Community Workforce Agreements

A Time and a Tool to Build Labor-Community Partnerships

In 2009, three years before his untimely death, Mark Ayers, then president of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD), declared, “There has never been a more opportune time for labor and community to come together in powerful coalitions.” That year, with his support and encouragement, the BCTD began working with the Partnership for Working Families and Cornell University to build labor-community coalitions in order simultaneously to expand access to careers in unionized construction for underrepresented minorities and to elevate the level of unionization in the industry. Forming partnerships that bring together building trades unions and community organizations to promote job quality and job access should be seen in the larger context of ongoing labor-community initiatives designed to shape regional economic development strategies that serve the needs and interests of working-class families.

“We, in the building trades, have a responsibility to help restore hope by offering real opportunities in the construction industry,” continued Ayers. “We have to demonstrate to communities of color that we’re serious and that we’re reliable friends. … We have to actually create these pathways and help people get on a track that leads to a lifetime career.” One of the most effective tools that building trades unionists and community leaders have been using to achieve the dual goals of high-quality job creation in the construction industry and fair and equitable access to those jobs is the Community Workforce Agreement (CWA). The introduction of CWAs has helped to establish decent and well-protected jobs in communities where there is high need. In an economic climate replete with cuts to pay and attacks on working conditions, CWAs stand out as remarkably successful in building long-term relationships between communities, unions, and businesses. These agreements also have the potential to re-shape, at least in part, perceptions of the role unions play in promoting the public interest, whereby unions are seen as less insular organizations, principally focused on benefits to their current members, and as more inclusive and collaborative entities, working with communities on an economic development agenda that generates good jobs and lifetime careers.

Defined briefly, CWAs are Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) that include provisions to promote social investment and to create career opportunities for economically disadvantaged populations. CWAs typically include targeted hiring programs, apprenticeship utilization requirements, and other instruments to create viable pathways into unionized building trades careers. Very little has been written about what a CWA commonly entails and the extent to which CWAs address the triple challenge of job creation, job quality, and job access. Questions remain regarding how widely CWAs are being used in the construction industry and how CWAs deliver strategic value to both building trades unions and urban communities of color. This paper answers these questions and, in so doing, sheds light on a mechanism through which coalitions are able to positively shape the economic environment within communities.

A National Study of PLAs and CWAs

PLAs are project-specific collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) used in the construction industry that cover terms and conditions of employment for all the crafts, are tailored to the needs of a particular project, and offer stability and cost efficiencies to public and private sector end-users. As noted, CWAs are types of PLAs. In 2011, Cornell University’s ILR School conducted the first national study of PLAs and CWAs that reviewed the characteristics of these agreements, evaluated the nature and extent of their use, and revealed their potential value to low-income communities. This research project examined how CWAs can provide social and economic benefits to women, minorities, and poor and at-risk residents.

The Cornell project was sponsored by American Rights at Work and was conducted independently but with the cooperation of the AFL-CIO’s BCTD. The project combined three research methodologies. First, the content of 185 PLAs, administered by about 70 Building and Construction Trades Councils (BCTCs), was examined. Second, a written survey was distributed to more than 300 BCTCs, with 45 questionnaires received and analyzed—representing a broad cross-section of councils in terms of size and geography. Finally, three case studies of CWA implementation were conducted: Cleveland University Hospital, D.C. Nationals Stadium, and New York City PLAs.

The research reveals that CWAs are being widely used across the United States. We discovered that each PLA/CWA is uniquely designed to address the particular challenges of each geographically determined construction market and the specific needs of the local community. There is a wide range of community workforce provisions, and their implementation varies from case to case. But, in general, this study demonstrates that CWAs are becoming more common and more comprehensive.

A Background on PLAs and CWAs

Unionized jobs within the construction industry provide considerable advantages over those without collective representation. Because they offer decent wages and benefits and superior worksite conditions, these jobs are highly competitive and have been even more so since the economic crisis in 2008. Access to these jobs generally requires high levels of training, often obtained through formal apprenticeship programs. Traditionally, minorities and others from marginalized populations have struggled to obtain equal access to these apprenticeship programs, which they have generally had.

