LA-OC Building Trades Council Votes Unanimously to Oppose the Anaheim Job Killer Initiative

la-oc trades no job killer

This just came over the transom from the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council:

LA-OC Building Trades Council Votes Unanimously to Oppose the Anaheim Job Killer Initiative

ANAHEIM – The Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council, representing 48 local unions/affiliate councils and over 100,000 hardworking skilled trades members, announced today that they had voted unanimously to oppose the so-called Anaheim Resort Living Wage Initiative, also known as the Anaheim Job Killer Initiative.

The Building Trades Council said that while they believe in higher wages for working people, the proposed initiative is flawed because it seeks to impose them at the ballot box rather than at the negotiating table; it unfairly targets hotels that have agreed to Project Labor Agreements that bring high-paid, skilled construction jobs to local workers and veterans; and does not embrace the principles of increasing union membership, which coupled with hard work and personal improvement is the only long-term path to better pay and conditions for workers.

Ron Miller, Executive Secretary for the Council, release the following statement:

“The hardworking men and women of the many affiliates of the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council have voted unanimously, through their delegates, to oppose the so-called Anaheim Resort Living Wage Initiative. This measure will cost our members jobs, including jobs targeted to local residents and veterans in Anaheim, and therefore hurt Anaheim communities.”

“We are dedicated believers in higher wages for working people, so we do not take this position lightly. But when this proposal is viewed fairly, it is clear that it does more harm than good and should be opposed.”

“The proposal unfairly targets construction projects that our members fought hard to ensure would be built with only union, trade labor under a Project Labor Agreement. These projects give local Anaheim and Orange County residents and veterans who are members of the building trades the opportunity to make a good wage while working close to home. By emphasizing local hire, the higher wages that come with union construction labor also stay close to home and allow our members to be better participants in their community.”

“We have heard directly from targeted hotel developers that they would cancel projects if this measure were to become law, costing our members at least 3,000 jobs as well as the chance to work in the community where they live.”

“Finally, this proposal also does nothing to advance the cause of union membership. Similar measures in other cities have created incentives for employers to facilitate union membership, but this proposal does not contain those provisions. We strongly believe that workers bargaining collectively is the best way to achieve higher wages, and in that important measure, this proposal also falls short.”

“The proposed ARLWI does not advance the organization of working people, and thus will not improve the lives of hard-working Anaheim residents. It will in fact do them harm by costing thousands of jobs. Join us in voting no!”

The Building Trades Council pledged to work with the existing business-labor-community coalition to oppose the measure should it qualify for the ballot.

2 comments

  1. This action by the Building Trades Council alone speaks volumes. A major trade union recognizes the red flags of this initiative and acknowledge that the hotel union heads have failed in their job as negotiators. This is a labor dispute in which government and the citizens of whom they represent should not be involved. This initiative sets a very destructive precedent. The city is setting itself up for some enormous legal problems.

  2. OK, here is the current status of things.

    The Unions turned in their signatures, and cannot turn in any more.

    The Registrar of Voters has until June 15th to verify and count the signatures, and with all the other matters currently ahead of them, including the election and other initiatives turned in ahead of them, don’t expect the result until then

    If not enough valid signatures, then the Unions would have to start over from Step 1, and hopefully a better written initiative would be circulated, one that has a lot less impact to the city, doesn’t void signed contracts, give Tips an exclusion, etc.

    If enough signatures are gathered, then at the next council meeting, more than likely June 19th, a 30 day Fiscal Impact Report would be ordered and written by an outside contractor and submitted to the council.

    At the July meeting, the council would decide to place it on the ballot, or just make it law.

    At Tuesday’s Council Meeting, the City Manager was directed to find a third party contractor and prepare a contract for the council to approve. So if there are enough valid signatures, the process will move ahead, but protect spending money unless it is necessary.

    It was also clear from Tuesday’s meeting that the council would not make it law, but place it on the ballot in November (Deadline to decide is July 31st).

    So what would the Impact Report include, more than likely the following, though might be more….

    Initiative lawsuits – Would the city be open to lawsuits (and their costs) and how many.

    How many different businesses would have to pay the new wage

    Impact on TOT and general fund revenues

    Convention Center Impact – Since it is city owned, loss of revenue due to less events.

    Job losses from multiple reasons created by the initiative

    Loss of new businesses

    Pension impact by lesser earnings for Disney and other business held in the portfolios

    Cost to the city to manage and supervise the new rules.

    Impact on the Resort District

    So it is wait and see now….

    By the way, here is what the Fiscal Report would contain from the staff report.

    (1) Its fiscal impact.

    (2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans.

    (3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.

    (4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space.

    (5) Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment.

    (6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.

    (7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.

    (8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Skip to toolbar