Monday, November 11, 2013

Local Hiring Ordinance Proposed

The clamor for city residents to be hired on local construction projects may be answered by a proposed ordinance requiring contractors to meet a 25 percent quota or be banned from future city contracts.

The plan hinges on development of a local hiring registry of residents, including minorities and women, for work on publicly-funded projects costing $200,000 or more, or real estate development costing more than $25,000 on city-owned land. Contractors must keep records of compliance or reasons for non-compliance and the program will be administered through the Department of Public Works & Urban Development, in conjunction with the Human Relations Commission. The list of residents, including those with union or trade qualifications, will be compiled by Union County One Stop and the opportunity will be publicized on the city web site and through other outreach.

Residents have frequently complained about seeing work crews around the city with no minority representation. Individuals who need work have questioned why they can't be hired. The proposed ordinance cites high unemployment and the millions of dollars spent on local projects and envisions "employment opportunities for Plainfield residents with varying skills, including entry-level jobs in the construction industry."

If passed on first reading at Tuesday's regular City Council meeting, the ordinance could be up for final passage at the Dec. 9 regular meeting and would take effect 20 days later. The timetable would allow for filling numerous vacancies on the Human Relations Commission and making other arrangements for implementation.

Unfortunately, the copy of the document in the council packet had some lines missing and there was some wording that might need to be fixed up before the ordinance is finalized. At present, the major publicly-funded projects are road repairs. Other projects that would fall under the provisions of the ordinance would have to be identified.

The ordinance calls for a "local hiring oversight committee" appointed by the mayor and council president and consisting of members of the administration and council. The committee would meet as necessary with the mayor and Human Relations Commission representatives to review contractor compliance and to discuss additional methods for enforcing compliance and increasing city resident hiring.

Individuals who feel they were slighted by non-compliance could complain to the Human Relations Commission, which could conduct hearings and investigations.

A chart at google.com places the unemployment rate in Plainfield at 9.8 percent in July, down from 14.5 percent in January. The poverty rate for 2007-2011 was 19 percent, in contrast to a state level of 9.4 percent, according to U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts.

--Bernice

22 comments:

  1. It is altogether possible such a local hire law would be found unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US constitution. (See United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden.) It might be made even more tenuous with the added interplay involving the One Stop and a barely-existent Human Relations Commission. Has Corporation Counsel Minchello weighed in on this a la http://ci.carson.ca.us/MeetingAgendas/AgendaPacket/MG56661/AS56673/AS56681/AI56734/DO56794/DO_56794.PDF
    or are we just winging it and exposing the city to potentially very costly litigation?

    ReplyDelete
  2. about time time that would have won sharon re election politicans need to understand its the people not the person

    ReplyDelete
  3. boston, baltimore, and san francisco has implemented such hiring laws in regard to locals

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to sf.gov there were 153 participants, 28% of the applicable workforce, in the program year ending in 2012. If we replicated their experience that would proportionally translate to 9 hires, likely temporary, in Plainfield.

      Delete
    2. That is true, but some of the laws are new and have not been tested in court. Previous rulings such as the Camden decision imply that they may not hold up under scrutiny, or may limit project funding to local sources exclusively. Not that the intent is wrong, but only that a poorly drawn ordinance, or one where it can't be shown that high unemployment is a result of previous outside contracts, might not hold up. My casual experience with Plainfield ordinances, resolutions, and such, makes me think there is a research deficit when it comes to many of these things. I would hope the legal issues have been looked over and documented, so we're not just copying some text without understanding the implications and potential pitfalls.

      Delete
  4. Yet another job for Public Works..... They can barely handle what they have now!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think someone needs to think this thru. On public work projects there are requirements for minority participation which are governed by the State maybe the City is not following thru on its enforcement. Has the City approached Construction Unions, they are seniority based and how can the City impose a resident based system on their existing union agreements with the Contracting Community. They might be able to impose it for developers but who determines the skill level? The City?Just because someone can swing a hammer does not make them a carpenter. Its not like there is a buzz of activity of development going on in the City which would lower the unemployment rate and if it was it would only last so long. Like I said this needs to be thought thru and its not the solution to the City's unemployment woes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The state treasury department has an affirmative action office which checks on these things. Joe was a staffer for many years before he retired.

      Delete
  6. Noble goal, terrible law. The only contractors who will bother to bid are those already are hooked into the Plainfield and county bureaucracies thereby shrinking the pool to a small, local group. (Although I suppose that someone like, say, Jeffrey Dunn, could be hired as a consultant to help an outside contractor with compliance.) This will effectively raise costs and lower quality.
    Also, question: what is the percentage of Latino clients served by One Stop in the past year? Is any special outreach planned for that very large group? If there can be a quota for residents why can't there be a sub-quota for ethnic groups? Never mind, I know why, I withdraw the question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. from my observation the labor force on public work projects are cheap undocumented workers who come out of newark leading to bigger profit for the contractor but that changes with a ordinance because now prevailng wages come into play local jobs grows the local economy

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is a curious notion going around this city that just because you live here, you are entitled to some sort of a job. Nice thought, but if you are not qualified, either become qualified, or understand that residency does not entitle you to a job.

    Let me be clear, I am not opposed to having Plainfielders being employed if they are qualified. They most certainly should be given first preference. However, they should not be given preferential treatment simply because of their address, if they are not qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bob Ferrarro was a great believer in this. Also a Mr Dave Miller, now Remington Vernick has a better way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R&V often chooses the contractor for the big road projects. So if it's a problem, they're part of it.

      Delete
  10. As always good intentions go haywire once pen hits paper - how about instead of mandates that may have no benefit to the contractors and city projects (i.e. forced to use under skilled labor) they try giving incentives to contractors for hiring local, minority etc. workers? Carrot and the stick works best when there is more than just a stick. Not saying this is a perfect plan either but its a better direction and isn't likely to scare off development - which is the ultimate goal to lift the entire community. If the cities procurement process was better they could achieve some savings and use some of that for incentives - i.e. revenue neutral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One solution I've read is to give contractors a 5% bid preference for meeting the local hire points. This would be a more logical approach than a hard mandate which might result in higher costs and a less skilled group of workers.

      Delete
    2. Bid preference is certainly a good option, how it is monitored it another story but there are many approaches to that and many of them would lead to the desired outcome which is increased development and more "involvement" by residence of plainfield.

      Delete
    3. You are so correct - and if we build things only with the idea of those that like to "game the system" we will end up building nothing and getting nowhere. There are always those that like to play fast and loose - you do what you can to control that but the key outcome has to be a net benefit to plainfield. Many ways to skin a cat - just important to move the ball forward. Can always learn lessons along the way and correct in the future as needed.

      Delete
    4. One requirement for an approach like this to work is for the city to perform sourcing functions in their procurement process instead of just " purchasing". Purchasing as a function is fine but there are no savings derived - they just buy to budget versus driving the market to the best price. Even without working incentives in this should be overhauled and brought out of the dark ages. City would get far more ang for our buck

      Delete
  11. Since I believe this law was conceived by and for local contractors I propose that we call it Oveterscare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't have a solution always a great idea to be funny. Better idea to contribute to a solution though.

      Delete
  12. Publicly bid construction contracts are prevailing wage its the law in the state of NJ. R&V is a consulting engineer the contracts for doing road work are bid out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prevailing wages wouldn't be part of a sourcing initiative, it would be the mark-up and profit threshold that would be bid down - different vendors have different total cost of ownership - that is the price element that should be made more competitive to drive the cost down.

      Delete