DOCSLIB.ORG

Senate Senate Committee on Government

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Senate Senate Committee on Government MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Eightieth Session May 6, 2019 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chair David R. Parks at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, May 6, 2019, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to Room 4404B of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator David R. Parks, Chair Senator Melanie Scheible, Vice Chair Senator James Ohrenschall Senator Ben Kieckhefer Senator Pete Goicoechea GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Richard Daly, Assembly District No. 31 Assemblyman Jason Frierson, Assembly District No. 8 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer Ruedy, Committee Policy Analyst Heidi Chlarson, Committee Counsel Suzanne Efford, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: William Stanley, Southern Nevada Building Trades Union Jeffery Waddoups, Ph.D. Paul McKenzie, Building & Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada, AFL-CIO Danny Thompson, Operating Engineers Local 3 and Local 12 Ruben Murillo, Nevada State Education Association Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 6, 2019 Page 2 Warren Hardy, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities; Associated Builders and Contractors Nevada Chapter Craig Madole, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter Daniel Honchariw, Nevada Policy Research Institute Brian Reeder, Nevada Contractors Association Michael Pelham, Nevada Taxpayers Association David Dazlich, Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce Dylan Shaver, City of Reno CHAIR PARKS: We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 136. ASSEMBLY BILL 136: Makes various changes relating to public construction. (BDR 28-145) ASSEMBLYMAN JASON FRIERSON (Assembly District No. 8): Assembly Bill 136 deals with prevailing wage. During the 2015 Legislative Session, the Legislature passed various measures regarding public construction and the application of prevailing wages. Those bills sought to weaken the law in an attempt to realize short-term financial benefits. However, in doing so the change in the law did more harm than good by undermining Nevada's workforce and potentially raising long-term costs by lowering the quality of public construction projects. This bill reverses those law changes and returns public construction and prevailing wage laws to what existed prior to 2015. If these laws are strengthened, the State will benefit in a number of ways and provide assurances regarding the construction of public buildings. By requiring the payment of prevailing wages on public projects, we not only support our local labor force by providing competitive wages, we also attract the most qualified workers. When it comes to public work construction projects, especially schools, we want safe, long-lasting buildings that will require minimal maintenance and repairs. To do this, the most highly qualified workers must be hired. Public work projects paying prevailing wage attract local, experienced construction workers who deliver high-quality work on time and on budget. Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 6, 2019 Page 3 Prevailing wage laws allow for more competition among contractors for public construction projects which ensures these projects will end up with more highly skilled workers and, ultimately, a better product. The bill removes the requirement for school districts and the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) to pay wages at 90 percent of the rate. It lowers the public construction cost threshold at which prevailing wage law applies from $250,000 to $100,000. It eliminates language prescribing the manner in which the Labor Commissioner must determine the prevailing wage, and it subjects charter schools to the same prevailing wage requirements as all other public construction projects. I want to be clear on some of the fiscal notes I have seen throughout the development of this bill. This bill does not go into effect until July 1. It does not affect any public work or other public construction being built, including any contracts for construction awarded between now and July 1. I want to highlight one point about the impact of the 2015 Legislative Session on apprenticeships. Prior to 2015, apprenticeship programs were doing okay. In 2017, a commitment was made to address the apprenticeship issue at some point. This is not a surprise. The decrease in the diversity both in race and gender of those who were able to participate in apprenticeship programs is startling. Apprenticeships have long-term benefits in the quality of construction projects and in having a healthy apprenticeship community which makes this bill well worth the effort. WILLIAM STANLEY (Southern Nevada Building Trades Union): The Southern Nevada Building Trades Union supports this bill and the provisions it sets out. Prior to this Session, the Unified Construction Industry Council funded a study that we asked Jeffery Waddoups, Ph.D., to help put together. I have submitted the executive summary of the study, The Impact of Nevada's Ninety-Percent Prevailing Wage Policy on School Construction Costs, Bid Competition, and Apprenticeship Training (Exhibit C). JEFFERY WADDOUPS, PH.D.: I am a professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the chair of the Economics Department. However, I am here as an independent researcher. One of my areas of expertise is labor economics, and I have done some work on the construction industry. Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 6, 2019 Page 4 My coauthor of the study is Kevin Duncan, Ph.D., a professor at Colorado State University, Pueblo. He is also an expert in the labor market in the construction sector. We estimated the impact of A.B. No. 172 of the 78th Session, which became law in 2015, in reducing prevailing wage rates for school construction by 90 percent of the standard rate and increasing the public construction cost threshold from $100,000 to $250,000 at which prevailing wage applies. The study is a data-driven analysis of school construction costs, bid competition and apprenticeship training given the impact of A.B. No. 172 of the 78th Session on those items. The major finding of our study, using data on school construction costs from 2013 to 2017, showed there was no statistically significant impact of prevailing wage laws on construction costs. It is not surprising there is no impact of prevailing wage laws on construction costs because many studies have been done, and the literature supports our findings. If that is the case, the 90 percent policy could not have lowered construction costs. We found that A.B. No. 172 of the 78th Session did not deliver on its promise to lower construction costs on schools. Our findings are consistent with many peer-reviewed studies—roughly 85 percent of the peer-reviewed studies. Our findings are also consistent with the assertion that reducing the threshold from $250,000 to $100,000 will not raise costs. An unintended consequence of A.B. No. 172 of the 78th Session was to undermine apprenticeship training. It turns out that signatory contractors were substantially less likely to pursue construction on schools after the passage of A.B. No. 172 of the 78th Session. For example, in our data on roofing and asphalt, the signatory market share went down from 69 percent of the contractors being signatory to 41 percent. When the signatory contractors lost market share, the community lost a greater incidence of training that goes along with that market share. Joint apprenticeship programs are operated through cooperative agreements between a group of contractors and a trade union. There are also unilateral programs operated generally by a trade association. However, these two programs differ greatly. Joint programs train workers in a full range of trades, while unilateral programs only train workers in electrical, plumbing and Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 6, 2019 Page 5 pipe fitting work. We found that joint programs registered 91.5 percent of apprentices over the period between 2000 and 2017. That is 26,476 apprentices. Joint programs have higher rates of completion, 47 percent to 55 percent. Over the period between 2000 and 2017, joint programs contributed to diversity by training 2,604 Hispanic workers versus unilateral programs which trained 117 Hispanic workers. Joint programs trained 517 African-American workers versus 36 trained in unilateral programs. That is a big difference. In joint apprenticeship programs, 317 women were trained in the construction sector and only 12 in unilateral programs. According to our evidence, A.B. No. 172 of the 78th Session did not reduce construction costs. The unintended consequence due to the decrease of signatory contractors building schools was to undermine apprenticeship programs. We need to take serious steps to train the next generation of skilled construction workers. PAUL MCKENZIE (Building & Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada, AFL-CIO): In the interest of time, rather than have everyone come up and speak, I ask the supporters of this legislation to stand so the Committee can see them. CHAIR PARKS: We can do a "me too" for them. MR. MCKENZIE: To go along with that study, in 2013, the Building & Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada and the University of Nevada, Reno, conducted a study on prevailing wage and its economic impact. Some of the issues addressed in that study were that living wages created an environment in which construction workers were safer on the job because they did not have home concerns. One of the problems we have in northern Nevada that southern Nevada is starting to suffer from is people are working two and three jobs to make ends meet because they cannot afford housing. Prevailing wage helps bring construction workers into the market where they can do a good job, return home and relax because they are making a living wage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government Mandated Labor Agreements in Public Construction
    GOVERNMENT MANDATED LABOR AGREEMENTS IN PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION Their History and Factors to Consider Table of Contents The History of Government Mandated Labor Agreements in the Construction Industry . 1 Government Mandated Labor Agreements In Public Construction: Factors to Consider . 