Government Affairs

Background

ABC members play a significant role in building America’s infrastructure. Between fiscal years 2009-2023, ABC members won 54% of federal contracts worth $35 million or more. These firms have consistently delivered award-winning public projects safely, on schedule and within budget—many valued at over $1 billion—without the use of government-mandated project labor agreements.

Congress directs federal infrastructure funding through major legislation, including the National Defense Authorization Act, the Water Resources Development Act, the Surface Transportation Act, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act and the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. These programs support essential upgrades to roads, bridges, water systems, airports and military bases.

While contractors must comply with laws set by Congress to perform such work, other requirements advanced by the executive branch may lack congressional approval. For example, former President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14063 and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued the corresponding Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects final rule. This rulemaking requires federal construction contracts of $35 million or more to be subjected to project labor agreements. Notably, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate never consented to the Biden administration’s project labor agreement mandate. Yet, the mandate continues to steer appropriations for all large federally funded construction projects, including military construction, to 10% of the construction industry, threatening the efficient completion of projects critical to U.S. national security.

The PLA mandate, which the Trump administration decided to continue, discourages nonunion construction companies and their employees from participating on federally funded construction. To comply with the Biden administration’s PLA mandate, contractors are required to agree to recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on a covered project, use the union hiring hall to obtain most or all construction labor, hire apprentices from union-affiliated apprenticeship programs, follow union work rules and pay into union benefit and multiemployer pension plans that nonunion employees cannot access. This requirement essentially forces contractors to unionize their employees in an attempt to win federally funded construction projects or sideline their existing employees to hire union workers from elsewhere.

The PLA mandate’s reduction in competition for federal projects also correlates with increased costs. In fact, the April 29, 2025, MOCA Systems report, “Quantifying the MILCON Cost Premium,” commissioned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, found that labor requirements were the highest contributor to the MCP, with PLAs contributing 10% to 50% of total construction cost. Further, the study noted that “labor markets for construction are already significantly constrained and various laws and regulations have compounded that issue for the MILCON process.” The report’s findings support ABC’s concerns that PLAs significantly impact construction costs.

Desired Outcome

ABC urges the Trump administration to take immediate action to reverse the Biden-era PLA mandate and ensure that all qualified contractors, regardless of labor affiliation, have the opportunity to compete for federal construction contracts. Ending this mandate would help restore open competition and improve efficiency, ultimately saving taxpayer dollars.

In addition, ABC urges Congress to advance H.R.2126/S.1064, the Fair and Open Competition Act. This legislation ensures federal and federally assisted contract awards occur through a fair and competitive bidding process that allows all qualified contractors to compete on a level playing field based on merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver the highest-quality projects at the best cost.

ABC and its Florida First Coast chapter continue to litigate the PLA mandate to stop the unlawful scheme to mandate PLAs on construction contracts procured by federal agencies.

ABC’s complaint asserts that President Biden lacks the legal and constitutional authority to impose a new federal regulation injuring economy and efficiency in federal contracting and illegally steering construction contracts to certain unionized contractors, which employ roughly 10% of the U.S. construction workforce.

ABC members are encouraged to visit the ABC Action Center and urge their members of Congress to support FOCA.

ABC urges Congress to oppose the inclusion of government-mandated project labor agreements on federally funded and federally assisted construction projects. ABC stands ready to do the important work to bring America’s infrastructure into the 21st century.

Background

The Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law on Aug. 16, 2022, and provides over $270 billion in tax credits for the construction of solar, wind, hydrogen, carbon sequestration, electric vehicle charging stations and other clean energy projects.

A policy in Subtitle D-Energy Security of the IRA grants developers/taxpayers a bonus tax credit 500% greater than a baseline tax credit of 6%, but this is conditioned on requirements that project contractors pay Davis-Bacon prevailing wages and utilize apprentices enrolled in government-registered apprenticeship programs. This new policy is an unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon and government-registered apprenticeship requirements/enticements onto private construction projects via the federal tax code.

On Nov. 30, 2022, Treasury and the IRS released guidance regarding tax credits for private clean energy projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act conditioned on compliance with prevailing wage and government-registered apprenticeship requirements. Treasury and the IRS also released FAQs to provide additional information on prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

The prevailing wage and apprenticeship provisions outlined in the guidance apply to projects that begin construction on or after Jan. 30, 2023––60 days after the guidance’s publication in the Federal Register. Treasury indicated it “plans to issue additional proposed regulations with respect to these requirements in the coming months.”

In order to access full tax credits, developers of qualifying projects are required to use apprentices from government-registered apprenticeship programs for at least 15% of the total labor hours of the project in 2024, which phases in at 12.5% for construction work in 2023 and increases to 15% in 2024 and thereafter. Each contractor and subcontractor employing four or more individuals on a qualifying project must employ one or more apprentices from a government-registered apprenticeship program.

