Avalos initiates LOCAL SF

|
(5)
Local workers recently picketed a construction site on 16th Street, angry that locals weren't hired
PHOTO BY SARAH PHELAN

Sups. John Avalos, Sophie Maxwell, David Campos and Board President David Chiu, plus community advocates, construction contractors, neighborhood leaders and union members rallied outside City Hall today to announce the launch of LOCAL SF, a campaign for local opportunities and hiring for San Francisco residents. 

And this afternoon, Avalos introduces the first measure of this campaign--legislation mandating local hiring on publicly funded construction projects.

Avalos' local hiring legislation is a major departure from the city's current First Source Program. In place for the past decade,First Source only requires contractors on publicly subsidized projects to show "good faith" efforts to meet a local hiring goal of 50 percent. 

By contrast, Avalos’ proposed legislation will require contractors to meet local hiring goals that will be phased in over the next few years.

“My legislation will ensure that San Franciscans have a guaranteed shot to work on the City’s public works projects and that the local dollars invested in public infrastructure be recycled back into San Francisco’s economy and local communities," Avalos said in a press release,

Avalos' introduction of this mandated local hiring legislation comes on the heels of a report from the the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development that shows only a 20 percent local hire rate in 29 publicly-funded projects, despite the 50 percent local hiring goal and good faith efforts of the city's First Source program.

Avalos says his local hiring legislation was developed over a series of stakeholders meetings with representatives from city agencies, the Mayor's Office, labor and building trades, the environmental community, neighborhood advocates, contractors, local hiring advocates and unemployed workers, And he vows to keep this roundtable approach going, as his legislation moves forward.

“Over the next few weeks, I intend to keep a dialogue going with all of these stakeholders to strengthen the legislation as it moves through the legislative process,” Avalos said.
  
His legislation is scheduled to be heard in the Board's Land Use and EconomicDevelopment Committee in November. And it comes not a moment too soon: with unemployment rates remaining high and major construction projects in the pipeline, it's critical that city leaders ensure that any related work really benefits the local community.

Comments

Now the new left needs to bring back classes in the schools that can direct the students into the trades.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

You're right, Matlock, vocational classes are sorely needed

Posted by sarah on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

They have the requirement in Chicago that if you work for Chicago city government you have to be a resident of Chicago - 100%. Not an allowance of 50% - 100% of all Chicago city employees must live in the city of Chicago.

If they can do it - why can't we?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 7:03 pm

Lucretia, the California Constitution doesn't allow that. Article 11, Section 10(b). A city can require its employees live within a "reasonable and specific" distance from their place of employment, but that's it.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 22, 2010 @ 9:50 am

it seems there is alot of talk about an inabitity for the unionized building trades to hire a local workforce to suddenly fill the requirements of a rare and large construction project. san franciscians will find it difficult to become future union building tradespeople, just as the current and recent past workforce have found it difficult to remain san franciscians.
there are various reasons why an unskilled workforce is likely to not be suficiently trained in time for a project of this scale.
first are the apprenticeship requirements. a potential new hire must possess a high school diploma or GED to enter the carpenters' apprenticeship, and of course, the individual must first be employed by a union employer as an apprentice to begin the apprentice training... problem number one; shops aren't hiring as there is very little work at the present time, nor has there been for some four to five years. the training provided directly by the unions, the school portion of the apprentice's training, is only a suppliment to the vast majority of his or her total training hours, namely work experience.
now, imagine a scenario where the unionized workforce that has managed to remain employed for the recent lean financial years have left the disproportinately overpriced san francisco housing market in order to stay alive.
the nouveau riche who have displaced the working class masses in san francisco are often the last to insist on the union label, much less a "made in the USA", the same nimbys oppose paying taxes while giving lip service to the art and music missing from their childrens' schools, and most likely never said a word to defend education spending. vocational training be damned.
i wonder how many adults even understand there hasn't been any woodshop in our schools for some years to teach kids what all those little tiny lines between the inches on a tape measure are for.

Posted by andy on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 12:55 am