7 THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT MANDATED LABOR AGREEMENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY How Public Officials and Their Representatives Have Changed The Purposes and Effects of Construction Project Labor Agreements What are Construction Project Labor Agreements? Project labor agreements are unique to the construction industry. Unlike collective bargaining agreements between other industrial employers and their unions, collective bargaining agreements in the construction industry usually apply only to work performed by signatory contractors in specified counties or other well-defined geographic areas. Project labor agreements are even more specialized and focus on one particular construction project. They are often referred to as “prehire” agreements because they are usually negotiated between construction contractors and one or more building trade union in advance of submitting a bid for the project, and before anyone is actually hired to perform the work. The terms and conditions of a project labor agreement generally: (1) apply to all work performed on a specific project or at a specific location, (2) require recognition of the signatory union(s) as the exclusive bargaining representatives for covered workers, whether or not the workers are union members, (3) supersede all other collective bargaining agreements, (4) prohibit strikes and lockouts, (5) require hiring through union referral systems, (6) require all contractors and subcontractors to become signatory to the agreement, (7) establish standard work rules, hours and dispute resolution procedures and (8) establish wages and benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Labor Agreements
    . Project Labor Agreements Gerald Mayer Analyst in Labor Policy October 4, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41310 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress . Project Labor Agreements Summary The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives most private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively over wages, hours, and working conditions. The act allows workers in the construction industry to enter into a collective bargaining agreement before a project begins. A project labor agreement (PLA) is a collective bargaining agreement that applies to a specific construction project and lasts only for the duration of the project. In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (EO) that encourages federal agencies “to consider requiring” the use of PLAs on large-scale construction projects. The EO defines a large-scale project as one where the total cost to the federal government is $25 million or more. The order states that agencies are not required to use PLAs. Regulations implementing the EO went into effect in May 2010. A PLA generally specifies the wages and fringe benefits to be paid on a project, and it usually includes procedures for resolving labor disputes. PLAs generally include a provision that unions agree not to strike and contractors agree not to lock out workers. A PLA may require contractors to hire workers through a union hiring hall. If not, it may require employees to become union members after being hired. A PLA applies to all contractors and subcontractors on a project.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Labor Agreement Covering Specified New Construction of Identified City Owned Buildings and Structures
    2020 NYC AGENCY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT COVERING SPECIFIED NEW CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTIFIED CITY OWNED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 2020 – 2024 Execution Copy 8/12/2020 2020 NYC AGENCY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE 1 - PREAMBLE ......................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1. PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT ................................................... 2 ARTICLE 2 - GENERAL CONDITIONS ................................................................... 2 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................. 2 SECTION 2. CONDITIONS FOR AGREEMENT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3. ENTITIES BOUND & ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 4. SUPREMACY CLAUSE ................................................................... 4 SECTION 5. LIABILITY ...................................................................................... 5 SECTION 6. THE AGENCY ................................................................................. 6 SECTION 7. AVAILABILITY AND APPLICABILITY TO ALL SUCCESSFUL BIDDERS ..................................................................................... 6 SECTION 8. SUBCONTRACTING ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Execution Copy – 8-12-2020 Project Labor Agreement
    NYS DOT PLA – VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY ACCESS CAPACITY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO JFK AIRPORT (CONTRACT 2) PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESIGN BUILD BUILDER AND THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF GREATER NEW YORK AND VICINITY FOR THE VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY ACCESS CAPACITY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO JFK AIRPORT (CONTRACT 2) EXECUTION COPY – 8-12-2020 NYS DOT PLA – VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY ACCESS CAPACITY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO JFK AIRPORT (CONTRACT 2) TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1- PREAMBLE .......................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1. PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT ................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 2 - GENERAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 2. CONDITIONS FOR AGREEMENT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE .................................... 3 SECTION 3. ENTITIES BOUND & ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT ..................................... 3 SECTION 4. SUPREMACY CLAUSE ................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 5. LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 4 SECTION 6. THE DESIGN BUILDER .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proj Ect Labor Agreements
