Since there has been some comments made about what will be the actual financial cost to the district due to the strike I thought I would offer this observation. If you go back to January when D203 was talking about pushing back the start of the school year 1 week to August 25th, (for the entire school district remember, not just Central) you will find this article containing this; ....Tim Bickert, a project manager with IHC Construction Company. He estimated having an extra week to work could reduce overtime costs by $200,000 to $500,000. Administrators felt that was enough of a benefit and a no-brainer when combined with the ability to wrap up the semester before the holidays. "The Aug. 25 start date provides the additional week that we talked about; that extra cushion for the construction timeline," Associate Superintendent for Operations Melanie Raczkiewicz said.

Asked recently what the cost of the strike would be to the district, Mr. Bickert estimated $500,000, which is the high end of the estimate he gave in January of what he felt the district could potentially save if they were given an additional week’s time . So to a certain degree what we ended up losing was the saving that an additional weeks would have offered, but is now lost due to the 5 days Central's workers were on strike.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

I attended most of this morning’s Facilities Sub Committee meeting and thought it might be useful to provide a recap.

Tim Bickert of IHC started off as usual handing out sheets detailing the status of perhaps 100 different activities. His comment was that there are a lot less red (critical) issues than there were right after the strike and that they are essentially back on schedule. He even commented (making a joke that he was probably going to regret saying it) that the music area work was actually slightly ahead of schedule. Here are some of the issues they discussed;

Windows for classrooms overlooking the Commons area; These are high tech sound deadening windows whose delivery has been running late. They are now arriving and being installed. Tim remarked at their sound deadening ability.

Laboratory sink tops; Tim indicated that they are installing the casework for the science labs and are still waiting for the tops. Facilities Chairman Terry Fielden asked Tim to schedule a visit to the manufacture in Wisconsin in order to pressure them to get the tops delivered.

Kitchen; The kitchen equipment has arrived and is being installed. They are scheduling the Health Inspection of the kitchen in early August.

School board member Susan Crotty asked Tim about the height of the temporary stair balustrade in the Commons vs. the final height. Tim indicated that the temp is at code, 42”,but that the final would be at 48”. Ms. Crotty had previously urged that the balustrade be raised above code for an extra margin of safety in a place where there are teenage boys about.

Music area; Masons are ahead of schedule to the point where there is discussion about letting them finish their portion completely although it might take them past the 25th. Discussion of how to safely stage the project with school in session. Note; this area is not scheduled to be completed until Summer of 2011.

Site work; Now that the strike has ended the cement, gravel and asphalt plants are now operating. In the last two weeks they have placed the cement curbs and stone for the parking lots and are now scheduling the asphalt work for next week, I believe. Some discussion of having to remove additional soil as it wasn’t compacting properly.

Tim also indicated that the electrical contractor (Conley) has hired key employees who were working on Central, including the foreman, from D. L. Cook, the electrical contractor responsible for the renovation portion of the work who recently went bankrupt. Conley, who is the electrical contractor for the new work has taken over the renovation electrical as well. Tim remarked that he was pleased at Conley’s handling of the takeover of work.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

-1,

To answer your question as best I can, the district is responsible for the additional costs that can be legitimately attributed to making up the time lost due to the strike. The district has retained a specialist who will review the charges and evaluate if they are legitimate. The job before the strike had some overtime already built into it so it’s not quite so simple a task. On any existing contracts with 203, the contractors will have to absorb the wage increases the unions recently negotiated.

As to your question about union labor, it’s up to the contractor bidding the job (union or non-union) to determine his staffing and material costs. The one with the sharpest pencil wins. However, the overwhelming percentage of commercial contractors in the Chicago area, are union shops.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

-1 on July 27, 2010 10:13 PM
(sorry...Fielden)

Does anyone know if union labor requires more (or less) people per job than non-union labor so that even if the prevailing wage is the same, the union groups would cost more (or less) than non-union work? Assume that the quality of the work was the same.

-1
-----------------------------
The agreements between the contractors and the union call for a certain number of foremen per a specified number of journeyment (normally 1 per 4). The foremen receive a premium wage. The premium wage is not required per the prevailing wage tables.