PLAs are comprehensive contracts that are negotiated between construction users and BCTCs. PLAs are pre-hire agreements that are negotiated without unions having to demonstrate majority status and before any workers are actually hired. PLAs are used in both private- and public-sector construction and cover all of the trades on a single project. The term of a PLA coincides with the duration of the project. The PLA covers wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions; standardizes otherwise incompatible work schedules and apprentice-journey-level ratios; and provides for dispute resolution on the covered project. Research, as detailed later in this article, has documented the benefits of PLAs in relation to cost efficiencies, workplace safety, and dispute resolution.

Community workforce provisions in PLAs help generate demand for apprentices. Giving targeted populations privileged access to union-based apprenticeship programs is meaningful only if there are sufficient employment opportunities for apprentices. Pre-apprenticeship programs can recruit individuals and prepare them for successful entry into and completion of skilled crafts apprenticeships, but progress through the apprenticeship requires a stipulated number of hours worked each year. As a result, there must be sufficient demand for apprentices in order for the system to deliver on its promise of lifetime construction careers. Moreover, the union-based apprenticeship system is supported and sustained by the collective bargaining process, of which PLAs and CWAs are an increasingly important part. That apprenticeship system represents the most effective training mechanism in the United States, with 15,000 certified instructors and 1,500 state-of-the-art training facilities, supported by the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars of private capital.

Collective bargaining is essential to a vibrant apprenticeship system because construction contractors generally lack the resources or will to invest in training on their own. Given the transient nature of employment in the industry, individual employers fear that investments in training their current employees might benefit their competitors when their current employees go to work for other employers. But through the collective bargaining process, employers agree to invest in jointly administered apprenticeship programs that offer industry-wide skills training. CWAs are critical elements of the entire system and ensure fair and equitable access to it.

The Context for CWAs

Prior to his death, Mark Ayers emerged as a strong advocate for labor-community partnerships in general and CWAs in particular. He assumed the leadership of the BCTD in October 2007, at a time when construction unionists faced a wide range of strategic challenges. While the building trades still represented one of the strongest sectors of the American labor movement, they had endured a steady decline in union density and market share throughout the post–World War II era. Although innovative organizing strategies and market recovery programs had slowed the decline in some areas, there were many jurisdictions where the building trades had been marginalized.

One of the obstacles to union revitalization in the construction industry was a tendency on the part of building trades leaders to react and respond to non-union projects long after the most consequential decisions in the development process had been made and could not easily be reversed. To overcome this obstacle, building trades unionists began to explore ways to intervene in the economic development process early enough to affect decisions about which contractors would be hired for upcoming projects.

In markets where construction unions still retained some power and presence, the building trades would fight for PLAs. In weaker union markets, they fought for standards—like prevailing wages or apprenticeship utilization—that would hopefully level the competitive playing field and enable signatory contractors to successfully bid on major projects. In either case, building trades unions faced a plethora of barriers, not the least of which were urban communities equally or even more concerned about the economic development process than the building trades, struggling to ensure that new construction projects provided badly needed jobs for workers of color, and deeply skeptical of organized labor.

Dating back to the 1960s, the unionized construction industry was a focal point for the civil rights movement as communities of color witnessed a construction boom offering the false promise of good jobs for urban residents. Because of discriminatory hiring practices, the overwhelming majority of union construction jobs went to white workers. In New York City, for example, 92 percent of building trades union members were white. Some of the skilled trades had virtually no African American members. Decades later, despite significant progress in some markets in integrating the building trades, urban communities remained (and indeed, some still remain) skeptical of union claims that PLAs would deliver economic benefits to disadvantaged populations. ¹

At the same time, building trades unionists confronted a decidedly anti-labor political climate in which the promulgation of PLAs was becoming increasingly difficult. These leaders soon discovered that there were fewer and fewer markets where the building trades retained enough political clout to secure PLAs or even to set minimal standards on their own. In places like Los Angeles and Oakland, construction unionists and community leaders came together—often after contentious campaigns—to explore ways to simultaneously address building trades’ interests in capturing work and community interests in expanding access to unionized construction careers.

It was largely in that context—moving past the contested terrain that had divided community and labor for too long and moving toward the field of shared interests that could unite community and labor—that the CWA was devised. In the last few decades, many billions of dollars of construction have been performed under CWAs in major construction markets like New York City and Los Angeles. What had not yet been determined prior to this study is how widely these innovative agreements have been used. Answering that question became more urgent with the convergence of two intersecting developments.

