The accomplishments of the session still leave Missouri far from where it needs to be. And certainly we would offer our 2017 Blueprint as a baseline for the sorts of reforms our state needs going forward. That menu of reforms includes the elimination of the state’s Certificate of Need laws; expansion of school choice through education savings accounts, charter schools, and course access; and substantive transportation and labor reforms to make sure that the state can compete for jobs and capital, whether already in the state or currently outside of it. Alongside the policy, we need procedural reforms in the state Senate where an historic number of bills languished and died; indeed, a filibuster on the last day of session nearly killed the state’s minimum wage reforms.

Still, there is ample room for optimism. The governor’s Committee on Simple, Fair and Low Taxes seems well-positioned to make 2018 the year of serious tax reform. Those reforms should include advancement of an earned income tax credit, the reform of state and local tax incentives, and the reduction of taxes on individuals and businesses in the state. Moreover, the passage of some priorities this year obviously clears space for the passage of other priorities in education, labor, and other areas that didn’t make it to home plate as the 2017 session closed.

The key, as some Kansas City Royals fans might put it, is to “keep the line moving.” The legislature doesn’t have to hit a home run every time it steps up to the policy plate; it just has to keep hitting singles with increasing frequency. And as baseball fans would tell you, if you do those small things right, chances are good that big things will eventually come.

While we would all have loved to see a towering moonshot of a legislative session, the Legislature ultimately hit enough singles to merit a cheer from free marketeers. Missourians had a good inning; we’re looking forward to seeing bigger and better things happen in the next one.

The post Keep the Line Moving: Looking Beyond the 2017 Session appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Session Notes: House Sends PLA Reform to the Governor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, Missouri is falling behind in that race. Like Missouri, Wisconsin’s prevailing wage reforms are still being debated today, but earlier this March PLA reforms passed out of the Wisconsin assembly and on to Governor Scott Walker. Our think tank colleague in Wisconsin, the MacIver Institute, has a video account of the debate.

For those familiar with the discussion so far in Missouri, the terms of Wisconsin’s PLA debate will sound familiar.

The bill’s supporters say it will encourage more construction firms to bid on projects, leading to taxpayer savings. Opponents say it is part of a continued effort to weaken labor unions and would put worker safety and wages at risk.

“We’re saying let the market decide, let employers decide,” [Rep. Rob] Hutton told reporters before the vote. “This is really just to clarify and get the government out of the business of determining whether a project labor agreement is necessary.”

The benefit of moving away from PLAs is twofold. The first is the benefit to taxpayers being able to spend less and get more for their money, as PLAs tend to push up the cost of public construction. But the second is nearly as important: to ensure that contractors, union and not, are treated on equal footing when they bid these public projects.

Fortunately and in furtherance of both ends, a version of PLA reform is moving its way through the Missouri House after passage in the state Senate. Chances seem very good that PLA reform will happen this year, and paired with a prevailing wage reform that just passed out of the House, reform in construction labor appears to be on the way in our state. Missouri may not beat Wisconsin to the post on these reforms, but so long as the state gets there by session’s end, it’s all the same to us. Nonetheless, vigilance remains necessary, especially given the legislative drag being experienced in the upper chamber; we’ll keep you updated.

The post Wisconsin Passes Project Labor Agreement Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Also coursing through the state House and Senate, however, are two important measures that would protect government employees as well. My former colleague John Wright wrote at length about the substance of the first measure, dealing with recertification votes and transparency in government unions. That basket of reforms will likely also include common-sense financial transparency requirements for government unions as well, consistent with disclosures private unions already file. Taken in total, that worker empowerment proposal is a game changer on its own.

The second measure, Paycheck Protection, also deserves attention from good governance supporters. Rather than forcing workers to opt out of a union, Paycheck Protection flips the presumption by allowing employees to opt-in to a union instead. It’s sort of like a mini-recertification vote; if an employee wants the union to represent her, she can confirm her support and continue the representation, or do nothing and keep her money. Either way, it’s the employee that’s empowered, not organized labor.