(sorry...Fielden)

Does anyone know if union labor requires more (or less) people per job than non-union labor so that even if the prevailing wage is the same, the union groups would cost more (or less) than non-union work? Assume that the quality of the work was the same.

-1

Can someone please explain what increased costs must be paid by D203? I am little unclear on the hiring of services and what was and was not promised by the general contractor and subcontractors.

I've been out of town, so I am catching up... The comment by Romberg is pathetic. "It's a real reality that they might not be able to go to college now." I'll assume she meant "real possibility". That is still a horrendously awful quote. ??Might not be able to go to college?? Are you kidding me? Move over Chicken Little, Jackie Romberg is here.

Did Fielding really imply/say that money is not an issue for the district? Good thing Mrs. Crotty personally saved the taxpayers all that money so Mr. Fielding can feel free to spend it.

-1

Thom Higgins,

Why don't you run for the 203 SB?

You are clearly informed (though a tad to "knee-jerk" in protecting some who A)don't need others to protect them and B)some daces don't deserve it.)

No doubt, but I still think the cost adds for the "strike" will be inflated.

Also, I was EXTREMELY disappointed by the panicked nature of the Board members when the strike hit. We still need some new blood up on that dais.

WZUP

Will we ultimately know how much the strike cost us? Yes we will I believe. The district regularly reports on the progress of the project, and it's not going to stop now because of the strike. But I also think it will be more than just the cost of the overtime hours/days.

At the Facilities meeting I attended the IHC rep talked about needing to pour some concrete. He found a supplier, but couldn't get a pumper (a separate truck that receives the concrete from the cement truck and pumps it a distance away where it's poured) past the striking workers. If they couldn't get the union rep to get it released, the closest one they found was in Rockford and would cost them big time to have it driven down to Naperville. The moral of the story being that I think the cost will be more than just man hours.

Lastly, please remember the project is not over this fall. There will be another year of construction, so there are a multitude of other issues that could crop up and eat into the existing surplus, or it could increase if we get lucky. We will know when it's done.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

It will be interesting to see what the final trade off ends up being. Given that the project was 8 million ahead of budget,anything over 8 million under budget must be extra due to the strike, right?

A note of clarification: When a School Board member gets quoted as saying the project will not exceed budget, it is a rational interpretation (until proven otherwise) that the SB is only comfortable saying that. In other words, budget is the newest goal.

Can you PROMISE to us on this board that you will get the final tally of extra days (versus the 5) and let us know?

My comments come from my attending last weeks Facilities Sub Committee meeting as well as Monday's SB meeting.

Just because they are adding second shifts and Sundays does not mean that every worker will be working those shifts. At the FSC meeting the IHC rep discussed their efforts to run as large a first shift as possible in order to minimize any overtime costs, and remember, the district hired a engineer who specializes in these situations to review all claims, so the contractors and subs know this isn't a free ride.

Will it be a one for one on the days? Here's a quote from D203 officials; Due to the importance of sequencing in a construction project of this magnitude one day lost does not necessarily translate to one “make up” day at the other end.
Material and equipment shortages (caused by the strike) during the time they were back also have created problems for them. So, in the end. there might be a couple of days added to the 5 lost, but certainly nothing remotely close to 45.

Additionally, I have not seen any comment by anyone indicating the project will now come in at the budget number meaning that the strike will cost an additional $8 million (approx amt.under budget before the strike). They have said that it will not exceed the budgeted amount to reassure people that this will not cost more than originally planned. Until the district actually knows what this has cost them, it would be rather foolhardy to put a number on it. Pressed by Susan Crotty for some sort estimate at the FSC meeting, the IHC rep estimated the additional cost at $500,000, as was reported by the Daily Herald who also attended the meeting. That is the only estimate I've seen offered.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Uh, the district claimed to be on or ahead of schedule when the strike began AND they were under budget.

They lost approx 5 or 6 days.

They issued a statement saying they would add Sundays and a second shift until the August 25th deadline.

Certainly seems like around 45 additional days to me. They also came out today and said it would come in at budget.

So, where do you come off saying they are not adding additional total construction days?

Have they talked to you about it? Did the SB violate open meetings act and tell only a few, such as yourself, and leave the rest of us to decipher “between the lines” what is really going on?

I doubt it. So quit apologizing and explaining for them. The math is simple and quite clear. They will, in the end, have paid for MORE days of construction than they would have (in total) before the strike.

