FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA

Fairfield

Council to staff: Negotiate labor pact for train station project

By From page A4 | April 16, 2014

FAIRFIELD — Negotiate a project labor agreement for the train station project, the City Council directed the staff Tuesday after speakers praised such a pact as promoting local jobs and union labor while others criticized the agreement as un-American and anti-competition.

Councilwoman Pam Bertani, who with other council members supported the decision that the staff negotiate the pact with the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council, cited federal Bureau of Labor statistics that Solano County has the highest unemployment in the Bay Area.

We need jobs here, Bertani said.

The councilwoman spoke about 10 shootings in 10 days in the city and how to reduce crime.

“Put people to work,” she said. “Jobs, jobs, jobs, here in Solano County.”

But Matt Heavey said as a small contractor in Concord that such labor agreements leave him unable to bid on public projects he supports with his tax dollars. Heavey is a member of the Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California, a nonprofit construction trade association.

Toby Cummings, representing the trade association, told the council that project labor agreements are less competitive and cost public agencies more money.

The agreement won support from many union representatives, including Jason Lindsey, who teaches in the apprenticeship program for an ironworkers local.

“We get jobs done on time, under budget, with no injuries,” he said.

Some contractors want to pay $15 an hour, Lindsey said, but workers can’t survive on that in the Bay Area.

A city staff report described a project labor agreement as a pact with one or more labor organizations establishing terms and conditions of employment for a construction project.

Vice Mayor Rick Vaccaro said before the council direction to the staff, “I could talk for a long time about benefits of PLAs.”

“I’ve seen the benefits,” he said.

Councilman John Mraz said in support of the agreement that “four words are very important.”

“On time, on budget,” he said.

Central Solano Taxpayers Group representative Dexter Sanders said the association has always objected to such labor agreements.

“It’s evident to me that PLAs are not the answer,” he said.

George Guynn Jr, a past president of the taxpayers group, said the agreements boost costs.

“If you have more competition,” he said, “you’re going to have a lower price.”

Ben Espinoza, representing the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council, cited the history of project labor agreements he said have been in place since the 1930s and used on projects that include the Hoover Dam and the Alaska pipeline.

“Sit down and negotiate a PLA,” he advised the council.

Reach Ryan McCarthy at 427-6935 or [email protected]

Ryan McCarthy

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 7 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • Rick WoodApril 16, 2014 - 1:31 am

    Exactly what does the City staff get to negotiate when the City Council is representing the proponents?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksApril 16, 2014 - 5:52 am

    Of course.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • FDCApril 16, 2014 - 8:02 am

    Who benefits from a PLA? I suspect the principal beneficiaries are the unions, not the taxpayers. Where am I going wrong? How does a PLA insure "on time, on budget"? Is it true that by stifling competition prices could be higher? There is something truly fishy about the whole transaction. And the whole thinks stinks since the train station is a terrible waste of taxpayer's money and time because we don't need the damned thing, period.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksApril 16, 2014 - 8:12 am

    FDC, you can't see me right now but I am bowing to you. Thank you for your perfectly stated comment! :)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • FDCApril 16, 2014 - 2:23 pm

    Let's keep fighting this thing, CD. It is a rotten deal, period. Someone said we would lose out on some free money to help build it. But, they ignored that the "free" money came out of our pockets in the first place. This whole deal was cooked up by unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the One Bay Area bunch, abetted by Jim Spearing - who happens to own a lot of property in the immediate vicinity. Let's build the overpass and let the market decide if a choo choo stop is really needed.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksApril 16, 2014 - 2:57 pm

    FDC, they pretty much slammed us here and now there's evidence property owner are part of the process? Doesn't sound right. I agree DRIP!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • SteveApril 16, 2014 - 3:20 pm

    The Capital Corridor runs 30 trains per day between Sacramento and San Jose. They have previously determined a station in Fairfield-Vacaville is warranted. They are increasing train service to San Jose. Soon you will be able to board a train in Fairfield and connect to BART in Emeryville or commute all the way to Silicon Valley. If you want to look at the agency's business plan it is online at: http://www.capitolcorridor.org/included/docs/business_plans/14_16_Business_Plan.pdf

    Reply | Report abusive comment

Special Publications »

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
Copyright (c) 2015 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.