 
|
|||||||||
              
|
Editorial: Boom or bust How to hire city residents for city construction jobs Sunday, March 21, 1999
Downtown Pittsburgh is on the verge of another building boom. With the construction of two stadiums, a new convention center, at least one hotel and revamped retail space, the Golden Triangle and its environs will soon be overrun by building-trades workers.
Unfortunately, if current patterns hold up, not many of them will be Pittsburgh residents and not many will be African Americans. Yet, in this city (as in most others), unemployment is higher than in adjacent communities.
Four years ago, the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Social and Urban Research released a study that described a depressing situation for black workers. It reported that blacks in Pittsburgh have among the highest unemployment rates and the lowest labor-force participation rate of 50 of the nation's largest cities.
City Councilman Sala Udin wants to address that problem at least with regard to construction jobs created by city funds, city-managed federal or state grants and city-sponsored funding packages like tax-increment financing. His "Pittsburgh Works" plan would require city residents to be hired for 50 percent of the positions in all city-funded construction projects worth more than $200,000. The proposal also would set aside 25 percent of the jobs for minorities and 10 percent for women.
While we're in sync with the councilman on the need to train and hire more city residents for well-paying crafts jobs, we disagree that Pittsburgh Works is the remedy.
City Solicitor Jacqueline Morrow issued a 12-page opinion last week that said the councilman's bill would certainly be challenged in court and ultimately would be found illegal. She's probably right.
For one thing, the bill's 50 percent residency requirement could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, which prevents state and local governments from regulating interstate commerce. For another, the proposal may be overreaching by trying to control jobs that are not "clearly traceable" to city money.
The affirmative action plan also could be thrown out by federal courts because it lacks a key ingredient that the Supreme Court has demanded for similar programs in other cities: a citywide study that demonstrates minorities and women are discriminated against in hiring.
To survey the terrain, City Council in 1995 approved the use of a "disparity study," which got under way only in January. Councilman Udin is a member of the committee overseeing the study, which may not be finished until the fall.
Once those results are known, the city will be in a better position to craft a legally defensible response to racial underrepresentation in public-works jobs (which, because of the city's large black population, also would increase jobs for city residents). In the meantime, Councilman Udin and his allies should focus on other means to the end they are seeking - including a partnership with city schools to ensure adequate vocational education.
The final piece of the puzzle is one that historically in Pittsburgh has been difficult to fit in. It involves the building-trades unions and the contractors that hire them.
Thirty years ago, the Black Construction Coalition, under the leadership of activist Nate Smith, put pressure on the industry to open its doors to minority job-seekers. What emerged then was the Pittsburgh Plan, a program in which the building trades agreed to train and hire blacks for construction jobs. In 1999, those efforts need to be emulated.
Despite its flaws, Councilman Udin's legislation revisits the issue and, at a minimum, exerts pressure in the right direction. There is no better time for Mayor Murphy, the Allegheny County commissioners and a delegation of council members to meet with labor and business on renewing their commitment to spread the benefits of the construction bonanza.
A rising tide may lift all boats, but a tide of new jobs helps the city only if city workers get their fair share.
|
||||||||