By It's a job stupid said ""as soon as the win the contract we will go on strike"..."yeah, great idea!""

Not sure how much experience you have with large project contracting but it was not the general contractor striking (who the district has the contract with). Its the general labor hired by the subs hired by the GC who are striking. For the most part the contract holder (the GC) is acting in the interest of the district and not in the interest of the labor. They in turn sub contract out to the different trades. The owners of the trades then bring in their employees. These employees are union members and are on strike against their respective owners.

The district would be in default of its contract with the GC if they brought someone else in. It would have put the district in a very very bad financial position in relation to this project. In addition to paying twice for the project there would be lots of attorney fees involved. Thats the main reason you never heard anyone from the district talking about breaking the contract.

It's a job stupid - "You mean to tell me that no company in the entire USA, can come into Illinois and do the work"

Trust me when I tell you I am no fan of Unions. I understood their purpose a long time ago, but they've outgrown their usefulness. The school district was between the proverbial rock and a hard place on this one.

Even if an out of state company came in they would still need to hire local labor. About the only thing the out of state company would bring in is project management. The labor to do this job would be part of the union. That's the way it works. A union from another part of the country is not going to come in an bust up a union here.

In addition, the greater issue would be the Force Majeure clause of the contract. We couldn't fire the contractor based on a strike. I have not seen this contract but I can guarantee you that the clause is in this contract. Its in all contracts. If we were to fire the contractor for not getting the project done on time we would still be on the hook for paying out the contract as well as paying out the new contract.

Some comments responding to various posts above.

The statement that the district has agreed to 45 days of work to replace the lost 5-6 days is simply incorrect.

The district, by saying that in order to catch up the workers will work second shifts and Sundays does not mean there will be second shifts every night, or that they will be working every Sunday.

D203 has taken a number of steps to minimize any additional costs incurred due to the strike. The Construction Manager, IHC, is meeting with 203's Director of Buildings every day to review hour sheets. Also, the sub's have to prove up their hours vs the amount of work completed that day.

Also, they are utilizing larger crews during the first shift, to the extent it's possible, in order to minimize overtime and second shift's.

Lastly, the board just approved retaining a specialist who will review the work hour calculations in the original contract, will review all invoices submitted and is charged to make sure that any additional costs due to overtime are legitimate.

As to costs, the contractor will have to pick up any increase in wages in the new contract.

With respect to the PLA and Union contracts. In Illinois, workers at any publicly funded projects must be paid prevailing wages, which is essentially, union scale. And to that the fact that essentially all of the major contractors are union, means that any major construction is done with union labor, and even if they are not union, the contractor still has to by the prevailing wage. Not much (if anything) is going to change with a PLA in place that guarantees to use union labor.

Thom Higgins
QE203.org

Anonymous, well I guess we ARE Greece then. I was hoping not so. This is rediculous - I guess down at the union hall you hear "as soon as the win the contract we will go on strike"..."yeah, great idea!". You mean to tell me that no company in the entire USA, can come into Illinois and do the work? I doubt that is the case. So what happens if a company from Texas offers to take the job and finish it?

Doesn't anyone out there care that the 203 SB cut a deal that replaces the 6 lost days with 45 days at inflated prices now AND a 7 year hole of paying top prices with little to no competitive bidding with lackadaisical orgaized labor practices & procedures that drive up labor hours required at the expense of higher costs and taxes?

By It's a job stupid said - "Just fire the contractor for not delivering the project on time - plain and simple"

Not that easy. The other contractors all deal with the same unions. You would have this issue no matter what contractor you use. In addition I can guarantee that there is language in the contract which does not hold the contractor responsible for the actions of the union. Strikes are almost always covered under the Force majeure clause of the contracts. I've never seen a contract without one. Take a look at any legal agreement you have at home there will be a Force Majeure clause in it.

My recommendation is District 203 fire the contractor, and take the number 2 bidder to finish the job at the same cost. It is not D203's job to negotiate with unuions through raising taxpayer costs. Just fire the contractor for not delivering the project on time - plain and simple. Now one hopes you have that right build into any contract where delivery is not according to agreed timing. There are hundreds of thousands of workers who would gladly come to Naperville to finish the project because 1)unemployement in construction is over 20%, and 2) there are many companies who are non-union in America. If you have no bidders with ready and willing workers, then put the project back out for bid.

