Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Seattle Times Postponing Paywall… | Sacramento Fails to Finalize Arena… »

Thursday, March 21, 2013

City Should Seattle Mandate That Construction Companies Hire Locally?

Posted by Anna Minard on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

This Saturday, at 11 a.m. at Columbia City's Southside Commons Auditorium, a small social justice coalition will launch a bold campaign to change construction hiring practices in Seattle by proposing legislation mandating that publicly-contracted construction projects hire from the neighborhoods in which they build.

"We've all heard the slogan 'Work where you live,'" says Michael Woo, director of a group called Got Green. "But what if there aren't any good jobs where you live? This is exactly the point of Targeted Local Hire. To bring good, local jobs to our neighborhoods."

Got Green was founded in 2008 to advocate on behalf of low-income communities and people of color in South Seattle through a focus on environmentalism—green jobs, healthy food, energy efficiency, and access to public transit. "We just felt like if communities of color weren’t organizing around those conversations, any outcomes would leave us behind," Woo explains.

He continues: "The commercial construction industry is a place where public contracting can create opportunity." But the communities Got Green represents feel like they're watching the economy slowly chug to life without them.

Take the repaving of Rainier Avenue a couple of years ago, or the rebuild of the Rainier Beach Community Center. "The Rainier Beach neighborhood is in desperate need of some help," Woo says. But the neighborhood watched the contracts for those projects go to companies that hired workers from outside Seattle. And he argues, "That’s not a good investment for the city."

They've started imagining a local-hire ordinance that would require public-contract construction jobs in Seattle to hire a certain percentage of their workers directly from the community. And at least two city council members, Mike O'Brien and Sally Clark, have publicly signaled support for the idea.

"Local hire is an environmental issue. It reduces commutes and improves urban sustainability," says O'Brien. "I see it as an opportunity to promote a solution to climate change and job equity at the same time."

Clark seems intrigued as well, saying in her most recent newsletter that the economic development committee she chairs will be "diving into the subject of local hire this year." I haven't yet heard back from the third council member rumored to be a local-hire fan, Nick Licata.

Seattle's not the first city to consider a measure like this—San Francisco passed its local-hire ordinance a couple of years ago. That program is widely considered a success, and the city's even talking about expanding it from construction to tech jobs.

But that doesn't mean the road to passing legislation will be easy. Unions opposed the local hire measure in San Francisco because it conflicts with their hiring practices. Others opposed it for being an unnecessary burden on business, or because of the cost the city incurs overseeing such a program. We may very well see similar opposition here.

The Construction Jobs Equity Coalition, which includes Got Green, hopes to make their case to the public and to politicians at the event on Saturday, which they're calling a "community jobs forum." More info on the forum here.

FacebookShare

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Damned suburbanites keep taking our jobs and parking, and then whine about our policies ...

Just toll I-5.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Ah yes, set up a patronage machine. Welcome to Chicago

Posted by Sugartit on March 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Get a handful of bids and offer the job to the best, period. Let's not encourage the Silas Potters of the town.

Posted by Lew Siffer on March 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM

it's a fucking retarded idea. you want the best people for the job...if they're local, that's even better, but if you mandate hiring locals workers i guarangoddamtee you get shitty workers and higher bids (just look at the state ferry system.)

Posted by tainte on March 21, 2013 at 5:41 PM

YES

Posted by Tacoma Traveler on March 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM

I'm going to go with "no". I don't think these kind of programs tend to work out. What will happen is someone will be paid to set up a shell company in Seattle that passes bids through to the various construction companies outside the city. Now, we pay a profit to the shell company and to the companies it is proxying for.

Posted by fletc3her on March 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Better check the terms of NAFTA.

Posted by Theo Magyar on March 21, 2013 at 7:17 PM

might be a nice notion; but it'ain't legal. it's already been tried with (seattle) police officers and the judge said 'nay'.

Posted by theophrastus on March 21, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Got Green is a great organization with fantastic community organizers. I wish them the best on their campaign!