This year’s government union reform proposals are superior to versions that were proposed in previous years, in no small part because they don’t carve the rights of first responders from the bill. Why those rights have been carved away in the past is a subject of debate, but dealing strictly with the policy itself, passing a government reform bill that doesn’t protect first responders would be disappointing. First responders should be able to see what their union is spending money on, to keep or drop a union that represents them, and to retain or give the money in their paychecks that may currently underwrite a union’s activities. That this year’s law includes these workers deserves praise. I never understood why first responders would be deserving of fewer rights.

If these reforms are enacted, Missouri workers will have a lot to be excited about in the months and years ahead.

The post First Responders Have Rights, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But RTW isn’t the only labor reform where states are scrambling to beat their peers to the finish line. Indeed, states are also looking to reform their project labor agreement (PLA) laws, which circumscribe who can work on some public projects, and their prevailing wage laws, which can affect the price taxpayers pay for public projects.

And as in Missouri, the policy pairing of PLAs and prevailing wage has hit the top of the reform list in Wisconsin.

Prevailing wage requirements and project labor agreements would be prohibited under a proposal in Wisconsin’s 2017-19 biennial executive budget and tandem legislation speeding through the state legislature.

Gov. Scott Walker (R), already recognized for his tough stands against organized labor, included a single sentence in his 644-page budget proposal Feb. 8. The language repeals the state’s prevailing wage requirements and bans “any unit of government in the state from requiring or considering the use or lack of use of a project labor agreement by a contractor as a condition of bidding on a public works project.”

The state legislature could beat Walker to the punch under separate bills that would prohibit state and local units of government from requiring project labor agreements as part of public works programs. The Senate passed its version of the PLA bill, Senate Bill 3, by a vote of 19-13 on Feb. 8. The Assembly’s Committee on Labor approved nearly identical legislation, Assembly Bill 24, on a party-line vote Feb. 9.

The post The Race is On: Wisconsin Pushes to End Project Labor Agreements and Prevailing Wage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Construction unions are pressing the City Council to adopt a “project labor agreement” mandating union labor and other rules for the $28 million police headquarters-court facility approved by voters in April. In return, unions agree not to call strikes on the project.

While a project labor agreement that forces the city to use union labor rather than the best available bid is a bad idea in its own right, the fact that construction unions appear to be threatening a disruption in order to get exclusive access to this project is beyond the pale.

Where to begin?

Shouldn’t public works projects be awarded based on contractor qualifications and bid amounts? Doesn’t this combination get taxpayers the best value for their dollar? On the other hand, when a city adopts a constraint on a public works project that favors a certain kind of contractor for reasons other than value, isn’t that a bad sign?

I would say so. An agreement that awards contracts exclusively to unionized labor seems to be less about getting taxpayers the best deal and more about appeasing a politically active special interest group. If unionized businesses offer taxpayers in O’Fallon a better deal than non-union shops, they will win public contracts through the strength of their bids. Special treatment is unnecessary.

I don’t think anyone wants to see a slowdown on a $28 million public works project like this, but special treatment for unions trying to exercise political muscle should be non-negotiable, especially if they’re threatening to punish the city if they don’t get their way. O’Fallon should do the right thing for its taxpayers: Take bids from all parties and assess them on their merits.

The post Will O’Fallon Use a Competitive Bidding Process? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This month, the St. Louis City Board of Aldermen is considering legislation that would rig the construction contract bidding process in favor of union contractors. And it looks like a political move to scratch the back of an important constituency at the expense of the smaller minority contractors shut out by this type of legislation.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. In 2012, the St. Louis County Council enacted similar regulations. Just as that law was a shameful example of special-interest pandering in the county, this legislation appears to serve the same function for city politicians who rely on trade and construction unions to stay in power. According to a story in the St. Louis American, Alderman Joe Vaccaro, who introduced this bill, freely admitted that the labor unions came to him with this bill and asked him to introduce it.