People seem to have forgotten that economy downturns are the time when overpriced workers get trimmed to competitive rates. You cannot do that during good times, but you can in lean times. Unfortunately, our leaders continue giving raises, do not address pension benefits, pay for performance, nor benchmarking with private business during the hard times - when they should.

Unions should expect raises during good times, and reduced wages/benefits during lean times - JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Consider firing the Superintendent and School Board and contractors who do not have the will power to do what needs to be done. If not now, then when?

This is not going away leaders, so you best address the backrupting of our local and state government for the benefit of the few. Otherwise, you will lose your job.

What can you do? Ask every leader whose presence you are graced with at meetings, etc. - A) What is the amount of money saved for the taxpayers in this year's budget? B) What is the budget deficit in the city, county, state or township? C) How much of a permanent pay and benefit cut are you taking over the duration of your political career? If they have "kick the can down the street answers", then they must go - regardless of "experience" which seems to amount to giving away money to unions, cronies and family for the primary goal of self-enrichment at taxpayer expense!

It is so sad!

I must admit, I set myself up for the letdown I have received from the current 203 SB.

Given what I have seen as a dismal past performance by the 203 SB for about 15 years, I was more than a bit pleased by what I had seen from the current one over the past 12-15 months.

At times over the past year they seemed to make a lot of sense, and I thought “ZOWIE! We now have a SB that sees the entire picture, from the eyes of the students, the employees, the parents, AND the taxpayer base without kids in the system (you know, the other 60%).

But Hark! Then reality hit (or is it REAL reality?), when Spartans appeared at the gates of 203! A group of opportunistic thugs known as organized labor unions strike (some directly, some in “sympathy”) and our 203 SB members immediately reverted to the “Thank you sir, can I please have another!” mentality which it habitually displays when dealing with organized labor. One might even suggest that our 203 SB, regardless of who sits on it, has an modus operandi of worshipping at the alter of organized labor! Perhaps this obedient fear of organized labor, whether it be the Teachers’ union or any other, is just built into the DNA of our 203 SB regardless of who sits on it.

So, at the first sign of any trouble with any organized labor group, our intrepid 203 SB went into immediate panic mode! Really, can the quotes in the SUN last week be seen as anything but sheer panic?

If I read correctly, about 20 minutes into the strike (which, by the way, certainly appeared to be illegal, or at least in violation of the existing labor agreements (ie fair negotiations), we are told by the 203 SB that the situation is one of “REAL” reality (as opposed, I guess, to the manufactured reality they usually feed us?), that our kids will not be able to go to college, and that money is NO OBJECT as they will insure that regardless of cost, the building will go on!

What a great fighting spirit with our money!

Fortunately, this Board’s best move MAY have been all that was there to save them (and us) from even more bending over for labor. By this, I mean the hiring of Dr. Mitrovich to run the District. He has seemed like a great improvement, and his words and actions the past days & months has proven again that perhaps he can save us, or at least insulate us, from the oft knee-jerk reactions of our SB, especially when it comes to anything to do with organized labor. However, he is but one man and, after all, he is just an employee of theirs.

Of course, I am waiting breathlessly for the July SB meeting where we will all be privy to the final details of the cut “deal”. So far, it seems like the 5 or six lost days will be made up by about 40 days of second shifts, along with five or six “seventh” days. I am not a practicing mathematician, but this seems like we have agreed to an extra 45 “days” of labor for the lost 5 or 6, which comes to about an 8:1 ratio of extra costs which I THINK will be at some very inflated prices.

The long and short of it appears to be that a reaction of panic by the 203 SB in the face of some adversity was not only their preferred one, but probably one we all should have expected given the two-decade history.

I mean, really, did ANYONE really expect them to either get tough with labor and take them to court, OR to set up a combination system with NN (so all the kids could continue getting educated, and moving towards college) for the extra weeks that MAY have been lost while in court?

All I can say is that Steve Eisman was right about the Subprime mess and he is now predicting the Subprime mess to hit education too. I believe he is correct. It is going to get ugly in higher education.