First, as the political center of gravity has shifted to the right, opposition to PLAs has become more vigorous and vitriolic. In some places, like San Diego, they have been outlawed outright. It has, therefore, become a strategic imperative for building trades leaders to make a persuasive and compelling case that PLAs serve the public interest. That case cannot be made simply by touting cost efficiencies alone. Arguing that PLAs encourage safer job sites or discourage work stoppages—both demonstrably true claims—has proven largely unconvincing to elected leaders and the general public. Likewise, showing that unionized construction jobs are high quality, family supporting, and economically stimulating is unlikely to engender broad community support if those communities have no confidence that there will be fair and equitable access to those jobs. Because CWAs appear to be an effective tool to ensure both job quality and job access, they offer an argument likely to resonate in the public domain. This is especially true since the Occupy Wall Street movement has helped alter the public discourse by shining a light on the problem of economic inequality.

Second, the catastrophic levels of unemployment in urban communities of color and depression levels of unemployment in the construction industry since 2008 make for a potentially volatile mix in which community and labor fight in a zero-sum struggle. Without expanding the union market through creative strategies that include CWAs and labor-community coalitions, current union members who are unemployed—“sitting on the bench,” in building trades parlance—will be loath to open up employment opportunities for new members. Similarly, a community fight for fair and equitable access to unionized construction careers can only lead to a pyrrhic victory if construction projects continue to go nonunion. What is needed is a multi-dimensional strategy that can be pursued jointly by community and labor and that addresses both sets of needs. Any such strategy should support projects that require the utilization of apprentices, ensure access to targeted populations, and engage contractors who agree to build under the terms of CWAs.

CWAs may be a critical element of an active labor strategy encouraging the promotion of good jobs and economic development. But while necessary, they are not sufficient. CWAs can be effective only if labor and community come together in a collaborative way so that: community-based organizations engage in the outreach, recruitment, and selection of potential apprentices; pre-apprenticeship programs prepare candidates for the successful entry into and completion of union apprenticeships; union-based apprenticeship programs welcome and support new entrants from targeted communities; contractors agree to the terms of CWAs with apprenticeship utilization requirements that generate employment opportunities for newly inducted trainees; and union, community, elected, and industry leaders work together to monitor and enforce the terms of the CWAs.

This paper explains our research methodology, examines the results, and explores their implications for public policy, union- and community-organizing strategies, and economic development agendas. Hopefully, its analysis and conclusions will inform the thinking of policy makers and inspire others to continue to expand the use of CWAs to promote job creation, job quality, and job access.

The Most Common CWA Provisions within PLAs

Figure 1 shows the overall frequency distribution of CWA provisions as determined by their inclusion in the 185 PLAs reviewed. The most widely adopted provision was H2H, which is a program established to connect veterans to construction industry careers. This provision was found in 139 PLAs reviewed. The second most widely adopted provision was the requirement for hiring of minorities and women, which was included in 103 PLAs. Provisions setting goals or requirements for employment of local residents were found in 70 PLAs, and provisions about employment of disadvantaged and at-risk workers were found in 45 agreements. One hundred PLAs included provisions about apprentice utilization requirements, 55 included provisions related to the utilization of pre-apprenticeship programs run by unions, and 6 included provisions about utilization of pre-apprenticeship programs run by community-based organizations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Distribution of CWA provisions across the sample.

The Extent of Provision Variations across the Sample

Taken on the whole, the PLAs that were reviewed vary widely in terms of the number of key provisions they include, ranging from the most comprehensive to the most limited (including one or none of these provisions). Table 1 shows that 10 percent of the PLAs (18 of 185) included 7 to 9 key community workforce provisions. Thirty-nine percent (73 agreements) included 4 to 6 key provisions, and 48 percent (88 agreements) included 1 to 3 key provisions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) by Number of Key Community Workforce Provisions.

Number of Key Provisions Included in the PLA	Number of PLAs	Percentage of Total PLAs Reviewed
7 to 9	18	10
4 to 6	73	39
1 to 3	88	48
0	6	3
TOTAL PLAs Reviewed	185	100

Delving more deeply into explaining these differences, variations in the number and type of provisions were measured according to geographic region, year, and BCTC size. The broad hypothesis was that characteristics of community workforce provisions are not uniform; that is, they would vary by region and size and would change over time.