Of course, the bill does not specifically say that it would limit bids and contracts to “union-only” contractors. That would be illegal. Instead, it mandates a requirement that will legally accomplish the same goal. The new ordinance requires bidders on contracts of $25,000 or more to offer apprentice-training programs that are generally found in union shops. For all practical purposes, the only way a contractor or company can offer this type of program—and be allowed to participate in city construction contract bids—is to become a union shop. It would be an extreme burden for the typical independent non-union company to participate in the apprentice program. Whatever that burden may be, the city has no business mandating it.

Minority contractors, who want nothing more than an equal playing field in which to compete, say that restricting non-union contractors from bidding on construction projects will prevent minority-owned contractors from winning contracts. The county bill ended up keeping African-American independent contractors out of county construction worksites. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. And government favoritism that has a disproportionately negative impact on minority businesses and independent contractors is simply indefensible.

Moreover, if the city adopts this legislation and non-union shops no longer participate in the bid process, taxpayers will take a hit. Limiting the number of potential bidders can only have one effect: raising overall prices. Researchers at the Beacon Hill Institute found that Project-Labor Agreements (PLAs), another method of union-favored project bidding, raised costs to taxpayers by 27 percent over non-PLA projects (which included many non-union bidders). This new law for Saint Louis City likely would have a similar result.

Law should facilitate open access, such that access to public institutions is not contingent on personal relationships and political connections. Law should be structured to apply to everyone equally. By favoring unionized contractors over non-unionized contractors, this bill reeks of cronyism. This is one bad idea I hope will not come back again, but as Yogi said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

John Wright is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Playing Favorites on the Board of Aldermen? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Saint Louis County Council passed, and County Executive Charlie Dooley signed, a bill that will prohibit non-union construction contractors from participating in all but the smallest county projects. Two members of the council’s Democrat majority who voted for the bill, Chairman Mike O’Mara and Patrick Dolan, are affiliated with unions that will directly benefit from this rank favoritism. At a minimum (here, the barest of minimums), they should have recused themselves from the vote.

The new law lays down several new requirements on county construction bidders. Of course, it does not specifically say the bids and contracts are “union-only” because that would be illegal. Instead, it mandates a requirement that will legally accomplish the same goal. The new ordinance requires that bidders offer apprentice-training programs that are generally found in union shops. For all practical purposes, the only way a contractor or company can offer this type of program — and be allowed to participate in county bids — is to become a union shop. It would be an extreme burden for the typical independent, non-union company to participate in the apprentice program. Whatever that burden may be, the county council has no business mandating it.

While some non-union companies do participate in apprentice programs through industry organizations, union-affiliated companies still have a decided advantage in meeting the requirements of this new bill. This is a blatant ploy to guarantee that union companies will win all county bids.

The non-union shops will now not win any bids, and likely will not participate in the bid process either. This will hurt taxpayers. Limiting the number of potential bidders can only have one effect: raising overall prices. Researchers at the Beacon Hill Institute found that Project-Labor Agreements (PLAs), another method of union-favoring project bidding, raised costs to taxpayers by 27 percent over non-PLA projects (which included many non-union bidders). This new law for Saint Louis County will likely have a similar result.

Using the council’s authority to prevent non-union contractors from even attempting to participate in county projects is an egregious misuse of power. It is bad enough that this will increase costs to taxpayers, but the use of government for political favoritism is simply indefensible and immoral.

State government need not allow this. Local governments are creatures of states, and the residents of Saint Louis County deserve for the state to correct this legislation. State government should quickly address this practice and prohibit local governments from favoring unions in the bidding process. (To be clear, local governments should not be allowed to discriminate against unions and union contractors, either.) We have a system of checks and balances to address exactly this type of unbalanced legislation. Unfortunately, the first option — a county executive veto — failed. Higher levels of government or the circuit courts need to correct this unseemly example of crony government.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Shame on Saint Louis County Council for Union Cronyism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.