Squealer,

1. Does non-union mean un-skilled? Can someone be skilled and not belong to a collective?

2. Does Union mean US citizens and valid green card holders? Or just Citizens?

Why are the collectivized Union Workers' Leaders (who earn multi 6 digit salaries) pushing to create 12-20 million instant US citizens through Amnesty? Most of whom are expected to join the collectives and add to the masses sitting around the Union Halls waiting for their turn to earn 2x to 5x the going rate for labor?

3. Does $80K a year sound like a good minimum wage for collectivized union workers paid by everyone else who's average salary is less than $50K? I know, lets sell our children to the glue factory to support the collective's life style. Well, actually the life style of the Harvard (Ivy League) elite and University Marxists who form the Politburo and intelligentsia at the top of the Collective.

Today, union wages are paid by China with a debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay with a much lower standard of living as the Unions' political leaders take us to true equality with Socialism. Of course, some pigs are more-equal in the brave new world, in fact they are today.

Thanks God we have Orwell's Napoleon running the Farm, the Windmill project (aka stimulus) just failed. Who is responsible for the failure of the Windmill, not Napoleon!

""All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", and "Four legs good, two legs better!" as the pigs become more human."

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

By American Labor American Strength on July 8, 2010 8:18 PM

Way to go Dan D. for supporting America’s working men and women. Just like the executive order signed by President Obama in 2009 overturning the Bush Administration ban of project labor agreements on federal and federally funded construction, now the School District, and the taxpayers will have the benefit of a project labor agreement and know the job will be done with skilled American Labor.

This is just another fine example of the amateurish management of SD203 at both the board and administrative levels. Now if this was a rural county in West Virginia I could probably understand how something like this could happen. For all of the big shots leading SD 203 to be caught with their pants around their ankles doesn't speak well of their management or leadership abilities.

Professional, competent management considers and plans for these kinds of events before entering into an agreement or picking dates to start and complete work. The fact that there was a work stoppage reflects more on the lack of planning and good project management skills than it does on negotiating skills.

To be paying top dollar in SD203 and getting this kind of a work product in return should cause us all to question if the right people are in the right positions throughout the board and administrative levels of SD 203.

To American Labor American Strength on July 8, 2010 8:18 PM

It's great Obama signed the order and has created economic policies that have put 60% (???) of you out of work. And your pension plans will be destroyed by his plans.

In fairness, I do not want to hire a painter, carpenter, mechanic for minimum wage. I know what my time is worth and contractors are a bargain if they do the right job. Within reason.

Fortunately for us you union workers do not have the teachers union represent you. You would be making more money.

The interesting twist in the construction world is the emergence of the small firm that has no union workers, in fact no workers, just owners. They price services to stay busy and make more money than union workers. The unions need to learn from these people.

Good luck!!!

By Clerk Rick on July 8, 2010 7:45 PM

Prevailing wages are intended to give union shops an even playing field to get government contracts. Without them, non-union companies could under-bid and get all the jobs. In my experience, prevailing wages are the same as union wages, so an agreement to use union workers should not increase labor costs for 203. I assume the jobs will also still be bid, just with the union requirement.
-------------------------
Mr. Tarulis

The purpose of prevailing wages was not to level the playing field for union shops. The purpose was to make sure that people working on government jobs were paid an amount that they could live on. If you look at the current prevailing wages in DuPage County, they average without benefits at $40 an hour or over $80,000 per year. I think that one could live extremely well on that.

The problem is that with the system that is in place, the wages could never go down. Even if private jobs could be done cheaper, public jobs would still be inflated. Even if the unions agreed to a lower rate during collective bargaining negotiations, those rates could not be applied to public works contracts because the public contracts are based on the prior year public contracts when the rates were higher. Government--which is us--gets screwed because the cost of labor can never go down for public works contracts.

Way to go Dan D. for supporting America’s working men and women. Just like the executive order signed by President Obama in 2009 overturning the Bush Administration ban of project labor agreements on federal and federally funded construction, now the School District, and the taxpayers will have the benefit of a project labor agreement and know the job will be done with skilled American Labor.

For more than 70 years before the Bush order, project labor agreements benefited communities, employers and workers by ensuring fair wages and benefits and on-time completion of projects. The Bush administration tried to turn back the clock for American labor. The Obama Administration re-set it.

