The Mayor's Veto

Only three times has Jerry Abramson used his veto power. And two of those times were to veto bills that set minimum pay levels for government-funded building projects.

The usual suspects are making the usual comments about the bill and the veto. Here's my take on it:

Wages are one of the largest expenses of any construction project. Moving those wages up by $1 an hour, say, can have significant impact on the overall cost of the project, and thus on the profit. I can see why construction companies want to keep wages as low as possible.

But, if you put in place a prevailing-wage provision for government-funded jobs, at least everyone bidding on the job is playing on a level field. All the bidders will have to pay roughly the same wages. Therefore, the profit will go to the company that knows how to work efficiently, not to the company that knows how to hire low-end and illegal workers.

Secondly, why shouldn't local money go to local workers? The local-worker provision hasn't gotten much press, but it seems to me to be more important than the prevailing-wage provision. If a company is forced to hire a majority of their workers from the area, they are going to wind up paying close to the prevailing wage anyway. In fact, I would have been fine with a local-worker provision alone, because I think the marketplace would have pushed up the wages paid on the work.

I'm a progressive, but I'm also a pragmatist. If I saw numbers that showed that there weren't enough local workers to staff the contracts currently under way, thus driving costs for the city above a reasonable level, then I might change my mind on this. But I bet there are plenty of workers, and plenty of out-of-town workers willing to come take our jobs. So, I think this was a bad veto.

Mayor Jer's comment about this being an obstacle to creating jobs just doesn't wash. If this bill had become law, I bet we would still have lots of firms bid on contracts, and I bet the work would get done. It might cost more, but the number of jobs would be the same. The only way I can see this having a negative impact on job creation is if it caused all bids to go up so much that we had to plan less projects -- but that isn't what the Mayor said, nor has anyone else hinted at that as a problem.

No, the bottom line is that the business community wants to be able to pay the lowest wage possible, AND to bring in non-union, imported, and illegal workers, and thus to make their profits as large as possible, even at the detriment of the local workers and local community. And Jerry Abramson went along with that.

Does the veto signal that Hizzoner is not going to run for mayor again? Hard to say. He has always charted his own course, sometimes acting more like a Republican on business issues but more like a Democrat on others. And of course, the business people this helped will probably be more than willing to support his re-election bid, if he chooses to run. So, I don't think it's the "big signal" some have said.

I hope, frankly, that the bill's sponsors meet with Jerry and see if there is a compromise. (BTW, in a radio interview, he seemed miffed that they hadn't done so before bringing it to the Council.) I hope they can salvage at least the local-worker option. That alone would make the bill worth saving, and a compromise that most would support. Here's hoping that is the outcome.