Groups such as the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)[60], Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)[61], the Construction Industry Roundtable (CIRT), the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce[62] have actively opposed the use of APLs, particularly for government projects. Government officials and lawmakers have clashed over the use of PLA mandates for projects in states such as Iowa,[33] Oregon,[34] Ohio,[35] California,[36] and others. [37] [38] Individual municipalities voted to ban the use of state-mandated APLs in taxpayer-funded construction projects, including voting initiatives in Chula Vista, Oceanside,[39] and San Diego County, California, in 2010, resulting in a ban on officials ordering or prohibiting the use of APLs for government projects. [40] In 2011, contractors submitted tender protests to the Government Accountability Office against government-mandated LPAs for construction projects in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. According to the document, the final cost of a project would generally be higher than the cost of bidding due to expenses incurred during construction. [8] In addition, a 2004 report by the Director of General Services for Contra Costa County, California, indicated that bids for five of the eight projects subject to the PLA were below the cost estimate for architects/engineers. [113] A 2004 report on the use of LPAs in Iowa indicates that the use of PLA increases the efficiency and profitability of construction projects. “Public sector PLA for complex projects or projects where timely project delivery is important have been shown to deliver the desired return by contractors and project managers they use repeatedly.” [114] A 2009 paper concluded that because of the differences between schools built with APLs and those built without APLs, it was difficult to identify the impact of LPAs on the cost of building schools. The report states that there is no statistically significant evidence of an increase in the cost of building schools.
[115] The national company agreement aims to promote the effectiveness of all construction measures; ensure the peaceful settlement of artisanal labour disputes without strikes or lockouts; and promote the rapid and cost-effective completion of the project. The agreement provides for standard working conditions; creates an instrument to maintain harmonious working relationships within the project; and ensures optimal productivity and eliminates various factors that contribute to construction delays. A number of women and minority entrepreneur groups oppose project employment contracts[62], arguing that LPAs have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, especially those owned by women and minorities. These groups argue that LPAs are anti-market and discriminatory. [100] [101] In particular, groups, including the National Association of Women Business Owners, expressed opposition to the PLA, and in 1998 a hearing was held in the House of Representatives on the issue of minority groups` resistance to the government-mandated LPAs. [102] The National Black Chamber of Commerce rejects the use of APLs because of the small number of black union members in the construction industry. According to the NBCC, the implementation of LPAs discriminates against black workers, who are generally not unionized, and also prevents entrepreneurs from employing casual workers. [103] [104] According to the Panamanian-American U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the majority of its members are small businesses unfairly affected by LPAs, particularly due to rising costs and declining benefits.
[105] Parties to the stack-chimney national agreement: International Union of Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Ironworkers and Individual Employers. Scope: Within the limits of the United States, covering construction by the method of jumping or sliding hollow concrete columns, such as chimneys .. .