The decision to explore variation along these lines was, on the one hand, a product of convenience—that is, the data allowed for differentiation by region, size, and time, and given that the literature had not yet explored these provisions in any depth, there was value in simply documenting the extent to which these provisions varied. On the other hand, there was a considerable degree of logic involved in exploring these variations; it was hypothesized, for instance, that CWA provisions would be growing over time, as their usage expanded beyond southern California and, in particular, as labor and community groups began to understand their benefits. Further, it was argued that variation by region would be found; this variation might depend on labor’s overall power in a particular region (for example, PLAs signed in southern states might be expected to have fewer CWA provisions than those signed in California or New York). It was expected that larger building trades councils would have an easier time negotiating more provisions into their PLAs, based on assumptions regarding their relative strength when compared against smaller councils.

Variability by Time

The data gathered under this study included the year during which the PLA agreement was negotiated. Using this information, a series of time-related variables was constructed, spanning the years of pre-2004, 2005 to 2008, and 2009 to 2010. The results were based on the percentage of CWA provisions within each timeframe’s cluster of PLAs to measure effects relative to the overall number of agreements studied in each time period (this helps to overcome a methodological concern that there were substantially fewer PLAs from the pre-2004 period than from any of the other year ranges). As noted above, the hypothesis was that there would be an increase in the numbers of CWA provisions found in PLAs over time and that the types of provisions may be shifting longitudinally as well.

Table 2 assesses the difference in the number of provisions by year of PLA. A number of notable differences were found across year ranges. PLAs signed prior to 2004 tended to be most likely to have zero provisions. On the other hand, none of the PLAs signed between 2009 and 2010 were found to have zero provisions, indicating a clear trend upward over time in terms of the number of PLAs including at least one CWA provision. Further, just over 50 percent of PLAs signed in 2009-2010 had one to three provisions, and about 40 percent had four to six provisions. These numbers are much higher than the pre-2004 group, wherein only 40 percent had one to three provisions and just above 20 percent had four to six. This suggests not only that CWA provisions have become far more common in recent years (as evidenced by the paucity of recent PLAs with zero provisions) but that these agreements are more likely to have the maximum number of provisions now than they were in the past. Such results suggest a growing acceptance regarding the importance and usefulness of negotiating CWA provisions into PLAs. Given the trends found, it might be expected that the inclusion of CWA provisions should continue to grow in coming years. ²

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Number of Community Workforce Agreement Provisions by Year Range (Percentage Based).

	Year Range
Number of Provisions	Pre-2004	2004 to 2008	2009 to 2010
0	16.7%	7.5%	0.0%
1 to 3	38.9%	40.0%	51.2%
4 to 6	22.0%	45.0%	40.2%
7 to 9	22.0%	7.5%	8.7%
Mean provisions	3	3	4
Least provisions	0	0	1
Most provisions	7	7	9

The variability among types of CWA provisions by year was also examined, as indicated in Figure 2. Again, considerable variation was found in the types of CWA provisions across years. Notably, H2H provisions were far more widespread in PLAs signed in 2009-2010 than in any other years. H2H provisions also follow a clearly progressive trend across years; that is, there were no H2H provisions in PLAs signed before 2004; however, the number of PLAs with H2H provisions rose to just under 60 percent between 2005 and 2008, and well over 90 percent of PLAs signed in 2009-2010 had these provisions. ³ Similarly, minority and women hiring provisions appear to be on the rise. About 45 percent of pre-2004 PLAs had a minority or women hiring provision, whereas over 50 percent of 2005-2008 PLAs had this provision; the number rose to 60 percent amongst PLAs signed between 2009 and 2010. On the other hand, provisions related to local hires and local residents as a percentage of employed apprentices tended to fall over time.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Frequency of individual provisions over time.

Variability by Geographic Region

Figure 3 shows the variability in number of CWA provisions by region. PLAs signed in the Mid-Atlantic region were the most likely to have seven to nine CWA provisions (at 23.5 percent of all Mid-Atlantic PLAs), whereas those signed in the Southeast were the least likely to have a high number of CWA provisions (zero percent of PLAs in the Southeast had seven to nine provisions, and only 10 percent had four to six provisions). The West, Northeast, and Midwest shared similar characteristics; just under half of all PLAs signed in these regions had between one and three CWA provision(s), and about 40 percent of PLAs in these regions had between four and six provisions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Variability in provisions by region.