Developers seeking the full bonus credit must require contractors and subcontractors to pay laborers and mechanics employed for the construction and alteration or repair of a qualifying project an hourly prevailing wage rate set by the DOL via the Davis-Bacon Act.

Construction trade unions and their allies have approached clean energy developers and contractors and insisted a project labor agreement is required to qualify for the full tax credits from Treasury. No such provision exists in the IRA or in the Treasury guidance or FAQs. A PLA is not needed to ensure that contractors meet the IRA’s prevailing wage and government-registered apprenticeship program requirements.

On Aug. 29, 2023, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Internal Revenue Service released a proposed rule and FAQs on provisions of the ABC-opposed Inflation Reduction Act, which will affect the developers, contractors and workers that are building clean energy projects eligible for more than $270 billion in federal tax credits. To learn more details about the proposed rule, see ABC’s Newsline article.

The Treasury’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Increased Credit or Deduction Amounts for Satisfying Certain Prevailing Wage and Apprenticeship Requirements, proposes regulations clarifying the applicability of tax credits for the construction of private clean energy projects funded by the IRA––including solar, wind, hydrogen, carbon sequestration, electric vehicle charging stations and more––conditioned on compliance with controversial prevailing wage and government-registered apprenticeship requirements.

On Oct. 30, 2023, ABC submitted comments to the IRS and issued a Oct. 31 press release, calling on the Biden administration to clarify prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements and eliminate unnecessary provisions that depart from the letter of the law, including the proposed rule’s incentivization of project labor agreements that restrict competition and unfairly favor unions.

Desired Outcome

ABC will continue to advocate for fixes to the restrictive labor policies enacted by the IRA, and the unnecessary cost increases they will cause for contractors and developers.

In the meantime, ABC will continue to provide resources on IRA’s provisions to assist members in maximizing the potential opportunities presented by the IRA while navigating the unique difficulties posed by its expansion of Davis-Bacon and GRAP requirements into the private sector.

Explore ABC’s IRA webpage today at abc.org/ira. If you have additional questions regarding the IRA, please contact [email protected].

Background

On March 8, 2024, in a victory for ABC, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated the 2023 National Labor Relations Board’s joint employer rule and the Board’s rescission of the preexisting ABC-supported 2020 rule. This means the 2020 NLRB final rule remains in effect, which provides clear criteria for companies to apply when determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 7. On July 19, the Board moved to withdraw its appeal, which means the court’s favorable decision will become final.

Shortly after the court’s decision, on April 10, the U.S. Senate passed H.J. Res 98, the Joint Employer Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, in a 50-48 vote. ABC sent a key vote letter to senators ahead of the vote urging them to support the resolution, which would nullify the final rule. The Senate’s action comes two months after the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.J. Res 98 in a 206-177 vote, with eight Democrats supporting. Although President Joe Biden vetoed the resolution, passage in the House and Senate sends a strong message to the administration as they continue to implement harmful labor policies. Read ABC’s statement criticizing President Biden’s veto.

On Nov. 9, 2023, ABC joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business groups in filing a lawsuit challenging the NLRB’s final rule for violating the NLRA and for acting arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The 2023 final rule rescinded the ABC-supported 2020 NLRB joint employer final rule.

Prior to the issuance of the joint employer final rule, Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., and Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., introduced the Save Local Business Act (H.R. 2826/S. 1261) on April 25, 2023. This ABC-supported the legislation, which would make clear that an employer may be considered a joint employer in relation to an employee only if the employer directly, actually and immediately exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment.

Desired Outcome

ABC is pleased the court blocked the NLRB’s radical and overbroad joint employer standard, which would have disrupted long-established, efficient operational processes followed by construction service providers who work together to build America.

Under the 2023 final rule, contractors would be vulnerable to increased liability and risk, making them less likely to hire subcontractors, most of whom are small businesses. The rule clearly would have had a harmful effect on a significant segment of the construction industry: small businesses.

By reinstating the 2020 final rule, contractors will be better able to work and coordinate with multiple employers without fear of being unexpectedly and unfairly found to be joint employers.

Background:

The National Environmental Policy Act requires environmental reviews of major federal actions before a final agency decision. This statute frequently applies to federal permitting decisions on major construction projects, requiring agencies to draft extensive environmental analyses and consider public comment prior to issuing a permit.

Congress passed NEPA with the original intent of ensuring that federal agencies make informed decisions about the environmental impacts of their actions. Unfortunately, over years of litigation and judicial decisions, NEPA has instead become a tool for outside groups to block projects they oppose through excessive delays that can ultimately lead to project cancellations.

