Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Labor Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts Project Labor Agreement for Measure A projects amid sharp debate over costs and small-business access
Summary
After extensive public testimony for and against, the board adopted a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) to cover some Measure A facility projects; union speakers emphasized safety, apprenticeships and internships while small-business and community representatives warned of higher costs and reduced opportunities for nonunion contractors.
The Board of Education voted June 24 to adopt a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) between SFUSD and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council covering a set of Measure A facility projects. Chief facilities officer David Golden read the resolution and described the PLA's aim: to support timely completion of bond-funded projects by ensuring access to skilled labor and dispute-resolution mechanisms.
The meeting's public-comment period produced lengthy, organized testimony both supporting and opposing the PLA. Supporters from the building trades emphasized job quality, worker safety, benefits, and apprenticeship pathways into living-wage careers. Michael Theriault of the Building Trades said the PLA would help structure internships and expand partnerships with school-to-career programs. Several union speakers described outreach programs and the opportunity to connect SFUSD students to apprenticeships.
Opponents—including representatives of small, nonunion and minority-owned contractors and advocates for increased competition—argued the PLA could raise construction costs, restrict participation, and create burdens such as dual pension liabilities. Bayard Fong and other speakers pressed the board to quantify impacts from prior PLAs, to ensure equitable small-business share and to protect nonunion bidders on smaller projects. Calvin Louie said the PLA could increase costs by as much as "30%" (speaker's estimate recorded in public comment), and other commenters urged carve-outs, exemptions for short jobs, greater small-business set-asides and portability of benefits.
Board members debated the tradeoffs, including thresholds and carve-outs embedded in the negotiated agreement, and asked staff to monitor outcomes including apprenticeship placements. Several members noted internship and apprenticeship commitments written into the PLA. After discussion the board adopted the PLA on a roll-call vote.
District staff authorized the superintendent (or designee) to take required actions to implement the agreement and will report back on implementation metrics—particularly internship/apprenticeship outcomes and vendor participation rates—so the board can evaluate claimed benefits and costs.