    . ^ Congressional LP Research Service Proj ect Labor Agreements Gerald Mayer Analyst in Labor Policy July 1, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41310 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Commillees of Congress Project Labor Agreements Summary The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives most private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively over wages, hours, and working conditions. The act allows workers in the construction industry to enter into a collective bargaining agreement before a project begins. A project labor agreement (PLA) is a collective bargaining agreement that applies to a specific construction project and lasts only for the duration of the project. In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (EO) that encourages federal agencies "to consider requiring" the use of PLAs on large-scale construction projects. The EO defines a large-scale project as one where the total cost to the federal government is $25 million or more. The order states that agencies are not required to use PLAs. Regulations implementing the EO went into effect in May 2010. A PLA generally specifies the wages and fringe benefits to be paid on a project, and it usually includes procedures for resolving labor disputes. PLAs generally include a provision that unions agree not to strike and contractors agree not to lock out workers. A PLA may require contractors to hire workers through a union hiring hall. If not, it may require employees to become union members after being hired. A PLA applies to all contractors and subcontractors on a project.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Labor Agreements and Targeted Hiring Policies
    5/13/2014 Project Labor Agreements and Targeted Hiring Policies Law Office of Julian Gross League of California Cities San Francisco, CA City Attorneys’ Spring Conference www.juliangross.net Indian Wells, CA May 7, 2014 Project Labor Agreements –Basics PLAs are prehire labor agreements, specifically permitted for use in the construction industry by Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act. Basic bargain in PLAs on public projects: • Public entity gets assurance of labor peace • Participating unions get broad application of terms of collective bargaining agreements Law Office of Julian Gross League of California Cities– City Attorneys’ Spring Conference San Francisco, CA Indian Wells, CA www.juliangross.net May 7, 2014 1 5/13/2014 Project Labor Agreements – Types of Projects PLAs are often negotiated for: • large, publicly‐funded individual projects – e.g., Oakland Army Base • categories of publicly‐funded projects – e.g., Rancho Santiago Community College District’s policy approved in Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. College Dist., 623 F.3d 1011, 1022‐ 23 (9th Cir. 2010); City of Los Angeles public works PLA • private projects Law Office of Julian Gross League of California Cities– City Attorneys’ Spring Conference San Francisco, CA Indian Wells, CA www.juliangross.net May 7, 2014 Project Labor Agreements – Legality The legality of use of PLAs on public works projects in California is well‐ established. • NLRA preemption claims: Building & Const. Trades Council v. Assoc. Builders & Contractors of Mass./R.I., Inc. (Boston Harbor), 507 U.S. 218 (1993) • Other claims (equal protection, first amendment, etc.): Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc., Golden Gate Chapter et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Project-Labor Agreements After Boston Harbor: Do They Violate Competitive Bidding Laws? David J
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 21 | Issue 4 Article 3 1996 Project-Labor Agreements after Boston Harbor: Do They Violate Competitive Bidding Laws? David J. Langworthy Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Langworthy, David J. (1996) "Project-Labor Agreements after Boston Harbor: Do They ioV late Competitive Bidding Laws?," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 21: Iss. 4, Article 3. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol21/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Langworthy: Project-Labor Agreements after Boston Harbor: Do They Violate Com PROJECT-LABOR AGREEMENTS AFTER BOSTON HARBOR: DO THEY VIOLATE COMPETITIVE BIDDING LAWS? David J. Langworthyt I. INTRODUCTION ........................... 1104 II. BACKGROUND ............................ 1106 A. Project-LaborAgreements ................... 1106 B. Competitive Bidding ...................... 1109 1. The Basic Process...................... 1109 2. The Purpose of Competitive Bidding ........ 1111 3. Lowest Responsible Bidder ................ 1111 C. Union-Only Restrictions on Public Contracts ..... 1113 1. Holden v. City of Alton ................. 1114 2. Miller v. City of Des Moines ............. 1115 3. Adams v. Brenan ...................... 1116 III. THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT BOSTON HARBOR PERMITS UNRESTRICTED USE OF PROJECT-LABOR AGREEMENTS ............................ 1116 A. Recent Decisions InvalidatingProject-Labor Agreements .............................1117 1. Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. County of Niagara ...... 1117 2. George Harms Construction Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority ...................