These results suggest that the Mid-Atlantic region appeared to be more CWA friendly than any other region and that the CWA provisions were least likely to be popular within Southeast PLAs. These findings fit with the argument that strong variation would be found across the country; this variation is perhaps explained by the regional differences in relative power held by organized labor and construction unions, in particular. Where labor holds only a small amount of power, PLAs are less likely to include progressive community-based provisions.

However, it is interesting that Mid-Atlantic PLAs were more likely to contain higher numbers of CWA provisions than were PLAs negotiated in the West. It might be expected that PLAs signed in California would have the highest total provisions, given that CWAs originated in this region. This result is not easily explained and may require additional research to comprehend.

Beyond the number of provisions, the extent to which types of CWA provisions varied by geographic region was also measured. Were PLAs signed in California and other western states more likely to have local hire agreements than those signed in other states, for instance? The results, found in Figure 4, indicate considerable variability in the types of CWA provisions by region. Local hire arrangements were far more predominant in the West and Northeast than elsewhere. Provisions related to the economically disadvantaged and to implementation processes were disproportionately found in Mid-Atlantic PLAs, though these PLAs had very few provisions related to community participation in implementation and monitoring. In the Midwest, PLAs tended to include a substantial incidence of provisions on apprentice utilization but only small levels of other provisions. In the Southeast, only local and minority or women hiring provisions, H2H programs, and apprentice utilization tended to be included in PLAs.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Frequency of individual provisions by region.

Variability by Council Size

As the PLAs analyzed included the names of the BCTCs involved in the agreement, it was possible to combine this information with statistics on council receipts to estimate the size of each individual BCTC included in the PLA data as well as aggregate statewide totals. The BCTCs were classified into three broad categories: small (less than $100,000 in receipts), medium ($100,000 to $500,000 in receipts), and large (greater than $500,000 in receipts) units. The hypothesis was that large BCTCs would ostensibly hold more relative bargaining power and therefore would be able to negotiate higher numbers of provisions into their PLAs.

Figure 5 provides the number of CWA provisions by size of the BCTC. Only small variations were found in numbers of provisions by BCTC size. It appeared that larger BCTCs were slightly less likely to have large numbers of CWA provisions, whereas small councils were most likely to have between four and six provisions. However, there was no strong trend to suggest that size of the council heavily influenced its likelihood to include CWA provisions. On the whole, therefore, the hypothesis related to relative strength of large councils determining higher numbers of provisions cannot be confirmed.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Variability in provisions by council size.

Beyond the number of provisions included in the PLAs, this analysis explored whether the size of the BCTC influenced the types of provisions included. Were small BCTCs more likely to include apprentice utilization, for example? Findings (see Figure 6) indicate that there was more variation in type of provisions by size than there was in number of provisions. Notably, women or minority hiring provisions were most likely to be included in PLAs negotiated by small BCTCs and progressively less likely to be found in PLAs negotiated by larger councils. Although additional survey research is needed to explain this trend, it is possible that the women or minority category is more likely to overlap with other targeted categories in the geographic areas corresponding to large councils. As a result of this overlap, targeted employment of women or minorities may be made effective through other types of provisions such as local hire employment or pre-apprenticeship utilization requirements. It is also possible that women are a lower percentage of the overall workforce in small BCTCs. Over 70 percent of small BCTCs had a woman/minority hiring provision, whereas the number fell to 60 percent at medium-sized councils and dropped to just over 30 percent in agreements negotiated by large councils. On the other hand, where community involvement provisions were included, they were almost entirely connected with large BCTCs. Finally, medium-sized councils tended to favor women-, minority-, or locally owned business provisions more than any other BCTC sizes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Frequency of individual provisions by council size.

Cleveland University Hospital–Cleveland BCTC PLA

The Cleveland BCTC and the Cleveland University Hospital negotiated a PLA in 2007 for a $1 billion plan covering nine construction projects, generating more than 5,200 construction jobs and more than $500 million in wages and benefits. Representing more than 11,000 members, the Cleveland BCTC and its affiliates have participated in numerous private- and public-sector PLAs, amounting to more than $3 billion in value. The Cleveland BCTC is part of a labor-management coalition known as the Union Construction Industry Partnership (UCIP), which involves 1,200 contractors in the Cleveland metropolitan area. The partnership runs the Apprenticeship Skill Achievement Program (ASAP), which is a pre-apprenticeship program that recruits women, minorities, and economically disadvantaged individuals in the Cleveland metropolitan area and provides them with direct entry into union apprenticeship programs.

