Despite its “recession-proof” reputation, the Washington area wasn’t spared by the latest downturn – jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate still sits just shy of 7 percent.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the construction sector, where the number of local jobs has sunk to levels not seen since 1999. That’s why it’s encouraging to see the D.C. City Council considering job-creating, community-supporting legislation that would give decent pay and benefits to workers on many major construction projects.

Unfortunately, some contractors – with eyes only on their own bottom line – have lined up in opposition to this measure, dusting off tired arguments they’ve repeatedly used in attempts to derail similar measures.

The bill would require the use of a project labor agreement (PLA) on any construction project that costs more than $200,000 and receives government funding. These agreements not only support workers, their families and their communities, but also save taxpayers money.

A typical PLA will set the base level of pay and benefits contractors on a given project must provide to their workers. The result: reduced worker turnover, increased productivity and fewer unpredicted costs and delays. A PLA will also put all contractors involved with a project on the same schedule, boosting efficiency.

But the real benefits of a PLA can be seen in its impact on workers, their families and their communities.

A PLA encourages the use of local workers, providing an instant jolt to the area economy. Cash-strapped states and localities no longer have to subsidize health care and other services for these workers and their families.

Secure in their jobs and free from high out-of-pocket health care costs, workers are more able to spend money at local businesses, boosting the overall economy and improving the prospects of other businesses to grow.

Despite so many advantages, PLAs are opposed by some groups simply because they want to drive union competition out of the market. Their arguments are weak, at best.

One organization, Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. (ABC), has predicted doom and gloom if the District makes greater use of PLAs. Yet the study they use to back up these claims was commissioned by ABC and conducted by one of its employees.

ABC also likes to make examples out of projects like Nationals Park, which it claims went over budget due to PLA requirements. Yet reports on the project’s costs show the real culprits were unpredictable land and environmental cleanup costs – neither of which was affected by a PLA. In fact, the stadium PLA met or exceeded local hiring goals, providing opportunity and steady income for hundreds of local workers and their families.

Plus, while unionized contractors do often participate in projects organized with a PLA, it’s not exclusive – both union and non-union contractors are free to bid on PLA projects.

There’s no evidence that PLAs boost costs – in fact, several independent studies show that costs in all are equal, while taxpayers get more for their money. A 2005 report from the University of Maine found that PLAs “are a useful mechanism in any construction project involving a contractor and a range of skilled workers” and “maximize efficiency, stability, predictability, and productivity.” Another study out of the State University of New York at Cortland found that “there is no measurable cost difference between similar structures” resulting from the prevailing wage requirements in a PLA.

With these arguments behind them, council members are right to fight for legislation that gives workers a stable job with good benefits and puts money into their pockets and into the surrounding area, all while siding with taxpayers instead of with low-balling contractors eager to make an easy buck at the public’s expense.

Terry O’Sullivan is General President of the LIUNA – the Laborers’ International Union of North America.