The old bridge

Thanks to a decision made by the government of the state of Vermont – mostly the Douglas Administration but with the support of leading legislators – the new Lake Champlain bridge will cost Vermont taxpayers somewhat more than it might.

Thanks to that same decision, no Vermont worker is guaranteed to get one of the 150 or more jobs – some paying more than $47 an hour including benefits – on the $61 million project, the largest construction project in the state in some time.

Finally, thanks to the decision, strikes, labor jurisdictional disputes, or other work stoppages could interrupt progress on the new bridge, scheduled to be completed by July of 2011.

The decision was the state’s refusal to participate in a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). Under a PLA, construction unions agree to certain concessions, such as surrendering premium pay for late shifts and allowing flexibility in computing overtime. This holds down the price of the project.

They also agree not to stage strikes, slowdowns or other work delays, a provision especially important when officials – and the public – are impatient to finish the job.

In return, most of the workers are selected from union hiring halls, meaning union members get priority, though non-union workers are commonly chosen also, simply because the job requires more workers than there are union members in any area.

In this case, the federal government signaled its approval of using a PLA. The state of New York agreed. The unions made the necessary concessions.

Vermont said no.

To recap: The PLA would (1) Not cost anyone a penny; (2) Save the state and its taxpayers some hundreds of thousands of dollars according to the one study devoted to the question; (3) guarantee scores of Vermont workers high-paying jobs for 15 months.

And the state said no?

“It’s a philosophical opposition to unions,” said Sen. Vince Illuzzi, the Orleans County Republican who supports the PLA.

Not so, said John Zicconi, the spokesman for the Agency of Transportation, who said Vermont officials “didn’t think one (PLA) was necessary.”

Zicconi said Transportation Secretary David Dill told New York officials Vermont would consider the PLA if “nonunion shops were treated completely equally with the union shops,” a condition that he said was not met.

“Our non-union shops should have been on a level playing field,” Zicconi said. “That was the key issue to us.”

It was the key issue, Zicconi acknowledged, because the Agency was subject to “strong lobbying” by Vermont’s construction firms, organized as the Associated General Contractors of Vermont. Almost all of Vermont’s contractors are non-union shops, and obviously intent on staying that way. Both Zicconi and AGC officials said that under a PLA no non-union Vermont contractor could possibly get chosen as a subcontractor to do any work on the bridge.

But according to the “Due Diligence” report on the advisability of the PLA done by Arace & Co. consulting firm of Warwick, N.Y., non-union contractors win at leas”t 30 percent of all (contracts) under PLAs.”

The report also concluded that a PLA on the bridge “has the  potential to produce cost savings for the Federal government and the taxpayers of New York State and Vermont.  We estimate potential savings of approximately $1,756,032.”

Vermont’s share of that would presumably be several hundred-thousand dollars.

Besides, there do not seem to be any Vermont firms that could possibly win a subcontract for any of the work that would have been covered by the PLA. Zicconi and AGC sources said they hoped Vermont firms might get subcontracts for line-striping the road, installing the guard rails, or providing concrete.

But according to Michael Morelli of the Ironworkers union and other union officials, the less expensive contracts for line-striping and guard rails were not part of the draft PLA. And the concrete material, which is likely to be handled by a non-union Vermont firm, is considered supply, not construction contracting. It isn’t part of the PLA, either.

In fact, so many of the arguments in opposition to the PLA are so demonstrably incorrect that Illuzzi’s contention that state officials are motivated by “philosophical opposition” can’t be dismissed out of hand.

For instance, both builders and state officials repeatedly told lawmakers and reporters that the PLA would force non-union Vermont workers to “join a union.”

It would not. The workers would have to pay union dues while on this particular job. But they would not have to become union members, and they could stipulate that none of their dues money go for political activity. In the meanwhile, they and their families would enjoy the generous health benefits of the union plans.

And in disputing the consultant’s estimate of $1.7 million in savings, Zicconi said that would depend on whether the unions made concessions, and on the report’s assumption that union workers were more efficient, “and I don’t buy that.”

But the unions have already made the concessions. And the efficiency issue, according to Ed Acer of the consulting firm, based on findings that union workers are “more likely to be more productive and safety-conscious” because they are “graduates of rigorous state-certified apprentice programs,” accounted for $112,000, or .005 percent of the projected savings.

