Organized Labor

Most of us who have worn or who wear the tools know from long personal experience that a developer or contractor who shortchanges Labor is inclined also to cut other corners. By balking at committing to make a project all union a developer says that health care for workers and their families, that pensions, that decent wages, that apprenticeship opportunities are of little or no concern, since only a very insignificant number of non-union contractors in this area offer these, and even then always at a level far below what our union contracts provide. The developer thereby manifests a devotion to the bottom line even at the expense of the public good. It is reasonable to expect that the developer will shortchange the public good in other ways.

When we heard that construction of condominiums at Market and Buchanan was proposed by a developer whose one prior substantial project in San Francisco had mixed union and non-union contractors, then, we surmised that this new project could be infected by just such a bottom-line pox. Noting that it would be built at the site of an old gas station and on a serpentinite hill, we saw a real possibility that the developer would shortchange environmental requirements.

We contracted with a law firm that specializes in the California Environmental Quality Act to watch how the developer addressed environmental requirements. The developer filed a “mitigated negative declaration” in place of a full environmental impact report, or “EIR.” Our attorneys told us this was not adequate. We instructed them to appeal for an EIR.

The appeal went first to the Planning Commission, which rejected it. We decided to take it to the Board of Supervisors. The Board scheduled a hearing for 4 August.

Meanwhile we approached our expected Labor problem with the developer on a parallel track. I called the developer and left a voice mail saying that I was calling on behalf of the Building Trades. He didn’t answer for months, not until we filed our appeal. We then sat down with him and offered him a draft project labor agreement. He soon refused this. He has not been willing yet even to discuss its details.

The developer has recently said that the job will be “mostly” union and that the project will have a union signatory general contractor. Nonetheless as of this writing he has made commitments that affect only six of the twenty-eight affiliates of this Council. He has expressly declined an invitation to meet with the other trades individually. He has not made commitments to all the basic crafts and has made none at all to the subcrafts.

As the 4 August hearing approached, Supervisor Bevan Dufty, in whose district the project would be built, asked that we accept a continuance until September to give us time to work out our environmental and Labor conflicts with the developer. Although we were very doubtful that the developer would ever commit to an all-union project, out of respect to the Supervisor we acceded to his request.

At the 4 August Board of Supervisors meeting Supervisor Dufty moved to continue the appeal to September.

Then Supervisor Chris Daly spoke up.

He said that he found it “ironic” that we would criticize him for opposing our work while we ourselves opposed a project that was “mostly union.” He noted that the project had neighborhood support (although neighbors have filed a separate appeal against it). He complained of my May column, “Why We Protested,” and held up a copy of Organized Labor. He finished by saying, “Hey hey, ho ho, Mike Theriault has got to go.” The vote then went ten to one for continuance, Daly dissenting.

This was a cartoonish attack. I was present at the meeting to argue for approval of an addition to Drew School, an all-union project, under a subsequent agenda item. When my turn to testify came, I made light at first of the attack. I still find it comic at one level.

But at another level it was entirely serious, and entirely anti-union.

It is first of all not enough for a developer to say “mostly union.” This Council unrepentantly demands private construction that is all union. But even that “mostly” is belied by the developer’s refusal to meet with most trades. Supervisor Daly has prided himself on standing up against developers on behalf of workers. That he would publicly parrot a developer’s assertions without even inquiring with Labor about them is understandable in view of our recent conflict with him, but is no less for that a violation of his declared principles.

Far worse, though, is this: To attack a Building Trades official for insisting that a project be all union is to advocate the open shop in construction. And this: To suggest that a project that is not all union answers our call for more jobs is to say to Building Trades members, If you want to work on this project, be prepared to hide your union card in your boot and go rat.

I do not personally believe that Supervisor Daly would say that he stands for the open shop, if he stopped a moment to reflect on it. More likely he simply could not resist an opportunity to attack someone he now saw as an opponent and to throw back a jibe that was thrown his way in our 21 April demonstration at the San Francisco Democratic Party “Unity” Luncheon. Certainly he has been one of the most eager defenders of the Service Employees International Union and is beloved of many of its members; they will not hear that he is anything other than pro-union. Yet his fixation on personal attack without reflection on the grounds of it freights him with the full consequences of what he has said.

A teacher of mine once told us that we needed to distinguish “tragic” -- a word she considered overused – from “terribly too bad.” I have used “tragicomedy” in this column’s title, but in reality Supervisor Daly’s attack on me is just another instance of what I find terribly too bad in his recent performance. Our Council did endorse his reelection in 2006. We did so despite his earlier conflict with Larry Mazzola of the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters and our deep respect and affection for Brother Mazzola. It seemed then that Supervisor Daly was consistently finding ways to make development serve both our needs and the needs of the broader community. He made remarkable deals on the Rincon Hill and Trinity Plaza projects. These seemed to bespeak a growing maturity, even a statesmanship, and we had good reason to hope that we might even see at least a grudging Mazzola-Daly accommodation. Justifiably the Supervisor claims still that he has been instrumental in entitling much work for us.

But if a man cooks you a steak dinner, that doesn’t give him the right to beat you over the head with the frying pan.

More recently, Supervisor Daly tried to impose requirements on Lennar’s Hunters Point project that would have killed the project. He offered no viable alternative. He criticized harshly the Labor Council for making a Community Benefits Agreement with Lennar that stands as the best such agreement ever achieved in this country. He proposed identical requirements on the Treasure Island project that would have been equally fatal. Fortunately he was convinced to withdraw them. At our moment of direst need, he made no effort at a deal for the 110 the Embarcadero project, but instead made the motion that delayed it. He continues to work against it. And then there is the rewrite of the Planning Code that he is carrying for Aaron Peskin, a rewrite just a few of whose damaging effects I discussed in the column of which he complained 4 August.

I do not see in any of these moves a direct attack on us. I see instead that Supervisor Daly dismisses us as mere collateral damage in his other fights. What is terribly too bad is that these fights appear too often to have become an end in themselves for him – a politician of undeniable skills – at the expense sometimes of principle, at the expense often of possible real accomplishment. This is not comic. This is sad. This is a waste.