Prine George’s County lawmakers are considering a mandate requiring union labor for major development projects, sparking a debate between labor leaders and builders.

Supporters, including County Councilwoman Karen Toles (D-Dist. 7) of Suitland and County Executive Rushern L.. Baker III (D), are currently fine-tuning the two bills, which would force contractors working on county projects to hire union workers only and offer professional apprenticeship programs.

Lawmakers plan to hold a hearing Wednesday with the Public Safety and Fiscal Management Committee on the bills. If the bills pass the committee, the full County Council is expected to vote on them this summer.

Toles, a former political coordinator for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union and the chief sponsor of the legislation, said union labor ensures quality construction and may help employ local union workers.

“The idea is if you get county funding, you’re not just using anyone,” she said at a committee meeting June 1. “We want qualified, skilled workers who are trained, not trying out [new workers] on the backs of the taxpayers.”

Most major trade unions in the region have members and offices in Prince George’s, she said.

In the current bills, any contractor applying for a project valued at more than $1 million would need to sign a project labor agreement, a collective bargaining contract in which workers spell out their wages, benefits and other details. A second resolution requires developers receiving tax-incremental financing to agree to use workers who are part of a professional, certified apprenticeship program.

Both measures would favor organized labor, since many apprentices are trained through union programs and collective agreements have to be negotiated with a labor organization.

Baker, who received endorsements from most of the area’s building and law enforcement unions, promised during his campaign last year to require the agreements as part of an economic and labor stimulus plan, but said he is concerned about Toles’ proposal.

“The way I want to approach it is to look at each project on an individual basis, to see which could benefit from a project labor agreement,” Baker, who is helping revise the legislation, said Saturday. “At this point, I can’t support the legislation in its current form.”

Other lawmakers also expressed concern that local firms may be hurt by the proposals since some companies, including minority-owned businesses, may be too small to participate in apprenticeships or do not have an all-union work force.

“I’ve been getting lots of calls from our minority businesses,” said Del. Michael Vaughn (D-Dist. 24) of Bowie. “There’s concern of some unintended consequences of these bills. I hope there’s some serious discussions of these requests.”

The proposals attracted a standing-room only audience at the June 1 council meeting. Union workers spoke in favor of the legislation, while building industry officials warned that the requirements may backfire by driving up costs and squeezing out smaller, local companies.

“There are large companies that use only union labor, and they travel,” said James Russ, spokesman for the Maryland Transportation Builders and Materials Association. “If you’re going to impose this, you will lose out. Ultimately, it will cost the taxpayers more in the long run.”

Because unions can insist on higher wages or additional benefits in the labor agreements, it may add to the price of contracts, Russ said.

He said many county-based workers are not members of unions, which charge membership dues.

Local labor officials said the county needs to do more for unions. Unions have complained that many businesses are able to cut costs by not using organized labor.

“We have members that have been unemployed for a year,” said Mark Coles of Camp Springs, a representative for the Washington, D.C. Building and Construction Trades Council, a union representing 25,000 local laborers. “The policymakers should look out for them.”

dvalentine@gazette.net