“That’s a rounding error,” he said.

A PLA would not have cost Vermont contractors a penny. All workers on the job will have to be paid the New York State prevailing wage, which is much higher than Vermont’s. A Vermont laborer, said, John Donahue of the Laborer’s union, earns about $12 an hour, usually with no benefits. The New York prevailing wage, he said, is $37 an hour, $23 in pay and the rest benefits. Even after deducting union dues (about $2.22 an hour) the worker earns a lot more under the New York system.

That, of course, could reveal a practical, rather than a “philosophical” reason Vermont contractors oppose the PLA. They may not want their workers to get a taste of the higher wages and benefits that unionization brings.

Labor leaders could be exaggerating when they say that without the PLA no Vermont worker might be hired. The general contractor, Flatiron Constructors of Colorado, is not likely to bring all 150 or more skilled workers with it. But Morelli of the Ironworkers said Flatiron was known for “self-performing” a great deal of its work and bringing some of its work force with it.

Efforts to reach Flatiron were not successful.

And Donahue might have been bluffing when he threatened labor unrest.

“We’re not going to stand by,” he said. “There could be picket lines and everything.”

But they are correct when they say that without the PLA there is no guarantee either that Vermonters will get any of these good-paying jobs or that there will be no delays because of labor squabbles. Under the draft PLA, 84 percent of the jobs would have been apportioned through local hiring halls in New York and Vermont, though non-union contractors could “drag-along” their own employes to make up the rest.

The final irony here is that there could be a PLA after all. Vermont’s refusal only scuttled plans for a public PLA. But the unions and Flatiron could negotiate a private agreement. Flatiron has operated under PLAs in the past. It was the general contractor for the replacement of the Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed in 2007. That jog was finished ahead of schedule and under budget, and it was conducted under a PLA.

A Flatiron official was in the Albany area yesterday,  perhaps negotiating.

Under a private PLA, though, the taxpayers will not save the money. Flatiron will add it to its bottom line.

In absolute terms, Vermont is doing better than it was twelve days ago (See Census Sense, April 7) , but in relative terms, it’s lagging just about as far behind.

As of yesterday, the Census Bureau web site showed that Vermont had a 65 percent rate of returning 2010 Census forms. That was better than the 56 percent recorded April 6. But it still lagged behind the national rate, by the same four percentage points.

And this is supposed to be the most educated state in the union?

*                                                *                                           *                                      *                                        *                           *

The late Sen. William Scott

Thanks (or perhaps more accurately, no thanks) to missed phone calls and the varying schedules of both parties, the News Guy’s report on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of stocking Vermont rivers with “put-and-take” adult trout (Taking Stock, April 9) lacked the key information of how much the Fish and Wildlife Department spent on this activity.

Tom Wiggins (inexplicably called “Wiggin” in the original post; apologies to him) reports that the total cost of the program this year will be approximately $4.57 million, $2.85 million to staff and operate the hatcheries, and $1.72 million for to administer the actual stocking.

This money does not come from the taxpayers. Wiggins said about 75 percent of is from federal funds obtained from the excise tax on fishing gear, and the other 25 percent is from the money anglers pay for their fishing licenses ($20 for a Vermont resident).

Still, every penny the Department spends on stocking is a penny it can not spent on habitat protection, which all the biologists agree is the best method for providing healthy fish populations in the long run.

*                                                      *                                                        *                                              *                                   *

Ken Page is a mentsch.

Page is the high school principal — indeed, the head of the Vermont Principals Association – teased (if not downright ridiculed) in last Monday’s post (“Three for Monday,” April 12 ) for ungrammatically saying “less students” instead of the correct “fewer students.”

A lesser man might have been resentful, or at least have ignored the attack. Not Page, who sent an email with the subject line “guilty as charged.” He was wrong, he knew it, and he said so.

And for whatever it’s worth, Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education of the entire United States of America, made the same mistake last week.

*                                *                                   *                                   *                                        *                              *                   *

Last Thursday was, of course, Tax Day, a day Americans have been conditioned to revile even though about 80 percent of all tax filers got or will get refunds, according to IRS figures. Furthermore, almost everyone is paying less in federal income taxes this year than last year.