Posted by green_fox on March 21, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Oh for God's sake! Where do you people get these ideas?? "Social Justice?" WTF?

If Seattle tried to hire only people from, say, Rainier Beach to do construction projects:

A. The project would never get done because MF'rs wouldn't show up for work, or...

B. The project would never get done because there is no such thing as an engineer who lives in the Rainier Beach neighborhood to hire.

Now if Seattle wanted to build crack houses...

Posted by GeneStoner on March 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM

This seems like a remarkably stupid idea. I agree that the Rainier Valley could probably use some help on jobs and business development, but let's just do that instead of imposing silly requirements on contractors.

Posted by giffy on March 21, 2013 at 10:29 PM

I know next to nothing about construction, but I think those are skilled jobs. You can't just hire anybody to do it. Let's say you're a construction company with your own crew, would you now be blocked from Seattle jobs because your crew doesn't hail from whatever neighborhood you're working in?

Posted by floater on March 21, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Most "Seattle construction" like the tunnel and other infrastructure is funded by the state and federal taxpayer.

So no.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on March 21, 2013 at 11:03 PM

I am working on the design of project in Wyoming with this kind of requirement and I can tell you that it is ineffective and misguided. This is a bad idea and unnecessary. I understand where Wyoming is coming from; many of their construction projects bring workers from out of state (because local skilled labor is not available). The law doesn't work though, because the skills are still not available locally. And in Seattle we're not talking about workers from Idaho or Oregon, we're talking about people from Fife and Snohomish. That's not local enough? Gimme a break.

Posted by grumpypants on March 21, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Local or fluent in Spanish. That would work. We are the worldly number 2 country for Spanish speakers. We should push for number 1.

Posted by kinaidos on March 22, 2013 at 12:05 AM

This is a classic example of one of those "looks good on paper" ideas. If you wanted to make a real difference, make it a lot easier for disadvantaged kids to get into apprentice programs and the trades.

But of course, that would require a commitment to adequately pay for the education of our citizens and it costs a whole lot less to make ourselves feel better by setting aside a handful of unskilled shovel operator jobs.

Posted by Westside forever on March 22, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Okay, time for a little background here.

The city built a new community center for Rainier Beach. The reason was to benefit the community. Many construction workers live in Rainier Beach, skilled and experienced construction workers. What these people, and the Rainier Beach community, most needed was jobs. That would have provided the most benefit to the community.

When the light rail was built it was the same thing - lots of skilled locals, almost no local hires, mostly folks holding signs.

What Got Green wants to do is reward contractors who hire locally, up to a certain percentage. The goal is getting some local hires.

Most of the comments posted are biased and show a profound lack of knowledge of the history and the vision.

Posted by Dan B on March 22, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Dan B, do you want to "reward" or do you want to "mandate"? That's the key difference.

Posted by Westside forever on March 22, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Westside;

Come to the forum and find out. Or check out Got Green's website.

Posted by Dan B on March 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM

So, they get one job for a few months sweeping the floors. How does that help them in the long run?

You MUST have actual skills to get hired and maintain a job. Nobody should be owed a job because they live in a certain area. This is a subtle form of communism. Nice try.

Posted by GeneStoner on March 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

@20: Taxpayer money pays for these construction projects. The taxpayers therefore have the right to stipulate that the money be spent locally, as a condition of the contract. Dumbass.

Posted by venomlash on March 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM

or the taxpayers have the right to demand that the best people for the job do the job.

Posted by tainte on March 22, 2013 at 5:16 PM

The point being, there are qualified/skilled/trained workers from the neighborhoods that are being impacted, but they are NOT being hired because it costs the contractors less to ship people in from out of state to do the work. Is that fair?

Posted by KZ on March 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I think a better idea would be a requirement that contractors state the number of local hires they will commit to along with their bid, and that number should be a factor in determining the winning bid, even if it means paying a reasonable premium for the project.

Posted by sarge on March 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM