A Personal ArchiveThe Ishmael Record

Back to the Record
Labor & Employment

An Impromptu Follow-Up To 'Responsible Bidder' Blog Series

By Patrick Ishmael Filed January 28, 2013 Source Show-Me Institute

I recently wrote a two–part blog series about new Saint Louis County regulations that would prevent most non-union contractors from bidding on county construction projects. The County Council redefined what a "responsible bidder" is for county construction projects, adding provisions (1) that were purpose-built to get union contractors special treatment, and (2), which had nothing to do with the "responsibility" of contractors who would bid on the projects. At the time, I criticized the move as one that subverted the public interest of getting the best deal for construction projects for taxpayers, and instead changed the law to benefit a narrow private interest.

How narrow of a private interest? Last Wednesday, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released new data showing that of all construction labor, only 13.2 percent is unionized, a drop from 14 percent last year, and a near-record low. Put another way, Saint Louis County rewrote its "responsible bidder" definitions to protect the one-eighth of the national construction industry that is unionized, leaving the vast super-majority of labor —which is non-union — basically in the lurch for county contracts. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Dave Nicklaus reported, union rolls in the state dropped by 51,000 members over the last year, putting overall Missouri union enrollment at "8.9 percent [of the workforce], down from 10.9 percent in 2011." That fits the national trend lines.

Saint Louis County is trying to direct more money to fewer people, and the special interest nature of the change in the law is accentuated by last week's construction employment data. Saint Louis County officials should reconsider their decision.

View the original at Show-Me Institute →

Source & Reproduction Notice

As confirmed against the Show-Me Institute's website on August 15, 2026, the Institute's stated policy permits reprinting of its published articles and commentary provided the original author receives credit. Letting the Institute know about a reprint is appreciated but is not a condition of use.

This entry was archived under that permission as it stood on the date above. If the Institute's policy changes after that date, it does not apply retroactively to entries already reproduced here under the terms in effect at the time — this is a record of the grant as confirmed, not a live status check.

The original remains hosted at the Institute's own site — use the link below for the canonical version, current formatting, and any images.