That includes Vermonters. According to Sen. Bernie Sanders, 99 percent of Vermont working families and individuals “received a much-needed average federal tax cut of over $1,100 for 2009.” In addition, he said, “14,000 Vermont families were able to receive an expanded tax cut to send their kids to college last year (and) nearly 60,000 Vermont small businesses received tax cuts to purchase new equipment and other things.”

For those who find Sanders a less than reliable source, everything he said checks out, except calling the tax cut “much-needed” which is of course his assessment, but one that will not be disputed here.

Speaking of federal taxes, another reason Vermonters ought to temper their displeasure about them is that they got back more than they pay out to the feds.

According to the latest tabulation by the Tax Foundation, Vermont’s individuals, businesses, and governments get $1.08 for every dollar Vermonters pay to the feds (that’s total federal taxes, not just the income tax).

That puts Vermont right about in the middle – 26^th – of the rankings, which, truth to tell, might not mean much. The states that get back the most – Alabama led, getting back $2.03 for every dollar – tend to be the poorest, while those at the bottom – New Jersey got back only 61 cents – are generally the wealthiest.

Actually, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

*                                                *                                            *                                         *                                  *                                    *

Some years ago there was a U.S. Senator named William Scott, a Virginia Republican. In 1974 New Times magazine published an article noting that Scott had been named “the dumbest Congressman” by an organization affiliated with Ralph Nader.

Since New Times had little clout in Washington and less in Virginia, Scott’s best option was obviously to ignore the designation. He did not. Instead, he called a press conference to deny the description, thereby confirming it.

An incident brought to mind recently when the Rutland Herald ran an editorial titled “Prism of Paranoia” arguing that Republicans were motivated largely by “festering anger.”

Like all editorials, this one was rebuttable. Alas, in his letter rebutting it, Steve Larrabee, the Chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, displayed no small amount of…well, anger.

The assertion that “all we have to offer is anger is false and misleading,” not to mention “reprehensible and unjustifiable,” Larrabee wrote, adding, “I can only conclude that this is intentionally so.”

Larrabee’s letter did not rise (or perhaps sink) to what we might call Scottian levels. He did provide some factual evidence to support his argument that the GOP has more to offer than anger.

But here’s some free advice to political operatives responding to condemnation: when criticized for being angry, respond with wry amusement, biting sarcasm, sardonic satire or the like. Not with anger. He may not be a model Republicans want to follow, but Robert Kennedy’s advice remains sound: “Don’t get mad. Get even.”

*                                                      *                                           *                                               *                                             *

And finally (and again, for what it’s worth) from Vermontbiz.com , the online version of Vermont Business Magazine, comes word that the folks at U-Haul International found that many more people are moving into Vermont than out of it.

In fact,  said U-Haul President of Phoenix Operations John “J.T.” Taylor, “for states with 5,000 – 20,000 families moving, Vermont had the highest (in-over-out) percentage, with a growth rate of 16.67 percent in 2009, moving Maine to second place after two years of ranking first”

Obviously, the U-Haul folks count only those who move in and out with U-Haul vehicles, and the statement read more like an advertisement than a data-based research report.

Still, for what it’s worth…

Possibly for competitive reasons (don’t give the other guys any ink) most of Vermont’s media has ignored the new poll commissioned by WCAX-TV (Channel 3), WDEV radio, and the Vermont Business Magazine.

Too bad. Almost all the poll results are interesting, and at least one of them might have  immediate consequences.

Not, though, the one about the governor’s race, with which Channel 3, foolishly, led its poll coverage on its six-o-clock news last Wednesday

Foolish not because there was anything wrong with the report, done by the always-capable Kristin Carlson, but because when it comes to the governor’s race, the poll had…well, not quite nothing to say, but not much.

Certainly not much about who is likely to win the election, the subject of the report. In fact, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the results is that neither Republican Lt. Gov. Brain Dubie or whichever Democrat wins the right to run against him is in the lead.

Neither is any one of the five Democrats over the other four, though one of them may be a bit behind the other four, a tentative conclusion considering that pollsters did not ask respondents about their preferences in the primary.

So the gubernatorial results require some intricate (meaning debatable) interpretation. Not so the results Channel 3 revealed the next day about what the state’s voters think about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. They want it gone.

