Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters split over Prop A project labor agreement; board holds PLA for Aug. 27 action
Summary
At first reading, industry groups split: Associated Builders and Contractors opposed the district's proposed PLA, citing Labor Code 1777.5 and concerns about competition, while the Building Trades Council urged broader coverage and local-hire provisions; the board will hold the resolution for a future meeting on Aug. 27.
The Board of Education heard public comment on a proposed project labor agreement (PLA) between the district and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council for projects under the Prop A facilities bond and deferred action to the Aug. 27 meeting.
Nicole Gehring of Associated Builders and Contractors said the PLA would limit competition, raise costs for taxpayers and could discriminate against nonunion workers. She argued that the PLA's apprenticeship language risked violating Labor Code section 1777.5 and cited High Voltage Wireworks Inc. v. City of San Jose as the controlling precedent; she recommended replacing the word "joint" in apprenticeship provisions with "state-approved." "We are here this evening to oppose your proposed project labor agreement for $531,000,000 worth of construction," Gehring said.
Representatives of the Building and Construction Trades Council, including Michael Theriault, praised the district's local-hire and contracting provisions and urged eliminating a $1,000,000 threshold in the PLA so all bond work would be covered and local-hire requirements would apply throughout the program. Theriault said the PLA does not exclude nonunion contractors and that minority-contractor participation has been substantial in past PLAs.
Board members allowed five minutes of public testimony and agreed to hold the PLA resolution for action at the Aug. 27 regular meeting. Staff said negotiations had produced provisions intended to reward contractors with histories of employing local workers, and the board signaled continued interest in the issue of threshold coverage and apprenticeship language.
The PLA discussion drew contrasting views from construction-industry groups and unions over competition, apprenticeship rules and the scope of local-hire requirements. The board did not vote on the PLA at the Aug. 13 meeting; it will receive the item again for formal action on Aug. 27.