The Cleveland BCTC–University Hospital PLA instituted community workforce goals that applied to all construction work performed within the City of Cleveland. Such goals established a target of 20 percent representation of city residents in the projects’ workforce, required the utilization of the Max S. Hayes Vocational High School pre-apprenticeship program as a vehicle for recruitment of local youth, and established targets for the utilization of women- or minority-owned businesses. The targets applied to the project workforce as a whole, as opposed to individual crafts. Thus, electricians could reach only 10 percent of the local residency goal, while laborers could exceed the 20 percent target and reach 40 percent of the local residency representation. As part of the women-minority business utilization goals, contractors were required to use best efforts to place the highest priority on the creation of contracting opportunities for minority- or women-owned businesses as well as for local small businesses; the Cleveland University Hospital committed to develop reasonable efforts to award 15 percent of the combined aggregate value of the projects to minority-owned businesses and 5 percent to women-owned businesses.

To meet their goals, the parties set up an implementation process that committed unions to 1) authorize city residents eligible for union membership to participate in the PLA-covered projects through UCIP/ASAP in all crafts, 2) require that UCIP/ASAP promote the placement and retention of city residents in apprenticeship programs, 3) enroll sufficient entry-level UCIP/ASAP participants and graduate sufficient graduates to meet the project requirements, and 4) grant the city’s mayor the right to select one member of the UCIP/ASAP board. Unions also committed to recognize Max Hayes’ curriculum as “classroom time applied to the hourly apprenticeship requirement.” This requirement was formalized with a written agreement of cooperation between the Cleveland Municipal School District and the unions. In addition, unions agreed to dedicate, on an annual basis, one UCIP/ASAP class to Max Hayes building trades graduates. Contractors as well as unions were required to provide jobs to Max Hayes graduates, and Cleveland University Hospital committed to utilize on covered projects those Max Hayes graduates who enrolled in the union apprenticeship program.

The parties to the agreement engaged Minority Business Solutions, a for-profit consulting firm, to assist with both the outreach to key populations and the hiring process. The City of Cleveland was designated as a third-party beneficiary for the purposes of enforcing goals, and tripartite meetings of union representatives, hospital management, and city officials were held on a monthly basis to monitor compliance and progress. These meetings were especially effective for identifying and addressing problems in their early stages as well as for keeping all parties engaged in the process. The PLA also enlisted the support of community organizations such as the Urban League, the Greater Cleveland Partnership, and the YWCA.

In terms of outcomes, the parties agree that all of the PLA’s hiring goals and requirements were met and sustained. Key factors contributing to this success included the tripartite monthly meetings, the linkage between the Cleveland BCTC and the school district (including Max Hayes Vocational School) for recruiting high school graduates from the community, and the role of the consulting firm Minority Business Solutions in facilitating the recruitment and hiring process. Implementation also faced its challenges, including Max Hayes’ lack of capacity to produce a sufficient number of graduates and the fact that a number of workers and contractors moved outside of Cleveland, thus leaving the PLA’s geographic boundaries and creating added difficulties to meet targets.

The unions effectively addressed the above-mentioned challenge of insufficient pre-apprenticeship graduates by opening the direct entry system to the entire Cleveland Public School District. As a result of this PLA, a formal relationship was established between the Cleveland BCTC and the school district for continuing the recruitment of high school graduates for direct entry into union apprenticeship programs. Lessons that can be drawn from this PLA experience involve the importance of keeping the implementation process and systems flexible (e.g., extending the direct entry system to the entire high school district) and the need for effective communications among stakeholders. An example of the latter is the periodic tripartite meeting, which was central for developing working relationships and, as mentioned above, for identifying and addressing issues before they developed into major problems.

Washington, D.C., Nationals Stadium PLA

Signed in 2007, the Washington Nationals Stadium PLA covered $611 million worth of construction work. Parties to this agreement included the D.C. BCTC, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, the District of Columbia, and the construction manager Clark/Hunt/Smoot (a joint venture). The project was completed in less than two years, on budget, and having achieved or exceeded most of the community workforce goals set in the PLA. These goals established that 50 percent of all apprentice hours worked should be performed by D.C. residents and that 51 percent of all new hires should be D.C. residents. With respect to apprentice utilization, the agreement required that 25 percent of total hours by each craft be performed by apprentices and that 100 percent of all new employed apprentices should be D.C. residents. For journey workers, the agreement required that 50 percent of their hours be performed by D.C. residents. Lastly, a H2H provision facilitated the employment of veterans in this project.