Not tomorrow. But just about half of the 400 respondents do not want to allow the plant to keep running beyond the expiration of its original license in  2012.

The important figure here, though, is not the 49 percent that answered “no,” to the question, “Do you think Vermont Yankee should get another 20 year extension to operate in Vermont?” The important figure is that only 27 percent answered the question with a “yes.” The other 24 percent? They said they were “not sure.”

Politically speaking, though, the result is not 49-27-24. Politically speaking, the result is 76-24.

That’s because the State Senate is scheduled to vote on Yankee relicensing Wednesday, and it’s reasonable to assume that the senators took a look at the poll to see what might be the political consequences of their votes.

No, the News Guy is not so cynical as to suppose that Vermont lawmakers cast their votes according to nothing but the public’s whim. Still, at some point in their decision-making cogitation, lawmakers are bound to wonder, for instance, what the political price might be for voting against Yankee’s re-licensing.

Now they know: Little or nothing. Because most of the pro-Vermont Yankee responders were Republicans, 57 percent of whom said they favored relicensing. Presumably those Republicans vote for Republicans, anyway. So the 68 percent of all lawmakers (and 75 percent of senators) who are not Republicans don’t worry about them anyway.

The bottom line: whatever the merits of the case, voting against Vermont Yankee is the politically safer option.

That’s because, politically speaking, the “not sure” answerers can be lumped in with the “no” answerers, leaving only the 27 percent who answered “yes” for “no”-voting senators to worry about.

Now to the somewhat more complicated interpretation of the poll’s findings on the election.

On its face, the poll was good news for Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, the only Democrat who finished ahead of Dubie. But it was barely ahead — 43 percent to 41 percent – which really means the two are tied. With only 400 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus four points.

And remember, that’s not plus or minus the two-point spread between Markowitz and Dubie. It’s plus or minus each candidate’s support. Markowitz could “really” (meaning if all voters were polled) be ahead by 48-36, or behind 38-44, and the poll still wouldn’t be wrong.

The same holds for Dubie margin over Sen. Doug Racine who gets 38 percent to Dubie’s 43 percent, a five-point lead for Dubie, but still within the margin of error.

The other Democrats are farther behind. Against former state Senator Matt Dunne, Dubie leads 44-36. He leads Senate President Peter Shumlin 45 to 35, and Senator Susan Bartlett 48-30.

All of which means that…..(Tah Dah!)…more Vermonters have the foggiest notion of who Deb Markowitz and Doug Racine are than are familiar with the other three, Only 24 percent of the respondents had “no opinion” favorable or not, of the long-time Secretary of State. Thirty-two percent had no opinion about Racine,  a former lieutenant governor who has run for governor in the past, while the “no opinion” response for Dunne and Shumlin was in the mid-40s and for Bartlett a whopping 63 percent.

Some political observers were surprised that so few voters seemed familiar with Shumlin, who is, after all, the Senate leader. Some political observers keep forgetting that while they and their friends and colleagues follow the doings of the State Legislature, they are in a small minority, in Vermont and elsewhere.

It’s early. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will, by that very accomplishment, become far better known, and therefore probably competitive with Dubie.

Unless, of course, they start sniping at one another. Voters, especially middle-of-the-road swing voters, don’t like intra-party bickering, and the danger to the Democrats is that they will squabble like alley cats, leaving the winner scratched and scarred.

Perhaps aware of this danger, the Democrats have been polite toward one another until…well, perhaps until last night, when Bartlett released a statement opposing the scheduled Senate vote on Wednesday.

The timing, she said, is “more political theater than making good public policy,” a not too subtle swipe at Shumlin, who scheduled the vote.

A bit of a gamble on Bartlett’s part. She might win by calling attention to herself, which, as the least known contender, she has to do. She might lose by seeming to agree with Gov. Jim Douglas, an association not likely to please Democratic primary voters. To be sure, she only agrees with Douglas on the timing; Bartlett is as opposed to re-licensing Vermont Yankee as Shumlin. Still, it’s a gamble.

And we probably won’t know how well it worked until July. That’s when Research 2000, the respected outfit which did the survey, will poll Vermonters again. This time, company president Del Ali said, the sample would be 600 voters, with an “over-sample” of 400 Democrats.

When those results come in, we might have some idea of who is really ahead. Right now we know only that Vermont Yankee is not.