Interpretations of NEPA by the federal government have varied among administrations over the years, adding additional uncertainty for permit applicants. Congress has considered bipartisan legislation to address this issue, including passing ABC-supported reforms in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, but a final solution to issues including excessive litigation and extended review timelines has yet to be passed.

Desired Outcome

ABC supports NEPA modernization that creates a coordinated, predictable and transparent method for permitting while continuing to ensure agencies appropriately consider environmental impacts. ABC supports the Trump administration’s recent actions to overhaul NEPA regulations on an agency-by-agency basis and supports Congress coming to a bipartisan agreement on a lasting solution to unnecessary delays for critical infrastructure projects caused by NEPA.

Background

The National Labor Relations Board’s mission is to fairly interpret and enforce the National Labor Relations Act, a law that protects private sector workers’ freedom of association. The NLRB is comprised of a five-member board, administrative law judges and a general counsel. The president nominates members of the Board for five-year terms, during which they decide cases through administrative proceedings. Similarly, the president nominates the general counsel, who is responsible for the investigation of unfair labor practice cases and supervising the NLRB’s 26 regional field offices during a four-year term.

In recent years, changes in the executive branch have resulted in significant fluctuations in NLRB policy and leadership. In regard to leadership, former President Joe Biden fired NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb on his first day in office, a move without precedent since the establishment of the Office of the General Counsel in 1947. In the following administration, President Donald Trump removed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. However, President Trump went a step further and removed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, making history as the first president to dismiss a Board member before the end of their five-year term. While Wilcox challenged the constitutionality of her removal, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s action. With Wilcox’s removal, only Board Chair Marvin Kaplan and member David Prouty remain, leaving three open positions on the Board.

The significant swings in the NLRB’s leadership have resulted in major policy fluctuations from administration to administration. Under the Biden administration, the NLRB aggressively pushed pro-union only policies that tilted the playing field against merit shop contractors and free enterprise. Specifically, the Biden-era NLRB often favored organized labor at the expense of employers, including those in the construction industry who rely on fair and predictable labor regulations. Now, under the Trump administration, acting NLRB General Counsel William Cowen has rescinded ABC-opposed memoranda from the Biden administration, including Memorandum GC 24-01, Guidance in Response to Inquiries About the Board’s Decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC.

Looking ahead, Crystal Carey’s nomination to serve as the NLRB general counsel awaits U.S. Senate confirmation. However, future composition of the Board is uncertain as President Trump is yet to nominate Board members to fill the open positions. Traditionally, the president’s party holds a 3-2 majority on the five-member Board. However, in New Process Steel, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB needs three members to have a quorum, so with a two-person board, the current NLRB lacks the quorum needed to issue decisions.

Desired Outcome

ABC supports balanced policies that reflect the NLRB’s original mission. For ABC members, the Trump administration’s shake-up at the NLRB represents an opportunity to restore fairness and predictability in labor relations. ABC will continue to advocate for a balanced approach at the NLRB and oppose regulatory overreach that may threaten employees, employers and economic growth.

Background

On Jan. 14, 2025, ABC submitted comments to OSHA on its Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings proposed rule, which would apply to all employers conducting outdoor and indoor work in general industry, construction, maritime and agriculture sectors where OSHA has jurisdiction and require employers to develop programs and implement controls to protect employees from heat hazards.

It is ABC’s purpose to ensure all our construction workers get home in the same—or better—condition than when they arrived on the jobsite every day.

A culture of both mental health and physical safety cannot exist without leadership taking a stand that includes an unwillingness to compromise health and safety and modeling this belief in their every action.

Challenging and transforming the status quo to create a belief that all incidents are preventable creates a culture where health and safety is considered a moral obligation not just for leadership, but for all employees.

ABC strongly supports worker health and safety and protection from heat injury and illness, while maintaining flexibility for the fluid nature of the construction environment.

Throughout the heat rulemaking, ABC has continued to urge OSHA to focus on the key concepts of “water, rest, shade” and provide construction employers the necessary flexibility to make such a standard effective.

Unfortunately, the proposed rule imposes prescriptive, complicated requirements on construction industry employers, limiting all flexibility, which could weaken contractor efforts to prevent heat stress for workers.

For example, the proposed rule’s heat triggers are unworkable; rest breaks should be flexible; the proposed rule’s acclimatization schedule for new and returning employees will be particularly onerous for the construction industry; OSHA lacks the statutory authority to define “employee representative”; OSHA should clarify who can serve as the heat safety coordinator; effective two-way communication should be practicable; and the proposed rule’s prescriptive requirements will create challenges for small businesses.

