Feature Story
|
|||||
|
|||||
From the Executive-Secretary
|
|||||
Just when working families were gearing up to challenge another California ballot initiative to muzzle their and their union’s ability to affect policymaking in the state, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with a stunning blow to the individual having any impact on elections. Last Jan. 10, the Court issued its decision in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” and declared that business profits, with no limit on the amount, can be used to fund political campaigns.
| Craft Unions Mobilize to Protect Prevailing Wages in City of Buena Park |
|
|
|
The City of Buena Park is considering a proposal for charter city status which would enable it to avoid paying prevailing wages on municipal public works projects. Craft union representatives have been mobilizing by attending city council meetings, and have been meeting with elected officials in order to protect prevailing wages. They intend to turn out in force on May 12 when the City Council’s exploratory committee on the topic will announce their recommendations. Craft members also plan to turn out on May 27 when the City Council is expected to vote on whether to place the charter city proposal on the November ballot for voter approval. The issue was first brought to the attention of craft unions after an article appeared in the Orange County Register in November of 2007. The following month, craft union representatives first met with Buena Park officials and in January of 2008 the building trades mobilized 150 people, including contractors, compliance officers, and union members, to attend a city council meeting. “At that meeting we made it clear that we were not opposed to the charter city status for Buena Park, but we were interested in protecting prevailing wages for workers,” said Jim Adams, Council Representative. “Some members of the city council said that one of the main reasons for becoming a charter city was to avoid paying prevailing wages,” Adams said. In a pamphlet posted on the City of Buena Park’s own website, avoiding the payment of prevailing wages is listed as one of the main “benefits” of adopting charter city status. The BT Council submitted language for the charter city proposal that would protect prevailing wages. That proposal has not been included in the charter’s language. There is an ongoing letter campaign to the City Council and the exploratory committee to consider the prevailing wage language. Craft unions have also been reaching out to State Senate and Assembly members asking them to protect prevailing wages in Buena Park. “The elimination of prevailing wages would remove important protections for construction workers. That includes our members and non-union workers,” Adams said. “It also circumvents apprenticeship programs which undermines the skill base of the entire industry.” “The charter itself does not eliminate prevailing wages,” said Adams, “but if the charter passes we fully expect the City Council to pass an ordinance that will eliminate prevailing wages.” Buena Park in under the impression that not paying prevailing wages will save money, but that is not necessarily that case, said Adams. “Just because a contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages, doesn’t mean it will cheaper. The contractor isn’t going to bid the project for less, he’s just going to pay his workers less and pocket the difference,” he said. “The skilled worker is not going to work for that contractor. They are going to work for a contractor that pays people properly.” Statewide Suit to Protect Prevailing Wages The ability for charter cites to eliminate prevailing wages is currently being challenged in state court by the State Building and Construction Trades Council. The SBCTC recently filed suit to require California charter cities to pay prevailing wages on city public works construction projects. Under the California constitution, cities have the power to become charter cities, but what authority that gives them is not clearly defined. Under the California Constitution, charter status gives cities supreme authority over “municipal affairs” meaning a charter city’s law concerning a “municipal affair” would supersede state law governing the same topic. But what is a “municipal affair?” That is not clearly spelled out and is a matter of dispute. The California constitution does not define “municipal affair;” it only sets out a list of four “core” categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs. These categories are 1) regulation of the “city police force”; 2) “subgovernment in all or part of a city”; 3) “conduct of city elections”; and 4) “the manner in which . . . municipal officers [are] elected.” Beyond this list, it is up to the courts to determine what is and is not a municipal affair. To determine if a matter is a municipal affair, a court will ask whether there are good reasons, grounded on statewide interests, for the state law to preempt a local law. The concept of “municipal affairs” may change over time. Issues that are municipal affairs today could become areas of statewide concern in the future. There are some areas that courts have consistently classified as municipal affairs, including, municipal election matters, land use and zoning decisions (with exceptions) and how a city spends its tax dollars. Likewise, there are some areas that courts have consistently classified as areas of statewide concern, including, traffic and vehicle regulation, tort claims against a governmental entity and regulation of school systems In July of last year, the SBTC filed a lawsuit against the City of Vista in San Diego County to establish that California charter cities must comply with the state’s prevailing wage law. The suit argues that the prevailing wage law is a “statewide” concern, not a municipal affair, and therefore subject to state law. The prevailing wage law addresses important statewide concerns by “preventing public projects from driving down area labor standards for construction workers” and “providing training opportunities for the next generation of skilled workers,” according the SBTC suit. The suit goes on to say that the “prevailing wage law plays a significant role in ensuring that many construction workers receive good wages and health and pension benefits. The prevailing wage law also plays a significant role in California’s system for educating apprentices in the construction trades.” State prevailing wage law requires public officials to include in contracts for public works a requirement that contractors must pay construction workers at least the wages and benefit levels that prevail in each geographic area, and a requirement that contractors must hire apprentices. Scott A. Kronland who filed the case for the SBCTC said charter cities that ignore the prevailing wage law rely upon a 1932 California Supreme Court decision, City of Pasadena v. Charleville, that ruled the California Legislature did not have the constitutional authority to apply an earlier version of the prevailing wage law to charter cities. But there have been significant changes in the California constitution, the prevailing wage law, and the mobility of the workforce since 1932, so the reasoning of the Charleville case is outdated, Kronland said. The case is currently on appeal to the State Supreme Court. A ruling supporting prevailing wages is expected but the case is expected to be in the courts for several years. In the meantime, craft union members will fight to protect prevailing wages in the City of Buena Park and anywhere else fair wages for construction workers are threatened. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Trades Headlines
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
