In addition to rising project costs, studies have found that LPAs can lead to higher costs for non-unionized contractors and reduce the compensation of their employees. In 2009, a study was conducted by John R. McGowan of Saint Louis University that found that non-unionized workers in government projects with a People`s Liberation Army reduced wages compared to what they would receive to work on a non-PLA government project. In addition, non-unionized employers would have to pay additional benefits to which their employees would not be entitled and could be held liable for the pension fund`s liability costs if the terms of the PLA mean that they must contribute to a union pension fund for the duration of the project. [79] Since most contractors and employees choose not to unionize when they have free choice, Big Labor turned to politicians to cancel this election and impose union representation on workers from top to bottom. The method by which this is done is a project employment contract, also often referred to as “PLA”. As you can see, the restrictive and ineffective conditions and requirements that LPAs impose on management and employees discourage performance shop contractors from bidding on LPA projects. For this reason, they are commonly referred to as “union” APLs, although non-unionized companies are allowed to bid on LPA projects (but they cannot receive contracts to build the project unless they accept an APL). A “project employment contract” is when the government awards contracts for public works projects exclusively to unionized companies. Contributing to underfunded and poorly managed union pension plans can expose performance shop contractors to massive retirement obligations. Depending on the state of health of a multi-employer pension plan run by a union, signing an APL could bankrupt a contractor or prohibit contractors from being eligible for the construction obligations necessary to build future projects. Previous studies have also found increased costs when APLs were used, including a 2,000 study of a Nevada Water Authority pla project that found the project cost an additional $200,000 because the lowest real bidder refused to sign the PLA.

The project was then awarded to a union contractor whose bid was $200,000 higher. [123] Also in 2000, a study commissioned by Jefferson County, New York Board of Legislators, which examined the possible use of an APL for the Jefferson County Courthouse Complex, concluded that an APL could result in additional costs of more than $955,000. .