Organized Labor

“All land use is political,” the supervisor said.

Whatever opinion one might have of his statement, it was a clear-eyed view of a reality that affects our work, especially in a city as densely built already as San Francisco. Here nothing can be built without some real effect on its environs. Even an attempt at an exact replacement of a building to be demolished would have some effect through the construction process itself.

Laws and regulations offer a variety of points of leverage to individuals or organizations that want to advance an agenda through opposing construction projects at various points in their entitlement. Does a project add to traffic? If it does not put additional cars on the street, does it give adequate support to public transit instead? How does it affect wind? Sunlight? Views? Does it alter the character of a neighborhood? Is it architecturally appropriate? Does it increase office space beyond prescribed limits? Does it depend on a chain store tenant? Does it replace scarce blue-collar jobs with bedrooms for Silicon Valley commuters? Ask these questions or others like them, ask them again, push them forward at the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors, show that you have allies or claim that you have them, and politicians are obliged to listen to you. Then ask for what you want. Stop the project, or allow it to be built, but….

Any such effort affects our livelihoods. We build to eat.

Often enough we will sympathize with the effort. Sometimes a project truly is bad for the environment. Many of us do live in the City, and sometimes a project truly is bad for our neighborhood. Many of us would like to see opportunities for blue-collar work or residency in the City preserved and even expanded. We treasure sunlight on a park bench. We prize the homegrown coffee house or panadería or Italian deli or phô

The needs of our families put a certain perspective on these sympathies.

Sometimes opposition to a project arises from a union that is not part of the building trades. A union might conclude that it must press questions about a project if it is to have a fair chance at organizing the businesses that would occupy the completed project. We are even more inclined to sympathize with that union’s efforts. We understand the value of solidarity. If that union reaches out to us, if it shows us that it understands the needs of building trades workers at the same time as it strives to fulfill the needs of its own workers, we are likely to follow our genuine sympathies and cooperate with it. Sometimes this cooperation would be overt. Sometimes it would be subtle, but no less real.

This has been the nature of our relationship with UNITE-HERE (Hotel and Restaurant Employees) Local 2. When Local 2 has needed something from a project, it has made a point of consulting with us. When we have perceived that a project might affect Local 2, we have consulted with it. We have both benefited. Conditions that we have helped to achieve have permitted Local 2 to organize successfully in hotel after hotel. In turn, Local 2 under the leadership of Mike Casey made history by negotiating in its latest hard-fought contract a provision that all construction worth more than two thousand dollars must be performed by union contractors if they are available, and at prevailing wage even if they are not. Organized Labor reported on this provision. Local newspapers such as the Chronicle did not. It was reported by national construction publications, however; they recognized its importance.

We should be able to hope for similar cooperation from other unions not a part of the building trades. We are completely justified in asking that they respect the needs of our workers while working on behalf of their own. We have taken steps to reach out to some. When the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) was on strike last year against California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC), for example, they believed that CPMC management was making claims to its board that labor was divided in its support for the strike, and they asked me for a letter refuting these claims on behalf of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades. I wrote the letter. SEIU-UHW used quotes from it online, where they can still be found at www.sutterstrikersforpatientcare.com/pdfs/ONtheLINE-for1011.pdf. I allowed our banner also to be used in their demonstrations. These gestures might not seem large, but they were made at some risk. CPMC has no obligation to use union contractors in its construction. Tensions were high at the time. The gestures could easily have infected our dealings with CPMC.

Solidarity said that these were the right actions to take, despite the risk.

Solidarity would ask for respect for our workers and their work in return.