To read more about the Obama Administration Executive Order

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFederalConstructionProjects/

To By Anonymous on July 8, 2010 3:47 PM

I would like to take the thanks for the idea, but there were several other bloggers who identified the clear fact. Unfortunately, we all wish Fielden would have told the board what his company told me.

As a result of not addressing this issue when the contract was signed, we do it now. If Higgins says there is a financial cost, you KNOW there is a cost. And now seven years of union labor, for construction or everything?

Lastly, read Fielden's comment closely. This issue will not result in the project going over the ORIGINAL budget. Cute, the project was $9 million UNDER budget, so can we assume this is a $9 million issue that could have been avoided if Fielden gave the same advice his company gave me? To quote another blogger--Just Asking.

We should have put Susan Crotty in charge of this--she told us she saved us hundreds of millions!!! Can a District be world class if its board.....?

Prevailing wages are intended to give union shops an even playing field to get government contracts. Without them, non-union companies could under-bid and get all the jobs. In my experience, prevailing wages are the same as union wages, so an agreement to use union workers should not increase labor costs for 203. I assume the jobs will also still be bid, just with the union requirement.

Everyone has to understand what the problem is with public construction. It's prevailing wages. The state requires workers on all public projects to be paid prevailing wages that are set once per year. According to the law, prevailing wages are what were paid the previous year on PUBLIC PROJECTS. Because the analysis is only as to public projects, the prevailing wage can never go down EVEN IF THE PREVAILING WAGE ON PRIVATE PROJECTS GO DOWN. The manner by which prevailing wages are set makes it so that only union contractors can get public projects. It's not so much the wages; it's the benefits (health, welfare, pension, vacation, etc.). What happens is that the unions sit down with the Dept of Labor and set those wages in the back room. Local government is forced to require contractors on their projects to pay those wages.

District 203 is to be applauded for being the only one so far out of literally hundreds of construction projects for making the best out of a bad situation by negotiating a Project Work Agreement with the Unions.

But it doesn't mean that challenges don't remain. Just like the Tollway that has a PLA in place and is still suffering shutdowns I'm assuming supply stoppage issues such as I discussed here above will be one of the challenges the district will have to face.

It should be noted that along with this PLA comes a price. The District has agreed to utilize union laborer on all district projects for the next seven years, and I believe there are financial costs as well.

Wait, didn't Thom Higgins tell everyone these agreements were rare and too expensive, now all of a sudden we got one? It would appear to me that Dan Deny's knew what he was talking about all along and Higgins did not. I sure wish Dan was on the school board and that lightweight Fielden was off the board. Fielden seems to contribute nothing to the board and just takes up a seat.

Anonymous is dead right, we need tough leadership like Dave Weeks who showed real courage by casting the lone opposing vote on the last two years budget. Oh wait! He voted for those balanced budgets with everyone else. The horror!

Have you been on 355? What a mess.

The i-294 bridge going to O'Hare is going.

Where are the cones down? On the way to the Eisenhower? That is an IDOT project, not a Tollway project.

You know, that guy Pat Quinn, Mr. Labor?

Thom Higgins must be aghast!! An awful PLA to save the day.

I hope to see him criticize the board for entering into such an awful agreement.

What a foolish idea!!!!

ZOWIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clearly demonstrates his inability to be objective.

Ironic, District 203 claims to be World Class. At what? Grand mistakes?

I wonder how Turner feels that their employee made such a gaf!!!!!

Just heard on WBBM 780 that D203 will shortly be holding a press conference to discuss their agreement with the striking unions to end their work stoppage.

This agreement only covers D203's construction projects. WBBM's reporter indicated that school officials expect to finish construction before school starts Aug 25th.

Terry Fielden is dead weight on this school board. He is such a lightweight and has no backbone whatsoever. He needs to be voted off this board at the first opportunity. I cannot believe he never even addressed this issue before construction even started. Given his so called expertise in this area, you'd think he would have planned for this ahead of time. Apparently not.

This board has run this district into the ground financially over the last 10 years and the chickens are coming home to roost. How much longer they can continue to hang on all depends on the economy and Naperville real estate. It is sad to see how many people think their property taxes are going to go down because their property values have fallen. Boy, are they in for a rude surprise!

