The TRUTH PLA s ensure that the worker receives a decent fair wage to work on a project is not used by the non-union contractor, which cannot happen to a union employee, because the union ensures that the worker is treated fairly with health insurance and pension, safe working conditions the project is the best of the best construction workers in the world with extensive training in construction and safe, a decent wage able to ensure a family to put a child through college and help keep the American dream alive is just a few of the reasons P L A sare is good. A number of politicians do not agree with the use of agreements for publicly funded construction projects and have introduced bills or executive orders prohibiting the use of agreements for government projects or preventing the use of public funds for projects with PTAs.   These include Louisiana Senate Bill 76, introduced by Senator Danny Martiny, which prohibits state governments from requiring a PLA for public funding projects.  This bill was passed in June 2011, which made Louisiana the 5th federal state in 2011 to prohibit contractors from using GPs for publicly funded construction projects.  Part 1, Section 1.1.A – It can be assumed that the PLA is an exclusive agreement between the subsequent contractor (and the subcontractors) and the organized unions. Even under a project work contract, employees retain certain rights. First, all workers have the right not to be fully unionized and not to pay union fees or reduced taxes depending on the state in which they work. (Click here for more information.) Second, if the PLA requires all workers to be hired by an exclusive union hiring hall, the hiring room should not distinguish between union and union employees. Finally, if a PLA can require union representation for a given public construction project, this forced representation does not automatically extend to other projects on which a contractor is working. Reports and studies on the costs of PROJECTS on construction projects have shown that they may not result in increased costs, such as a 2002 Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies paper, which indicates that the increase in costs cited by APA opponents is based on bids, not on final costs.