Quote:

In the long run, collective bargaining has guaranteed better wages for workers, worked as a check on arbitrary and capricious layoffs or other employer actions, helped enforce health and safety in the workplace, and provided for worker empowerment and dignity in a myriad of other ways. We need more, not less of it.

There's no need for unions to "morph" into headhunters, there are plenty of those already.

06/29/2007

Local residents can benefit from development boom

Ordinance requires developers to use JC residents on construction projects

Ricardo Kaulessar
Reporter staff writer

The City Council approved an ordinance by a 9-0 vote on Wednesday mandating that developers with projects worth $25 million or more use union labor, and that 20 percent of the apprentices should be Jersey City residents.

Developers will face penalties if they don't comply with the ordinance.

Prior to last week's approval, local politicos had discussed such a project labor agreement, or PLA, for nearly 10 years.

They explored putting more Jersey City residents to work on city construction projects because residents complained of being deprived of the recent development boom's financial rewards.

The ordinance was first proposed in February and called for developers getting tax abatements to use union labor for private projects costing over $15 million and city projects costing over $5 million.

That ordinance also included penalties for non-compliance: The private developer's tax abatement deal would be terminated, or he'd be fined.

But that ordinance was tabled at a Feb. 27 City Council meeting because the council wanted to study the labor agreement further, to clarify issues such as how much control a developer had over hiring.

The new ordinance applies only to developers with tax-abated projects worth $25 million or more. It also allows developers the option to use only 10 percent if there is a scarcity of available apprentices.

A tax abatement is an agreement to exempt a developer from regular, fluctuating property taxes. There is usually a separate revenue deal for the developer to pay money to the city over 20 or 30 years. The agreement is meant to encourage developers to build in certain areas.

Penalties

The ordinance that was passed on Wednesday states that developers would have to pay $1,000 per day for filing a late report on the hiring. After 14 days, there would be a monthly penalty of 2 percent of their payment in lieu of taxes (PILOTS).

More than a hundred laborers from various local unions packed the council chambers Wednesday to encourage the council to approve the ordinance. Among them was Eric Boyce, president of the Hudson County Building and Construction Trades Council, who addressed the council.

"The council has their best chance ever to achieve everyone's longstanding goals here, that the residents of Jersey City are able to enjoy constructive, meaningful careers in the construction industry," Boyce said.

Recommendations

At Monday's council caucus that preceded Wednesday's meeting, City Councilman Bill Gaughan had taken issue with some aspects of the ordinance.

Gaughan wanted the ordinance to apply only to developments worth $35 million or more, not $25 million. Gaughan also proposed to decrease the penalty for filing a late report from $1,000 a day to $500. Gaughan also wanted to specify in the ordinance that construction projects must be comprised of 80 to 90 percent of union laborers.

He said his changes would help developers with smaller projects.

But Bill Matsikoudis, the city's corporation counsel, disagreed strongly with Gaughan's proposed changes, saying they would allow more nonunion construction workers on the city sites, and would allow developers to escape signing the agreement.

At one point, Gaughan yelled at Matsikoudis for "disagreeing" too much with him about the changes.

By Wednesday's meeting, Gaughan had a change of heart and supported the ordinance without changes. He apologized to those involved in constructing the agreement.

"I intend to vote for the ordinance as it was introduced," Gaughan said. "My concern was on Monday night, knowing this document would be voted on this evening, and I wanted to make sure we got it absolutely right."

Ricardo Kaulessar can be reached at rkaulessar@hudsonreporter.com

I agree with NNJR that unions lost their value to society sometime during the last century. Instead of collective bargaining, which helps no one in the long run, they should have morphed into employment agencies: helping workers get jobs and helping employers get qualified workers. What a concept!

I agree that union power is declining and there are other much more important problems with the economy.

I stand by my opinion that they are a burden on US industries and companies that are forced to use them.

Quote:

With the NLRA effectively gutted to become an employer-friendly union busting act, this statement makes no sense.

Union membership as a percentage of the overall workforce has steadily declined, because employers know they can violate the law with impunity and either not get caught or get caught but still benefit from their conduct.

Given that unions are a declining percentage of the workforce, I'm not sure how one can claim that they are a drain on the economy. Even if they do all the bad things that you say they do, they simply are not a significant portion of the economy to have an effect.

I believe Unions had a important role during the industrial revolution. However in the 21st century they are a drain on the American economy and they breed complacency and laziness.

The "got-to-hire-locals" rule is stupid beyond belief. Work where you want to work, I say. If you're fast and you know what you're doing you can't lose. Survival of the fittest.

On the west coast the only interaction I had with the unions was paying my dues on time. But here the union reps act like tin horn Joseph Stalins. And the workers? I've never seen such a bunch of lazy conniving fat f*cks in my life. And the quality of the work? Oh my God...

Now I know why some people hate the unions so much. Sad.

You would think that the local unions would have been on-board pushing this and getting recognition for this decision. Its good to see my union fee's hard at work supporting local workers!

It amazes me how only after the BULK of construction projects have been done, does this 'rule' come into play.

Council and Unions should have a long hard look at themselves - with only minimal construction projects and space left, we all know that an apprenticeship lasts longer then the life of one project. Our kids are being neglected from post and current opportunities and are only being given 'crumbs' in the POST building boom.

Council unanimous for 'got-to-hire-locals' rule

Friday, June 29, 2007

It's not Donald Trump's "apprentice" program, but he might have to participate.

By a 9-0 vote, the Jersey City City Council adopted a "project labor agreement" plan designed to put local residents to work at construction sites around the city.

More than six months in the making, the program applies to tax-abated developments that cost $25 million or more to build.

At least "20 percent of labor hours" on the jobs must be set aside for apprentices recruited and trained by the city agencies and labor unions working with the program. The agreement also stipulates the work must be 100 percent union, officials said.

The program takes effect in 20 days, and Bill Matsikoudis, the city's top attorney, said he hopes to see 100 apprentices placed over the next year. Developers who fall short of the 20 percent goal or fail to file timely reports will be hit with fines and could lose their abatements, officials said.

In conjunction with Hoboken-based Metro Homes, Trump will soon open the first tower at Trump Plaza Jersey City in downtown. If he follows through on a promised second tower, The Donald might have no choice but to hire Jersey City's hometown apprentices.

KEN THORBOURNE