We can learn firsthand the value or return on investment that can be gained by special interest groups that fill coffers of political candidates. Construction trades are heavily involved financially in political elections, even at the local level. Let’s be honest, endorsements and financial support given by special interests come with an expectation. To think otherwise is simply naive.
Jon Froomin
A good example is playing out in Foster City where the City Council is in the midst of guaranteeing city construction work to those very unions that have paid to play. By employing project labor agreements, the City Council is negotiating with workers in construction trades, through their union, to ensure they are the only ones who can work on certain city construction projects. If highly skilled non-union, but local, construction trades people want to work, the City Council is requiring them to redirect a portion of their wages to the union, so they too can get local city construction work.
The PLA serves as a recruitment tool for the unions, provided by the City Council. One would think that a guarantee of work would come with some benefit to the city. Â The benefits are minimal including a ban on work stoppages, which are unnecessary since the unions bargained the agreement before projects are even known. Â Does the city enjoy some type of cost savings for guaranteeing the employment? No, actually the costs will likely be higher. This seems to conflict with the reason for the requirement to bid projects paid for with tax dollars. Yes, the projects will still have to go out to bid but, regardless of the outcome, much of the labor cost is set, as are those who will do the work. If you are guaranteed to always get the work, where is the incentive to earn future work? Â
Only a few years ago, Foster City sought to institute a local minimum wage. In the end, two options were before them. One with no basis in cost of living but merely paying a little in excess of the state minimum and a second tied to the cost of below-market rate housing eligibility. In the end the lower, much less effective option was voted into law. Now, as I compare that situation and the current PLA discussion, both said to be rooted in social justice and helping workers, I see a major difference that may have impacted the decisions. Financial influence of political decision makers.
Recommended for you
In the minimum wage situation, we were dealing with our lowest paid workers, those historically not represented by unions and who did not have a voice at the table and in the current situation we are dealing with much higher paid employees who have significant money to influence elections and do so every two years. Â They were well represented by their paid advocates addressing those they endorsed and/or those they helped finance into office. Â
This is but one example of the impact of special interest money influencing local, state and federal elections and ultimately the decisions of those elected bodies. Elected officials are supposed to represent the people of their jurisdiction, not special interest groups who usually only represent a certain segment of the population. Â In the case of the project labor agreements, no similar considerations are being given to any other labor group or vocation with which the city contracts for services, further emphasizing the power of the contributions to candidates. Â
If we cannot stop this money and influence from tainting our government, voters must become more knowledgeable about the candidates and where they get their money and give this more consideration when voting.
Jon Froomin is a member of the Foster City Council. Views are his own.
Thanks for your guest perspective, Mr. Froomin. Now you know why local cities and this state are always floating measures to take more money out of taxpayers’ pockets. Voters get the government they deserve and if they’re not willing to elect fiscally responsible candidates, don’t expect anything to change.
How about San Mateo County did - for once - something really progressive and give every city council candidate a "stipend" or "allowance" during an election.
Every eligible candidate gets a set budget (e.g. 10-20k) and can reimburse their lawn signs and chocolate chip cookie handouts at the local farmers market via that budget.
Thanks to district elections in almost every city, these elections should get cheaper for each candidate. With $10-$20k and a few social media accounts a candidate should be able to run a clean campaign free of corporate interest.
Mr. Frooman aside from being mis-informed and sharing your misinformation in this publication, working people in Foster City is who the construction unions speak on behalf of, by the way, they are constituents too. The first incorrect point you made is that the work would be only union. Public work in Foster City is open to any contractor who bids on a public project. A workforce agreement does not beak this state law. Any contractor may be awarded construction work on any public project. The agreement insures that the workers are paid correctly, on time, in full and is a first line of accountability for wage compliance for all workers union or not. The state is overrun with labor and wage violations that can take up to 18 months to settle after the completion of the project. If the case is heard by the labor commission prior to the 18 month deadline. An agreement such as the one proposed will have a procedure to handle these claims in real time and settle them as quickly as 15 days or less. Again this is for any worker working on a public project, union or not. Since the first point you made is erroneous and inconsiderate of the tax paying workers in construction it makes sense that the rest of your article followed suit.
Bart, you're are trying to split hairs and act as if contracts are "open" to all contractors. Technically that's true as long at the contractor's meet pay the wages and benefits the city of Foster City requires which "ensures" (with an E not an I) that only union, and union workers win and work
Not So Common - your are correct, it is called "prevailing wages" aka a rip off for the tax payers and others who in the public sector trying to get things done in an economic matter. No matter who gets the job, the contractor must pay the wages that are prevalent for labor union members.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(5) comments
Thanks for your guest perspective, Mr. Froomin. Now you know why local cities and this state are always floating measures to take more money out of taxpayers’ pockets. Voters get the government they deserve and if they’re not willing to elect fiscally responsible candidates, don’t expect anything to change.
How about San Mateo County did - for once - something really progressive and give every city council candidate a "stipend" or "allowance" during an election.
Every eligible candidate gets a set budget (e.g. 10-20k) and can reimburse their lawn signs and chocolate chip cookie handouts at the local farmers market via that budget.
Thanks to district elections in almost every city, these elections should get cheaper for each candidate. With $10-$20k and a few social media accounts a candidate should be able to run a clean campaign free of corporate interest.
Mr. Frooman aside from being mis-informed and sharing your misinformation in this publication, working people in Foster City is who the construction unions speak on behalf of, by the way, they are constituents too. The first incorrect point you made is that the work would be only union. Public work in Foster City is open to any contractor who bids on a public project. A workforce agreement does not beak this state law. Any contractor may be awarded construction work on any public project. The agreement insures that the workers are paid correctly, on time, in full and is a first line of accountability for wage compliance for all workers union or not. The state is overrun with labor and wage violations that can take up to 18 months to settle after the completion of the project. If the case is heard by the labor commission prior to the 18 month deadline. An agreement such as the one proposed will have a procedure to handle these claims in real time and settle them as quickly as 15 days or less. Again this is for any worker working on a public project, union or not. Since the first point you made is erroneous and inconsiderate of the tax paying workers in construction it makes sense that the rest of your article followed suit.
Bart, you're are trying to split hairs and act as if contracts are "open" to all contractors. Technically that's true as long at the contractor's meet pay the wages and benefits the city of Foster City requires which "ensures" (with an E not an I) that only union, and union workers win and work
Not So Common - your are correct, it is called "prevailing wages" aka a rip off for the tax payers and others who in the public sector trying to get things done in an economic matter. No matter who gets the job, the contractor must pay the wages that are prevalent for labor union members.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.