Why Boston Public Schools Should Scrap Any Talk of a Costly Project Labor Agreement

Boston is already grappling with skyrocketing property taxes and a school system in fiscal distress. More than one-third of BPS seniors aren't on track to meet new core coursework requirements for graduation, jeopardizing their diplomas.

Why are city leaders imposing a policy that will increase the cost of constructing the new Madison Park High School? Given the facts of the city’s and school system’s budgets, the motivation appears to be ideology over fiscal sense.

The Pioneer Institute makes the case of why a union-only project labor agreement on school construction is economic folly, in a column in The Boston Globe. The push to limit competition to only union contractors will result in increased construction costs, as Pioneer’s Executive Director Jim Stergios points out:

"You don’t need to be an economist to know that less competition means higher prices. A 2024 RAND Corporation study found that a PLA added 21 percent to construction costs for a housing project in Los Angeles. With Madison Park’s $700 million estimated price tag, that translates into over $100 million in additional cost for Boston taxpayers."

This drive to increase construction costs is happening while:

·         The district is eyeing cuts of 300 to 400 positions, including teachers, paraprofessionals, and support staff. These reductions follow last year's slashing of 393 full-time equivalents, with 70% of schools affected. Rising costs in health insurance, transportation, special education, and labor contracts are the culprits, exacerbated by city tax revenues under pressure and threats from the Trump administration to gut federal aid.

·         Property taxes for single-family homes are set to surge 13%—the second double-digit hike in two years—while she instructs city departments to brace for 2% budget cuts and halts new hires. Wu's push to shift more tax burden to commercial properties has stalled in the Legislature, leaving homeowners to foot the bill.

In this climate, how can BPS justify a PLA, which mandates union-only labor for construction projects, often inflating costs by 10-20% through restrictive rules and higher wages? PLAs may sound collaborative, but they limit competition, sidelining non-union workers and driving up expenses that could fund classrooms instead. They sideline most minority- and women-owned construction firms who are non-union.

BPS has poured money into post-pandemic support for special education and English learners—vital investments now at risk. A PLA for any upcoming infrastructure work would divert scarce dollars from hiring teachers or aiding struggling students. Even with the state likely to foot half the construction cost, this project will be expensive for the city, and even more expensive with a PLA.

City and state taxpayers deserve accountability on how their money is spent. BPS should prioritize student outcomes and fiscal restraint over union-favoring deals.