A Sustainable Workforce Starts With You

Australian Construction Rules vs. Obama Construction Rules: Which is on the Right Track?

We have written about the Obama executive order requiring Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) for all Government projects in the US.  Critics have labeled this as payback to the labor unions for getting out the vote for Obama in the 2008 elections.  Those construction companies who are unwilling to comply and hire the unions can’t get government jobs.

In Melbourne, the government of Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu has just passed a code of conduct for the construction industry just the opposite of the Obama PLA rules. According to Nigel Hadgkiss, the head of the new Construction Code Compliance Unit, the rules are meant to limit union activities, illegal strikes and work slow downs on government projects.  He stated that the rules would create safer and more productive projects leading to more savings for the government.  The new rules require contractors to abide by the new rules or be disqualified from any government work.  Sound familiar?

According to ABC News in Australia, thousands of workers walked off their job sites last week to march to Parliament in protest of the new rules and vowing to abolish the new code.

Two approaches to the issue of safer, more productive sites.  One supportive of the unions and the other challenging the existing union practices.  Maybe the Obama administration could learn something from the Aussies.

Photo courtesy ABC News


Anonymous's picture

There must be something lost in translation, mate.
Obama's Executive Order doesn't require PLAs, but certainly you know that.
Just like you know that the Associated Builders & Contractors got what they paid for in their bogus PLA study: A self-fulfilling prophecy that PLAs cost more, objective evidence be damned.
Apparently drivel flows down under, too.

Add new comment