 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Lawsuits are one of the greatest
threats to local hiring strategies. In 1980, Camden, NJ, which was
experiencing unemployment rates greater than 20 percent, passed a local
hiring
ordinance requiring good faith efforts to hire Camden residents for at least
40 percent of the jobs on publicly financed projects of $50,000 or more.
The United Building and Construction Trades Council brought a case against
Camden on the grounds that the ordinance violated the privileges and immunities
clause of the constitution by discriminating against residents of nearby
Pennsylvania. The NJ Supreme Court upheld the policy, but on an appeal
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance might be unconstitutional,
and established a three-part test to evaluate the constitutionality of future
ordinances:
At the encouragement of the U.S. Supreme court, the Camden ordinance was revamped to meet this test.
These legal requirements are not necessarily prohibitive. Wyoming passed a statewide hiring policy requiring all state-funded construction projects to hire 100 percent Wyoming residents, which passed this test and was upheld by the Wyoming Supreme Court. The policy allowed for exceptions where Wyoming residents were either not available or not qualified to perform the work involved, thereby not sweeping unnecessarily broad, and was backed up by thorough documentation that native, qualified, construction workers were suffering from the state's practice of contracting out.
Construction jobs, the most common jobs covered by local hiring agreements, are often temporary. Creating short-term job opportunities may do little to permanently move under-employed workers into a place of self-sufficiency and ultimately revitalize disadvantaged communities. Requiring local hires for permanent positions with the potential for mobility is more challenging, but well worth the effort however. Including permanent jobs is more successful when the program is portrayed strongly as a benefit to employers that helps their hiring process.
Project labor agreements (PLAs)
significantly limit, or altogether ban, non-union contractors from bidding
on or participating in specific projects. These agreements 
have
been traditionally used on public projects, but are increasingly being applied
more broadly, requiring private developments to hire union as well.
This can cause a tension with advocates of local hiring, as workers of color
are traditionally under-represented in unions. By limiting hiring
to union members, some PLAs have superceded the requirements of local hiring
goals and limited employment opportunities for those who have been less
represented in organized labor - women and people of color.
There are, however, examples of communities using project labor agreements in ways that support local hiring. In Bridgeport, CT, the construction of a baseball stadium was governed by a PLA that also required 35 percent local hiring. In Buffalo, NY, a PLA regulating building for the Northwest Academy required that women make up 35 percent of the project workforce. And in Oakland, CA, a recently agreed upon PLA governing the $1.6 billion expansion of the Port of Oakland requires that 50 percent of project work hours be performed by residents of Oakland and three surrounding communities.
Local governments or regulatory agencies are sometimes unable or unwilling to enforce local hiring policies to their full extent. One final means for redressing failure to follow-through is the use of lawsuits, brought on behalf of community groups against cities or developers for failing to fulfill local hiring goals. Protests and lawsuits have been used by groups in Washington, DC, and San Francisco as a last hope, but have not produced very significant results. It cannot be stressed enough that strong monitoring and enforcement protocols must be included in the original ordinance or agreement.
One of the greatest assets of local hiring agreements - successfully linking public investment to community needs - is also a significant liability. In economic downturns, public investments, like most spending, decline. Therefore, in recessions when jobs are most needed, fewer jobs are covered by local hiring ordinances because local governments are spending less money.
Local hiring ordinances may face
severe opposition from jurisdictions surrounding the municipality where
the ordinance was passed, whose residents may feel their job opportunities
have been restricted. If these jurisdictions are angry and organized
enough,
they can potentially override the effects of the bill by going to their
state legislators. The following example in Pittsburgh illustrates
this problem.
In July 2000, Pittsburgh passed "Pittsburgh Works!," a local hiring ordinance that required all construction contracts using public money and worth more than $200,000 to hire at least 35 percent Pittsburgh residents. On projects entirely publicly financed, the ordinance required 50 percent of the jobs to go to city residents. Pittsburgh Works was approved by 62 percent of Pittsburgh residents in a referendum, and then was passed by the city council, 8 - 0. The state legislature, however, attached an amendment to Senate Bill 706 (a senior citizen tax relief measure), passed in October of 2001, which prohibited the use of some state funds on projects subject to municipal residency requirements. The city of Pittsburgh needs state money for most of its development projects, and can only get that money if it repeals "Pittsburgh Works." The city and state are still negotiating a resolution.
 |
 |
 |