OSHA failed to recognize the practical applications needed on construction jobsites. Employers and employees need flexibility to account for differences among worksites, geographical locations, work responsibilities and available technology.

Further, ABC has consistently urged OSHA to develop a separate regulatory approach for the construction industry. Combining all employers conducting outdoor and indoor work in general industry, construction, maritime and agriculture sectors into one regulatory approach is misguided at best.

Desired Result

ABC believes employers should equip their employees and leadership teams to develop their own health and safety plans, unique to their jobsites. ABC provides tools to employers so that they can equip and empower supervisors to recognize the signs and symptoms of heat illness as well as provide necessary water, rest and shade that is dependent on local conditions.

ABC’s members work to ensure that jobsites are safe and strive to implement the most appropriate practices for working in extreme heat conditions that focus on the individual worker.

ABC urges OSHA to withdraw the Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Settings rule as proposed and revise it to allow greater flexibility for affected industries and, at a minimum, develop a separate standard for the construction industry.

Background

On Nov. 15, 2024, ABC applauded the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which vacated the U.S. Department of Labor’s controversial 2024 final rule, Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees. The rule changed overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ABC joined a coalition of business groups in filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas challenging the DOL’s overtime rule in May 2024. The litigation is currently ongoing.

The court found that the Biden-era DOL’s overtime rule’s July 1, 2024, increase was unlawful, as was the increase scheduled for Jan. 1, 2025. Specifically, the DOL’s final rule increased the minimum annual salary level threshold for exemption to $43,888 on July 1, and it was scheduled to increase to $58,656 on Jan. 1, 2025. In addition, the threshold for highly compensated employees increased to $132,964 on July 1, 2024, and was scheduled to increase to $151,164 on Jan. 1, 2025. Further, salary thresholds would have been updated every three years starting on July 1, 2027.

As a result of this decision, the minimum salary threshold for exemption is once again set to $35,568, and the threshold for highly compensated employees is set to $107,432.

Desired Outcome

The court’s decision is the correct one, and an important win for ABC members and the rest of the regulated community. The 2024 final rule would have disrupted the construction industry, harming small businesses, restricting employee workplace flexibility in setting schedules and hours and limiting career advancement opportunities.

ABC urges the DOL to rescind the Biden administration’s overtime final rule.

Background

On March 5, 2025, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Representative Bobby Scott, D-Va., introduced S. 852/H.R.20, the ABC-opposed Protecting the Right to Organize Act. The legislation would violate workers’ free choice and privacy rights, force unions on employees who have voted against such representation, cost millions of American jobs and threaten vital supply chains.

It does this by:

• Stripping away workers’ free choice in union elections by instituting a backdoor “card check,” which would, in many circumstances, replace union elections with a system that forces employees to sign union authorization cards in front of coworkers and union organizers.
• Exposing workers’ personal privacy by mandating that businesses turn over workers’ personal information, such as cell phone numbers, home addresses and even assigned shifts to union organizers.
• Codifying the NLRB’s controversial Browning-Ferris Industries joint-employer standard that has threatened our country’s small and local businesses. If implemented, the standard would affect 44% of private sector employees, lead to between $17.2 billion and $33.3 billion in lost annual output for the franchise business sector alone and complicate many business-to-business contracts and arrangements, causing particular harm to small businesses.
• Curbing opportunities for people to work independently through gig economy platforms or more traditional independent contractor roles. The provision would use the “ABC” test, the standard adopted in California’s disastrous AB 5, to forcibly reclassify many independent contractors as employees. American Action Forum research found that a national version of AB 5 could put up to 8.5% of gross domestic product at risk.
• Eliminating right-to-work protections for workers across the country, including in the 26 states that have passed such laws. Repealing right-to-work protections, would strip millions of employees of the right to refrain from joining a union, hindering private sector output, employment growth and business migration.
• Interfering with attorney-client confidentiality and make it harder for businesses, particularly small businesses, to secure legal advice on complex labor law matters.
• Strip “secondary boycott” protections that prevent unions from using their antitrust exemptions and immunity from certain state laws to target businesses for anticompetitive purposes other than organizing. This would allow unions to protest and boycott companies that are not directly involved in a labor dispute by eliminating the NLRA’s 70-year ban on secondary boycott activity. If this provision is signed into law, unions could target not only the employer involved in a labor dispute but also any company that does business with that employer.

Desired Outcome

While the ABC-opposed bill will not come up for a vote in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, it has unfortunately received bipartisan support. It is critical that all members of Congress recognize the devastating impact of this bill and its policies.

ABC and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace are leading the fight against the PRO Act, engaging with key audiences to stop this attempt to implement radical labor policies.

Visit freeenterprisealliance.org to learn more and take action.