We point to a recently discovered opinion column by Jim Pease published way back on June 13, 2001 in the Wisconsin-based construction industry news organ, The Daily Reporter. (More later on this tardy discovery.)

Officials of the construction companies we report on sometimes criticize LASER. By and large, we ignore them. The occasional complaint is only to be expected, considering the natural antipathy between the watchdog and the watched. After all, the alert bulldog can generally rely on poor reviews from the cat burglar.

If the criticism has merit — happily a rare occurrence – we respond. Otherwise, we ignore them.

However, in this case, because Mr. Pease’s article is so unintentionally complimentary to LASER’s goals and services, we think it deserves special mention.

In his article, Mr. Pease first lays out his premise: research organizations – also known as "think tanks" — compile data on specific issues, analyze the data, write reports and distribute them to concerned parties.

Mr. Pease, who is affiliated with construction industry management, concludes that some of these groups are "pro-union," because the final reports issued are not always flattering to non-union construction employers. He calls these reports, "attacks."

You can tell by the title, "Are you ready for LASER?" he is particularly worried about us.

He correctly points out that the information we collect on companies includes:

• complaints, citations, charges and lawsuits involving the employer

• claims that prevailing wage obligations have not been met

• Fair Labor Standards Act, tax, licensing and safety violations

• criminal activities; names and

addresses of current and former employees

• past and present clients

• a list of all hazardous or toxic materials used

• copies of all financial statements, profits and losses, liabilities and inventories of vehicles and equipment

• environmental permits issued to or applied for by the employer

• complaints of poor workmanship, delays, mistakes and overruns on job sites

• breakdowns of all minority employees versus nonminority employees by craft, man-hours, hourly wage, health benefits and pension benefits

• reports of fires, accidents and injuries

• bankruptcies of the employer or any of its owners or officers

• violations of immigration laws

"An example of one of these pro-union research organizations is already operating on the borders of Wisconsin and may soon be operating within the state. It’s called Labor and Safety Employer Research or LASER," Mr. Pease warns.

Mr. Pease’s implied argument seems to be that the mere act of broadcasting facts taken from the public record to the wider community so informed decisions can be made is somehow reprehensible.

Reprehensible, perhaps, in the same way a watchdog barking at a midnight prowler constitutes a public nuisance because we also wake the neighbors.

"Attacks by these research groups can be very insidious because a targeted employer may not know the attack is occurring," Mr. Pease alleges.

He goes on to claim that, "Organizations like LASER hide behind a shroud of secrecy."

Mr. Pease is not being entirely frank here. He knows that, in the interests and spirit of fairness, accuracy and full disclosure, LASER has a strict policy of providing notice well in advance of everything we expect to report about the employer. We give the parties ample time to respond and, if necessary, point out any errors that may have been made.

Mr. Pease reveals this later in his article when he advises his construction industry readers to make sure they "Carefully review LASER’s correspondence..."

Those most interested in maintaining secrecy are clearly the employers with all those "complaints, citations, charges and lawsuits" hidden in their closets.

And here we’d like to point out the sweet irony of Mr. Pease’s accusation. We only learned about his article in May 2003, two years after it was first published in the construction industry newspaper.

Had he followed our policy of open disclosure in the interests of fairness and accuracy, we would have gotten a letter from him and a copy of his article several weeks before June 1, 2001. But that is water under the bridge.

Where we take the greatest pleasure in Mr. Pease’s left-handed compliments is in his final recommendation to construction employers on dealing with what he ominously calls, "The threat of LASER."

"The best preparation for LASER," Mr. Pease says, " is for an employer to get its house in order and to avoid the type of conduct that LASER can use in an apparent effort to destroy an employer’s reputation. An employer should develop and maintain a serious safety program designed to eliminate violations of all safety laws. Pay practices should be administered to strictly comply with federal and state wage and hour laws and federal, state and local prevailing wage laws. Violations of environmental, immigration, labor and employment, taxation and other business laws should be avoided. And, positive personnel practices that encourage a diverse work force that is treated with respect should be developed and implemented by the employer. If these things are done, LASER won’t have anything to write about." (emphasis added)

We wholeheartedly agree. It is, indeed all they have to do.

So in the final analysis, it appears LASER may have had some influence upon the construction industry over the last decade — and that impact seems to be for the good. Of that we are proud.