Executive Order 13502, signed by President Obama, went live yesterday. The Order directs federal agencies taking bids for government construction projects to accept only those from contractors who agree in advance to a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) that requires a union work force. How does that affect veterans you ask? Read on!
Unions have certainly had a beneficial impact on workplace conditions. Anyone such as myself who was forced in High School to suffer through the unending misery devoid of uplifting qualities that was Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” could tell you that. However, should we be in a position in which we’re mandating that only union contracts are being utilized for government building projects? I think no, and I think so because it’s going to negatively impact the veterans’ community.
Last year, fully 100% of the construction contracts the National Cemetery Administration was authorized under the Stimulus Package went to veteran owned businesses. Many of those businesses were owned and operated by disabled veterans. This is a win for both VA and the veterans. It’s a rising tide that lifts all boats. The more contracts VA doles out to veteran owned businesses, the more they fulfill a dual goal of both improving VA facilities and bolstering the job market for veterans. Veteran owned contracting businesses get to give back to the community that’s going to give back to them.
Many veteran owned businesses are small businesses and aren’t always in a position to solely staff with union workers. In states such as Virginia that are “Right to Work” states, union membership can’t be mandated as a condition of employment. If veterans aren’t employing union workers, they’re being shut out of government contracting owing to VA’s status as a government agency. A plank shoring up the foundations of VA’s ability to help veterans in an overall sense is being taken away. The ability of VA to return the nation’s gratitude for service is being eroded.
The job market is quite honestly not so great right now. Veterans in particular have been noted as hard hit by this economy. With veteran joblessness in the state that it’s in, why would you take away an avenue for those veterans to not only work, but work building their own infrastructure for benefits and services?
Subsections of the government should have more latitude to serve the communities they were intended to serve. The Bureau of Indian Affairs can better serve the Native American population by seeking to offer more contracts for construction to Native American owned business in the same manner that VA can work towards bolstering veterans’ employment by hiring veterans to construct VA facilities. It helps the people the agencies are designed to help.
Is this a blow to veterans’ employment? I suppose time will be the best measure, but it seems to me that this Executive Order could set back efforts to help veteran owned businesses at a time when veteran owned businesses need all the help from VA that they can get.
Comments
Demophilus
April 16, 2010 - 1:29pm
Permalink
I don't see it necessarily as
I don't see it necessarily as important to fight the whole law, and I agree that there are areas where it can be beneficial. There is perhaps a simple legislative fix to allow government agencies that serve a particular populace leniency in accepting bids outside a union environment when accepting bids from the populace they serve would be overall beneficial to that populace. The VA is there to serve veterans, if they can serve veterans by say for example-mandating veteran owned businesses for construction contracts, then that's something that perhaps should be looked at.
There are good and bad things about unions. While I haev certainly seen the good things they've done, my uncle who lives locally tells many stories of the phone company back in the 70's whose union "voted unanimously" to strike against management when many of the union members swore they voted against a strike. That's not the sort of democracy that's helpful. Furthermore, I have relatives from Flint who worked in the auto industry and were madated to join unions that they were similarly displeased with. This includes a cousion who got a summer job in college as an inspector on the line for one of the automobile manufacturers doing quality inspections on the line. When he noted too many deficiencies on the vehicles going past-deficiencies that were present-he was taken into a breakroom by the floor boss and literally physically assaulted while it was explained to him that too many dificiencies shuts down the line and takes food out of the mouths of families. Sure, that's a noble sentiment, but the delivery leaves much to be desired and if there are that many deficiencies-when the company falls apart and people stop buying cars they can't trust, then a whole company is out of work and families aren't fed.
This is not to say all union shops are like this. I had excellent experiences with union workers in previous jobs in which I worked alongside them. Union craftsmen help self regulate their professions so you can know that the plumber you're hiring (for example) meets a minimum competency level, and as Jane points out there are advocacy issues when employers don't follow appropriate laws related to FMLA and other things (although if laws are being broken or circumvented, there are proper legal authorities to deal with this). Stories of individuals are annecdotal by nature and not statistical and therefore difficult to perceive how accurately they reflect an overall base. They are what they are.
There are good cops and bad cops, good soldiers and bad soldiers, good government employees and bad ones...it's not endemic to union or non-union, people are people.
Unions are lobbyisys like anyone else and exert a lot of funding and pressure to favor their special interest groups. They won one. I'm just saying that other advocacy groups should be on the watch to ensure that their constituents are getting their fair shot as well.
