Current leaders of the Building Trades Council are now trying to get the city council to adopt the voting language to reverse Proposition A. The irony is that Proposal A does not prohibit all project employment contracts. Conversely, Proposal A was developed to allow flexibility and protect the city from the decay of public or federal funds. Incredibly, this potential loss became the number one argument of the current construction industry management when it called for a voting measure that, if passed, would swing Proposal A. Public opinion also wanted to prevent politicians from imposing what is called a monopoly through unfair project employment contracts, which seem superficially harmless. They are not harmless. It`s not even fair and open. If we follow the recent history of construction, as observed with similar efforts in school districts and in some regional cities, we will see a second phase that will eventually replace Proposal A with the requirement that all taxpayer-funded work be carried out under a project employment contract favorable to construction unions. Building trade leadership attempts to use its considerable political influence to advance the voting measure through legislation, which eliminates the need to obtain the signatures necessary for such an election measure. Employment contracts are available in PDF format below and can be viewed with Adobe Acrobat Reader (free). Click the document you want to open. You can view, print and/or save this file. Let`s be clear, it`s a well-known fact that many of San Diego`s major construction projects have been successfully built without the use of project employment contracts.
In the past, under the more enlightened leadership of the construction union, union and non-union contractors have worked side by side on many high-level construction projects aimed at improving San Diego. The successes we have seen with these training programs have been life-changing. Apprentices hired under these programmes, both by open enterprises and trade union companies, are now construction project managers, project managers and, most importantly, emerging contractors of small minority companies. Why would anyone think it is a good idea to jeopardise these important urban training programmes, unless the aim is to legislate on these programmes? To think that the extinction of these important, life-changing programs – especially in our city centres – could be at stake is simply unacceptable.