‘Compromise’ replaces controversial ballot measure
SAN JOSE >> Unions have scaled back a controversial proposal that sought to force real estate developers to hire more local construction workers at higher wages.
Scrapping a proposed ballot measure that some developers said would have made construction more expensive and difficult, exacerbating the region’s affordable housing shortage, the construction unions instead are floating a less drastic compromise. The new proposal would apply to fewer private projects, in a concession to developers’ worries.
If they succeed, the new rules would land before the San Jose City
Council in the form of a proposed ordinance, instead of before voters as a ballot measure.
“We’ve achieved a resolution that accomplishes two key goals,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said. “One is to broaden opportunity without impeding housing production or affordability, and the second is expanding the pipeline for construction careers amid what is a historic labor shortage in the trade.”
The new rules come in response to complaints by unions that San Jose construction projects bring in workers from out of town and pay them discounted salaries, driving down pay for local workers. As a result, construction workers can’t afford to live in the area, they say. But developers say they are forced to hire from the Central Valley or out of state because of a shortage of construction workers in the Bay Area. Local hire mandates, which would be difficult to meet, would drive up the cost of construction — and of housing, they say.
The scrapped ballot measure, proposed by a group of construction unions in February, would have required developers of private residential projects of 100 units or more to pay workers the prevailing wage set by the state, hire workers who live in San Jose or within 50 miles of the city limits, and hire apprentice workers.
The same requirements would have applied to non-residential projects of 100,000 square feet or more.
The ballot measure hadn’t yet collected enough signatures to appear before voters in November.
The new compromise would apply similar mandates to private projects, but only those that receive a subsidy from the city.
“This definitely covers less than would have been covered,” said Louise Auerhahn, director of economic and workforce policy for labor think tank Working Partnerships USA, which helped draft the original ballot measure, “but we feel like it’s a good first step.”
City Council members are expected to consider the compromise April 3, and if they endorse it, officials would get to work drafting language for an ordinance. It likely would be several months before the new rules are on the books.
The new initiative also beefs up local-hire requirements for public projects, including increasing the number of projects covered. The council in October approved such mandates for public projects valued at $6 million or more, but the new rules would include projects valued at $3 million or more.
Steve Flores, a San Josebased pipefitter and business manager of the Local 393 union, said floating the ballot measure in February forced the mayor to negotiate with the unions. Flores was involved in those talks, and said the two sides came to a solid agreement.
“I’m happy with the compromise,” Flores said. “The end result is we’re going to get good-paying construction jobs for local workers.”
Liccardo said it would have been difficult for developers to comply with the hiring requirements set forth by the original ballot measure. The compromise eases that burden, he said.
“We’re in a housing crisis,” Liccardo said, “and we want to make sure that housing development can move forward without any constrictions that may impact affordability.”