come at the expense of everyone else?

Greg Beeman is president of the Massachusetts chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors.