DPR Construction’s Colorado Contradiction

Contractors that sign union agreements in one state but go open shop in another are sending a clear message: they know the standards, but they choose not to follow them when they don’t have to. That’s what makes the case of DPR Construction in Colorado troubling.

A national contractor with a shiny reputation, DPR touts its training programs, safety culture, and partnerships with union apprenticeships in most markets. Yet in Colorado, it often goes nonunion. For a company that knows better, this isn’t ignorance, it’s about strategy.

Why Colorado?

Colorado isn’t technically right to work, but the decades old Labor Peace Act creates a hurdle no other state has. Workers can recognize a union through a simple majority vote, but before a union security clause can take effect, the law forces a second election. That vote requires three quarters of the entire bargaining unit to say yes, not just union members.

In most states, a majority or two thirds is enough. In Colorado, the bar is set so high it’s rarely cleared. The effect is the same as right to work: contractors can operate nonunion with little risk, union market share stays low, and national firms treat the state as a place to cut standards without consequence.

The Playbook

DPR has the resources and experience to build union anywhere. Instead, it appears to adjust its model to the lowest bar in each state. In markets where unions are strong, they operate as signatory, using apprenticeship programs and highly trained union crews. In contrast, DPR Colorado often self performs with nonunion labor, using criminal labor brokers and rat subcontractors.

“This isn’t a question of capability,” said Carpenters lead representative Mark Thompson. “It’s a choice. They know exactly what they’re doing.”

A Growing Foothold

The recent acquisition of GE Johnson by DPR locked the company even deeper into Colorado’s construction market and has opened lots of doors. With major offices in Denver and Colorado Springs, DPR is positioning itself for high-profile projects like hospitals, universities, and infrastructure.

Instead of using their clout to raise standards, DPR is entrenching itself in the open shop model. “This risks billion-dollar projects built with a workforce that is under trained, lacking protections, and denied the proper wages that come with good union contracts,” continued Thompson.

Kaiser’s Contradiction

The problem goes beyond developers chasing low bids. Even employers with collective bargaining agreements in place are making questionable choices.

Banners are up at Denver Kaiser

In Colorado, Kaiser Permanente maintains an active CBA with the Carpenters Union. This agreement guarantees fair wages, training, and healthcare for union members. Yet Kaiser has awarded projects to DPR, and labor brokers are supplying workers with no healthcare coverage.

That means facilities meant to deliver healthcare are being built by people who don’t have it themselves, all the while union members continue paying each month into an insurance pool that goes unused. It is a direct and overt conflict between what Kaiser promises at the bargaining table and what it permits on its construction sites.

The Real Cost

DPR’s decision to flip flop on union status depending on which state it operates in doesn’t just affect the company’s bottom line: workers lose out on the fair wages and healthcare benefits they should be guaranteed. Contractors who play by the rules are forced to compete against obscenely low bids. And communities are left with projects built by a workforce denied proper training and protections, when they should be able to expect safe, reliable work from union members who live and work locally.

“It’s a slap in the face,” Thompson added. “When a company that calls itself best in class deliberately chooses the low road here, it tells you everything you need to know.”

What’s Next

Colorado’s new wage theft laws, stronger apprenticeship requirements, and enforcement crackdowns are putting the pressure on these bottom-line operators. But enforcement alone won’t force companies like DPR to change. Owners and developers must decide whether they’ll accept this duplicitous model or take the high road and demand consistency.

It isn’t ethical for DPR to be both: either it’s the big-name contractor that values training, safety, and fairness, living up to its national reputation, or it’s just another low-bid rat hiding behind false branding. In Colorado, the choice is still up in the air.