Action Alert: Airport Input Needed to Prevent Passage of Good Jobs for Good Airports Act
With Congress set to return to Washington after the midterm elections, we need your help to push back on labor-backed legislation that would condition federal and local airport funding on the ability of airport operators to police wage and benefit levels of airport tenants and their workers.
The Good Jobs for Good Airports (GJFGA) Act (S. 4419) was introduced in June (see alert) by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and conditions AIP funds, local PFC collections, and airport grants made available by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on a requirement that each airport ensure all airport service workers at their facility receive certain wage rates and benefits. A companion bill (H.R. 8105) was introduced in the House by Representative Jesús 'Chuy' Garcia (D-IL). Since its introduction, the Senate-version of the bill has picked up 12 additional Democratic cosponsors, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), along with Senators Blumenthal (D-CT), Booker (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Murphy (D-CT), Padilla (D-CA), Sanders (I-VT), Van Hollen (D-MD), Warren (D-MA), Gillibrand (D-NY), Duckworth (D-IL), and Warnock (D-GA). The House bill has 85 cosponsors.
AAAE staff have been working aggressively to communicate concerns with the legislation to key Senate and House lawmakers and their staff; however, with multiple cosponsors, including some in leadership, there is mounting political pressure on Democrats to advance the GJFGA Act in the upcoming lame duck session while they hold the levers of power in Washington. While it is unlikely that this legislation could pass as a standalone bill without any Republican support, it is possible that the bill's proponents will attempt to have it included as part of an end-of-year, must-pass piece of legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act or the FY23 omnibus spending package.
Request: We need your help to convince lawmakers to oppose tying critical, federal and local infrastructure dollars to the ability of airports to police wage and benefit levels for each of their tenants and their employees. Please reach out to your representative and your two senators and ask them to oppose the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act. While we urge you to explain how this bill could affect operations at your specific airport, below are additional talking points for your consideration. Contact information for your House member and Senators is available via these links.
Talking Points:
• Infrastructure and Jobs at Risk “ The GJFGA Act would condition federal and local infrastructure dollars (AIP, BIL, and PFCs) for critical airport projects on the ability of an airport operator to police wage and benefits for their tenants and their employees, which could jeopardize important airport infrastructure projects and high-paying construction jobs that these projects support.
• Misplaces Burden on Airports “ Most of the 'covered service workers' designated in the GJFGA Act work for airlines or airport concessionaires; and yet, the bill puts the contracting and administrative burdens to police tenants and employment arrangements squarely on airports. Even at smaller airports, there can be hundreds of tenants that the airport would now be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legislation. Given the complex arrangements between airports and their tenants, this new responsibility would be extremely difficult to execute.
• Small Business Concerns “ Airports are concerned that smaller, 'mom and pop' concessionaires, including those that are disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs), are unlikely to be able to meet the requirements of the legislation, particularly as it relates to costly benefits. Small concessionaires were significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and this legislation could jeopardize their long-term survival.
• Injects Uncertainty Into Airport Funding, Which Could Hurts Airports' Ability to Bond “ Requiring airports to certify that hundreds of entities beyond their direct control abide by this legislation as a condition of receiving critical federal and local funding could create uncertainty regarding future revenue streams for current or planned construction and negatively impact airport bond ratings and the ability of airports to secure bonds.
• Unjustly Extends Davis-Bacon “ The Davis-Bacon Act stipulates that all laborers employed by a contractor or subcontractor to work on federally funded or assisted projects be paid local prevailing wages. Proponents of the GJFGA Act argue that because airports receive federal funding, Davis-Bacon should universally apply to all vendors at the airport. However, this logic is flawed. The 'covered workers' in this legislation have nothing to do with the construction of airport projects that federal funding directly supports. Many of these workers operate in terminals that have been built with local revenue, not federal dollars.
• Market Forces Are Already Increasing Wages “ Like other industries across the country, airports and businesses operating at airports have been coping with a difficult labor market. To attract new workers and address workforce shortages, wages at many airports have already risen to the levels spelled out in the legislation.
