Developers who oppose local hiring strategies often cite increased cost as a primary reason for opposing such initiatives.  They claim that the regulations would burden developers with costly and unnecessary requirements, ultimately making the price of doing business in the community unsustainable.  Experience demonstrates that these assertions are false. 

The costs of financing local hiring initiatives are shared among employers, jurisdictions, community-based organizations, and unions.  In fact, local hiring initiatives can even save businesses money.  The specifics of how financing is distributed among key players will vary among the different strategies, and explicit definitions of financial responsibilities should be included in any agreement or ordinance.  The following are three components of a local hiring initiative where financing is needed and examples of how various initiatives have assigned those costs.

• Recruitment and Outreach .  Community based organizations frequently serve as intermediaries, linking job seekers with city employment programs or project agreements.  Some city offices also take on responsibility for financing recruitment strategies either through weekly orientation sessions like Berkeley's First Source Program, or through job fairs.

• Monitoring and Enforcement .  Employers bear some cost associated with monitoring, usually in the form of reporting their hiring procedures, which are outlined in the agreement and used to monitor compliance.  Much of the cost of enforcement, however, is absorbed by community based organizations and jurisdictions that monitor compliance by tracking firms' job announcements, examining their hiring procedures, and conducting site visits.

• Skills/Trade Training .  Depending on the structure of the agreement, unions, community organizations, jurisdictions and employers may all share responsibility for training job seekers.  If employers conduct skills training, they may be eligible for federal on-the-job-training tax credits.  An agreement may incorporate already existing union apprenticeship programs, which will not generate extraordinary additional costs for unions.  Jurisdictions and community based organizations may also already operate workforce development programs, but it is likely that a local hiring agreement will require developing new, more focused programs, offering training in specific trades.

next page ...(Keys to Success)