Nine Lives (not verified)
April 16, 2010 - 11:36am
Permalink
This could be because I am
This could be because I am from Detroit and to speak out against the unions would get me disowned, but just about every veteran I know who is a laborer is in a union. I say "just about" because I don't know the status of a few. But I don't know any laborer who is a veteran and is not part of a union. My uncle is a proud veteran and a union rep, something he is probably equally proud of. Unions are a good thing, Jane is right. They are democratic and they hold elections for their reps. If you don't like the rep, vote them out. The mafia hardly works that way.
Mr. Ragsdale, I don't know what your circumstances were, but your rep must not have done his job and that's a shame. They are supposed to be your advocates as much as The Legion is ours. That's why I am split on this question because I feel like veteran's who are in a union should have two advocates -- the Union and The Legion.
So with that said, veteran not in unions still should not be at a disadvantage, but why fight the entire law? Unions are good. Instead, why not try to fix the law so that it helps small veteran-owned companies whose employees can't afford Union dues? That's what The Legion does right? Jane makes a very valid point: try to fix it. Why not work with the VA & unions to subsidize Union dues for companies below a certain size? Then all is fair under this new mandate?
Jane (not verified)
April 16, 2010 - 11:27am
Permalink
I mean... I suppose I have to
I mean... I suppose I have to defer to people who are members of unions to weigh in on this. Are all unions operating this way? I personally have never belonged to one. It is my impression that unions do good things for employees. Of course, they can't win all battles, but when they do win, they win for all. Things like FMLA and OSHA came out of big union achievements.
Insurance companies don't always appease their customers either, but I still think insurance is a darn good thing to have! Are unions really the money grubbing theives you all are making them out to be? I have a hard time beleiving that. Am I wrong? Are there any more of you out there who share this opinion?
And if this is the case, why are people avoiding the problem rather than fixing it?
Donald Ragsdale (not verified)
April 16, 2010 - 4:38am
Permalink
Jane, I joined a union after
Jane,
I joined a union after separating from the service (and after observing the union in action for some months). I didn't have to join, but I did have to pay the dues - agency shop, you know. After paying dues and participating in union business for over 15 years, I wound up on the street when the union bent over and kissed managements behind come time to protect their members. Never again! Right to work is the only way to make unions earn their keep.
Demophilus
April 15, 2010 - 6:08pm
Permalink
Also Jane-playing devil's
Also Jane-playing devil's advocate is a good thing. Unchallenged opinons and untested beliefs are not worth holding.
Jane (not verified)
April 15, 2010 - 11:08am
Permalink
First of all, I said nothing
First of all, I said nothing about active duty military forming a Union. I wouldn't support that idea either.
You really think Unions have no place in the world? That's an interesting idea... because without them wouldn't the US be a mess! Sweatshops, no employee benefits, no job security, discrimination....
Unions have done a world of good for working America and comparing them to the mafia is just silly. But as usual, you are entitled to your own opinion. I was simply expressing mine. It's a good thing a majority of the US (historically and presently) agrees with me!
AW1 Tim (not verified)
April 14, 2010 - 10:11pm
Permalink
Jane, FWIW, In the 70's
Jane,
FWIW, In the 70's some active duty folks floated the idea of forming a union. It was shot down by Congress who passed a law which Carter signed within two weeks of the Union being proposed and which made it illegal for anyone in the military to form or advocate forming a union, or for military persons to join such a union.
Personally, I have no use for unions. They are no more than legalized extortion, having all the endearing charms and qualities of the mafia and street thugs, while enjoying protection under the laws which better men and women than union bosses will EVER be served to protect and defend.
What the nation needs is a National Right To Work law which forbids closed shops, and the joining of, associating with, or paying dues to any Union or organization as a requirement for employment.
I should be able to apply for any job, anywhere, and not have to pay baksheesh to some goon in order to work.
Respects,
Jane (not verified)
April 14, 2010 - 9:41pm
Permalink
To play devil's advocate here
To play devil's advocate here (as usual), don't veterans also deserve the protection of Union membership? I feel like this is an issue above and beyond the veteran's community - every laborer should have a union backing them. I think that was the goal behind the legislation. This applies to veterans and non-veterans alike. Looking at it from the side of the employee, I would be happy that I now had the right to be part of a Union if my company wanted to stay afloat.
Might it be more expensive for the employer/business owner? Yes. So is providing any other employee benefit. But in the end, employee benefits are a good thing - they ensure that the working poor (to include veterans) are not left out in the dark if/when tragedy strikes.
