WND EXCLUSIVE Trade union "regime" eliminates 70% of workers from competition Company suing school district for discrimination

0
11
(Photo courtesy of Pixabay)

(Photo courtesy of Pixabay)

An electrical contractor whose workers often work on large projects in Minneapolis challenges in federal court the local school district's rejection of its offers to unionized workers.

"With 75 buildings and 35,000 students, there are many construction jobs in the Minneapolis School District," says Pacific Legal Foundation.

"But many hardworking Minnesotians can never try a school project. In 2004, the district adopted a Project Agreement, or PLA, which favors politically powerful unions over non-union entrepreneurs. This type of agreement requires companies bidding under government contracts to pay money to a union and hire workers to get the job.

"As a result, non-union employees are punished for choosing not to join a union, costs for taxpayers increase by several million and the district does not always receive the lowest qualified and most responsible bidders."

The case was filed in the US District Court of Minnesota by the foundation on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors and Laketown Electric Corp.

She names as defendants Minneapolis Public Schools and Nelson Inz, the chairman of the board of education.

"More than 70% of Minnesota workers have chosen not to join a union, but these same workers are being punished by unfair labor agreements like this," said PLF attorney Wen Fa. "The Supreme Court said in Janus that this unjust cronyism is illegal. We look forward to equalizing the opportunities of Minnesota workers and taxpayers. "

The foundation explained that Matt Bergman is an electrical contractor whose 110 non-union employees are "among those who are ousted jobs in public schools".

They are not even allowed to bid for jobs in schools because the district only allows unions to accept such jobs.

"Today, his talented and dedicated employees do electrical work on major commercial and government projects, from breweries to restaurants to courthouses and police stations." Matt is particularly proud of the work done by his employees in the schools. They have just completed a 130,000 square foot à la carte school in St. Paul, entirely designed, designed and built by his company, "said the foundation.

But the district has adopted a PLA "which favors powerful political unions over non-union entrepreneurs.

"As a result, LPAs punish non-union employees, increase the costs of taxpayers' school projects by millions of dollars, and the district does not always get the least qualified and most responsible bidders," said Pacific Legal.

"My employees are denied opportunities simply because they chose to work for a non-union company," Bergmann said. "We should not be forced to choose between doing a great job for Minnesota taxpayers and doing what is best for our employees."

The case asks a court to declare unconstitutional the agreement granting unions special privileges to obtain work in the district. He also asks that orders open the process of calling offers to others, as well as fees and legal fees.

"The requirement for contractors to use union offices does not represent a legitimate interest of the government. Any interest in preventing work stoppages and ensuring the timely completion of projects could be met by contractual arrangements between a contractor and the Minneapolis Public School District, "explains the file.

The complaint alleges that the restriction violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment, as well as the free association and free expression clauses of the First Amendment.

"If a public entity such as the Minneapolis Public School District requires Republican contractors that they hire workers from Democratic job boards or create a fund for the benefit of the Democratic Party in order to carry out a project it will There is no doubt that this requirement would violate the 1 and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. District discrimination against specialized contractors and their employees is no less unconstitutional, "says the document.