Thursday, May 7, 2009 | Someone…Please elaborate on “local hire”. The local Union work force in San Diego is unable to handle the quantity of work that will be pushed through this bond measure. Define “local”. I believe that a sample or draft PLA may define local as approximately 25% of high priority zip codes. This is not anywhere close to adequate in my opinion. Does local mean workers from LA working out of a San Diego Union Hall? Let’s take a look at the Hoover High project that was referenced. Without research, I would assume that well over 50% local hire was achieved without the misleading requirement and/or promise of local hire. Let the appropriate personnel, which might be the Oversight Committee research the previous bond measure (Prop. MM) in regards to local hire. Wait…The Oversight Committes is being told that they are a “rear view mirror” operation. Instead of preventing the accident or mistake, they will only be able to look back at the disastrous outcome…Wow!

Without a doubt, the outcome of Prop MM research will show that local hire was not an issue and not only will a PLA not improve the percentages of local hire but it will dramatically decrease the rates. Unless of course, the definition of “local” is created to favor these far fetched promises and advance the few individuals that will benefit. Should we attempt to revamp and fix a system that is not broken?

Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published.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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.