Should VA develop some type of assistance program wherein they help vet-owned businesses finance this type of investment? Hell yes! Then hire those vets to do the work. Start a new union for veterans! There are many actions to be taken here, but I personally feel like the legislation is in the best interest of the public (vet and non-vet), even if it comes with some growing pains. It certainly does not prevent VA from hiring veterans. On the other hand, it allows room for new growth - new programs to help veterans who own or work for small businesses.
defendUSA (not verified)
April 14, 2010 - 8:39pm
Permalink
oops. I think there is great
oops. I think there is great potential to harm. There are probably some loopholes that will screw with the order/ or other policy. And since it seems clear to me that Obama has little respect for the military, it would not surprise me. It looks good on paper.
defendUSA (not verified)
April 14, 2010 - 8:37pm
Permalink
I have read about the right
I have read about the right to work states and the union crap. I am also a veteran who owns a business, but not a disabled vet. I think
Demophilus
April 15, 2010 - 6:07pm
Permalink
Jane, as I noted in my post,
Jane, as I noted in my post, I think Unions have a very important place in the labor history (and present) of the United States. Yes, without unions, the abysmal working conditions that prompted works such as Sinclair's "The Jungle" and still exist in many countries today would most likely not have been addressed in this country. Is there a place for unions now in America? Most certainly, and union lobbyists still work towards laws that protect American workers from substandard working conditions and true dangers in the workplace.
Here's where I have the problem-you're telling people they HAVE to be union employees to work on government projects and limiting the contractors who might bid on those contractors to union shops only. Being a member of a union costs a portion of your wages. In small businesses in particular, that's not always affordable. Sweatshops exist in America, although they exist illegally. OSHA standards and other workplace protections such as FMLA, minimum wage, etc...are protections provided not by unions but by the government and by laws that are now in place. Yes, unions advocate for laws such as those, that's what advocacy groups do.
The American Legion is an advocacy group for veterans, but it would be absurd for us to demand that the government limit veterans' benefits only to those veterans who have paid to join (as union members must pay to join) a veterans' advocacy group such as ours or the many other service organizations. There is always a place for advocacy, but advocacy should not limit itself to solely protecting those members of a group that have paid and joined the cause. True advocacy is for all of the class of people you purport to represent.
Unions do play an important role, but that role has been diminished as many of the concerns brought to light have been set into laws that protect ALL employees in America, not just union members. To suggest that in the absence of unions the US would descend into sweatshops is probably an exageration, and I don't think that's what you're suggesting.
My main point is that by limiting government contracting to unions, a portion of the employees out there who could provide a situation of mutual benefit is being excluded. I mean this not solely in the sense of veteran owned businesses, but again in my example of Native American owned businesses in the case of the BIA or other similar circumstances.
Because the job landscape of America is vast enough to include non-union employees who still are protected by laws and entitled to a vastly superior workplace than days in the past, it is limiting to constrain the work pool to union only contractors. I have never been in a union in my life, and I've worked jobs from manual labor (carpentry and maintenance) to corporate type work to retail and others...and every workplace I've been in has been governed by Federal laws posted all over the place governing why I had rights as a worker and how they would be protected.
Jane (not verified)
April 15, 2010 - 9:23pm
Permalink
While that's true, I don't
While that's true, I don't see any non profit advocacy groups popping up to represent the working poor who have been burned by their employers for using FMLA leave. I give unions credit for sticking up for employees who face discrimination and retaliation, and feel strongly that is a protection everyone should have. Even in small businesses. In my mind, it's like malpractice insurance for health care providers - probably won't need it but heaven forbid the day comes when they did need it and it wasn't there!
Yes, the policy is limiting. It's intended to be. The point is to put pressure on businesses to embrace union membership - and the bottom line is I think that's a good idea.
Vanessa (not verified)
May 13, 2010 - 8:12pm
Permalink
Veterans looking for a job
Veterans looking for a job once they complete military service may want to consider a career in the apartment industry. There is a podcast on www.ApartmentCareerHQ.org that talks about "Hire a Hero" and how it is working with the apartment industry.
http://www.apartmentcareerhq.org/2010/05/11/hire-hero/
Theron Lewitt (not verified)
August 13, 2010 - 9:44pm
Permalink
Engineering Jobs in todays
Engineering Jobs in todays market are difficult to come by and this is made even more difficult given that future managers are becoming more difficult to satisfy. Personally, I think that the global markets should see vast improvements within the next sixmonths and this should make the situation easier to handle.
Add new comment