    [Show full text]
  • Purple Line Presolicitation Report
    Presolicitation Report to the Maryland General Assembly Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, House Appropriations Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee As required in § 10A-201 of the State Finance and Procurement Article August 2013 The Secretary’s Office The Maryland Department of Transportation ES. Executive Summary In accordance with State Finance and Procurement Article §10A-201, the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), on behalf of the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), submits this public-private partnership (P3) presolicitation report for the Purple Line Light Rail Transit project (the Purple Line) to the Comptroller, the State Treasurer, the budget committees, and the Department of Legislative Services (DLS). The proposed P3 solicitation for the project will be structured using a Design-Build-Finance- Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) delivery model. Implementing this P3 structure for the Purple Line will involve a long-term, performance-based agreement between MDOT/MTA and a private entity in which appropriate risks and benefits can be allocated in a cost-effective manner between the contractual partners. The private entity, also referred to as the concessionaire, will be responsible for key aspects of final design, construction, financing, operations, and maintenance of the Purple Line asset over an operating period of approximately 30 years. MDOT/MTA would retain ownership of the asset and remain ultimately accountable for the Purple Line and its public function. The concessionaire would be paid using an availability payment structure, which would be directly linked to the long-term performance of the Purple Line measured on a frequent basis. In an availability payment P3, the public agency pays the concessionaire milestone or construction progress payments during the construction period and regularly-scheduled payments, called availability payments, during the operating period of the P3 agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking the High Road in Prince George's County
    FEBRUARY 2017 Taking the High Road in Prince George’s County The Role of Worker Representation in Economic Development Strategies Executive Summary & Introduction As Maryland communities plan for the future, they face a choice about the type of economic development policies they pursue and the kind of growth these policies will foster. A “low-road” approach focused solely on cutting business costs will have predictable effects: creating low-quality jobs and increasing concentration of wealth in a few hands. Alternatively, policymakers can take a “high-road” approach focused on enabling advanced, high-quality businesses to thrive. The evidence is clear that the high road is the most effective path toward sustainable, broadly shared growth. The benefits of the high-road approach are greatest when workers have the opportunity to join together in the form of a labor union. When employees at new development projects—both during and after construction—have union representation, it means they can work together to fight for fair wages, which results in higher paid jobs, more productive workers, and increased spending at local businesses. The result is a healthier economy that works for everyone. Using the recently opened MGM National Harbor Casino as a case study, the Maryland Center on Economic Policy estimated several of the potential benefits from union representation for workers at new development projects that receive public funding. Prince George’s County, where the MGM is located, demonstrates both why the high-road development approach is needed and how this approach can benefit the community. Prince George’s has many promising opportunities for growth—from tourism at National Harbor to the regional medical center expected to break ground in the near future—and the county’s location near the nation’s capital is a valuable asset.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Executive Order 13502—Use
    Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Executive Order 13502—Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects February 6, 2009 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that: Section 1. Policy. (a) Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government. Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project. A lack of coordination among various employers, or uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment of various groups of workers, can create frictions and disputes in the absence of an agreed-upon resolution mechanism. These problems threaten the efficient and timely completion of construction projects undertaken by Federal contractors. On larger projects, which are generally more complex and of longer duration, these problems tend to be more pronounced. (b) The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: Demand-Side Workforce Policy Levers by Carol Zabin and Jenifer Macgillvary CHAPTER 2: Demand-Side Workforce Policy Levers
    Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 edited by Carol Zabin • June 2020 Chapter 2: Demand-Side Workforce Policy Levers by Carol Zabin and Jenifer MacGillvary CHAPTER 2: Demand-Side Workforce Policy Levers Contents I. Introduction ....................................................................................... 66 II. What Are Labor Standards and Related Workforce Policy Levers? 68 A. Wage and Benefit Standards ..........................................................................69 1. Prevailing Wages (Construction Sector) ....................................................69 2. Wage Floors for Occupations Not Covered by Prevailing Wage ...............70 B. Skill Standards ................................................................................................ 71 1. Requirements for a Skilled and Trained Workforce (Construction Sector) ..72 2. Requirements for Specialized Certifications (Construction Sector) ............73 3. Skill Standards Requirements in Non-Construction Sectors ......................74 C. Responsible Employer Standards ..................................................................75 1. Responsible Contractor Standards (Construction Sector) ..........................75 2. Responsible Employer Requirements in Non-Construction Industries .......76 D. Project Labor Agreements and Community Workforce Agreements .............. 77 1. Project Labor Agreements (Construction Sector) ......................................77 2. Community Workforce Agreements (Construction
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Project Labor Agreement for the Nevada National Security Site (Nnss) Between National Security Technologies Ll
    CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT FOR THE NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE (NNSS) BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES LLC (NSTEC) AND THE SOUTHERN NEVADA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AND OTHER SIGNATORY UNIONS OCTOBER 1, 2012 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS (BY ARTICLE) 1. PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. INTENTS AND PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 4 3. SOUTHERN NEVADA LABOR ALLIANCE (SNLA) ................................................................................... 5 4. DOE, NNSA/NV ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES........................................................................................... 6 5. NUCLEAR FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................. 6 6. GENERAL SAVINGS CLAUSE ................................................................................................................... 8 7. WORK SUBJECT TO THIS AGREEMENT .................................................................................................... 8 8. OFF-SITE WORK .......................................................................................................................................... 8 9. UNION RECOGNITION ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]