We need tough leadership (which this current school board is totally lacking) except for David Weeks. We need someone like Chris Christie on this board to say enough is enough. The union control of this school board has to go once and for all.

Here are some questions that a hard hitting reporter would ask District 203 and include in the newspaper.

1. Was a PLA considered at the time of the original contract?

2. If not, why not? Which law firm prepared the contract, the current district attorneys or the firm that was fired? Who else advised the District?

3. What input did Fielden provide? From the minutes, he made no comment. Amazingly, he works for a firm that recommended a PLA to one of my clients on a construction project with a tight time line (and financial penalties for the failure to complete!!). That was one of his credentials as a board member. He can talk about spending more money, why not have the Sun ask him why he did not recommend a PLA when he voted on the original construction contracts. And if he did not do anything, why not? If I were a parent, I would want to know.

I must commend Thom Higgins on being concerned about the lack of a PLA. It would have been a good insturance policy. But he should approach the matter from an independent perspective rather than employing the typical Left Wing Main Stream Media approach used against Bush and others of the right.

More interesting, here is an opportunity for Mr. Higgins to demonstrate that he and his QE203 clan are an independent, objective observers rather than apologists for the 203 Teachers Union and its controlled board. And then he punts saying that people need to go to the meetings--the agendas for this committee are not even on line (unless I missed them).

And yes, PLA's do favor unions. I am not aware of extra pay, I think a union would be hard pressed to get that benefit. But they do require union laborers. A PLA would cost more IF you wanted to construct your building with non union laborers. That is generally not possible for government building in Cook County, I also assume DuPage.

Dan D have you been on the tollway lately? The construction zones are like ghosts towns. Which makes me wonder, should we still have to drive 45 mph even though their are no workers around?

The following is excerpted from a conversation I had with one of my clients who is a commercial contractor regarding Project Labor Agreement's and the strike. He is living with this situation 24/7.

Lets take the Tollway. They have had a PLA for something like 23 years where the unions agree to no work stoppages. Does the union do this out of the goodness of their heart? No. They get guaranteed union jobs for all positions and a wage bump over scale. The Tollway is paying every worker extra for this privilege. Unions like PLA's, especially when they are getting paid more.

But you say, well at least they are working right? Well, maybe.

The Tollyway Authority, along with the handful of other jobs in the Chicago area that have no strike PLAs are still stuck if they need the services of an outside supplier who depends on the Operating Engineers or Laborers. Need to pour concrete? Sorry. The redi mix suppliers are closed. Say you're a contractor on a PLA job. You want to bring supplies from your yard to the PLA site. Sorry again. Your employees are on strike as well, and your yard isn't covered by your jobs PLA .

So, If you have a PLA, and, and! you can get work done without outside OE's and Laborers, say hanging drywall, you one of the few lucky ones working.

If it was so easy and inexpensive to have a no strike PLA, and it would actually work in the real world, then everyone would do so. I'm told the number of PLA jobs in Chicago can be counted on your hand. Everyone else, and I mean everyone else, is in the same spot at D203.

I will add that I heard on WBBM780 tonight that some of the Tollway work is shut down due to the strike.

The bottom line to all this is that even if 203 had a PLA in effect, we would most likely still be stuck as I believe they are still pouring concrete at Central.

The school board meets regularly, as does the facilities sub committee. Both take public comments. I would encourage anyone, who has questions or interested in knowing more about the situation, to attend either.

Talk about ridiculous statements. Not graduating to go to college. This kind of rhetoric is ridiculous.

I am curious. On another site, there were questions whether 203, knowing they had a tight time line, pursued a "Project Labor Agreement" for the project that would have eliminated unions from striking this site due to the tight time frames.

When I worked on a project where Terry Fielden's employer, Turner Construction, was the general contractor and there was an even tighter time frame, Turner promoted such an agreement and we avoided these problems. On another post, a poster asked Mr. Feilden if he had recommended this and why it was not secured? While he has the time to post irrelevant comments and tell the community that "money is no issues" (inferring he will spend whatever it takes), he has not answered this question.

How about an official answer to the question? How about some hard hitting reporting rather than pandering?

Notice construction on the Illinois Tollway has not stopped. They have such agreements.

Answers would really help.

Where is the no strike contract?

Unions helping unions.