A task force was formed to monitor and enforce the agreement. This group held monthly meetings and was chaired by a prominent religious leader from D.C. The process for referral and hiring of local residents involved a 72-hour turnaround for supplying qualified personnel. This process required a series of steps, beginning with the deployment of any and all unionized D.C. residents who worked for any of the contractors on the job. If within 24 hours the employer did not get all the D.C. residents needed, it sent a request to the D.C. Department of Employment Services (DOES), which then had 48 hours to fill the position. If D.C. DOES failed to fill the positions with D.C. residents, the request went back to the union hall. The union then supplied union workers through its normal referral process.

As shown in Table 3, outcomes of this PLA met or exceeded local hiring goals for new hires and apprentice hours. However, targets for journey worker hours and new apprentices fell short of goals by 24 and 15 percent, respectively. As in the case of the Cleveland BCTC–University Hospital PLA, the unions’ capacity to deliver workers played a particularly effective role when government and community partners could not meet the hiring requirements through their own outreach mechanisms. In the Nationals Stadium PLA, D.C. DOES was not able to meet the demand for workers in the numbers required by the agreement. Union leaders and members as well as community representatives agreed that this project was historic in the number of jobs and careers created for D.C. residents, constituting a model for future public-works construction projects.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

D.C. Nationals Stadium Project Labor Agreement Local Hiring Goals and Outcomes.

	Outcomes	Goals
Apprentice hours worked by D.C. residents	70%	50%
Journey worker hours worked by D.C. residents	26%	50%
New hires who should be D.C. residents	51%	51%
New apprentices who should be D.C. residents	85%	100%
Total craft hours worked by apprentices	19% (consistent with maximum allowed)	25% (maximum)

New York City’s Memorandum of Agreement

The Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (NY-BCTC) has effectively implemented community workforce provisions set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was signed in November of 2009 and has accompanied PLAs covering $6 billion of public construction work, including projects of the City of New York, the School Construction Authority, and the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), creating approximately 30,000 jobs. This MOU establishes a direct access system that consists of reserving a percentage of available apprenticeship slots for qualified candidates who are members of targeted hiring categories. Membership data analyzed by the NY-BCTC revealed that the majority of the unionized construction workforce resides in the five boroughs of New York City (including zip code areas targeted by the MOU) rather than in the suburbs, as it is commonly believed. Additionally, recent research found that 63 percent of apprentices who were NYC residents were members of minorities and 10 percent were women. In terms of place of residency, the reports required by the above-mentioned MOU have indicated that the enrollment in NYC’s union apprenticeship programs is highly representative of local community residents, with nearly 90 percent of apprentices residing in the city’s five boroughs in 2010. There are 25 apprenticeship programs registered with the New York State Department of Labor and jointly sponsored by unions and employers.

A key factor for the increased representation of minorities and women among construction union workers in this market, and for the effective implementation of the MOU’s community workforce provisions, has been the role of pre-apprenticeship programs that have been created to recruit individuals from these populations and to provide them with access to unionized apprenticeship programs. Of particular importance among these programs is The Edward J. Malloy Initiative for Construction Skills (C-Skills), which has focused on recruiting graduates from New York City public high schools and public housing and Section 8 residents. C-Skills was created in 2000 and is sponsored by the NY-BCTC, working in partnership with public agencies, unionized contractors, and city high schools. Since the program’s inception, 1,100 New York City residents have enrolled in union apprenticeship programs through C-Skills. Of these 1,100, 89 percent are members of minorities, and 7 percent are women. Other programs providing key target populations with access to union apprenticeship training in New York City are Nontraditional Employment for Women (NEW) and H2H. These programs and C-Skills have direct access privileges in New York City’s unionized construction industry.

The MOU requires that 45 percent of new joint apprenticeship slots filled by New York City residents be comprised of public high school graduates, veterans, women, NYCHA and Section 8 residents, and “adults in need of economic opportunity.” To achieve this 45 percent goal, union apprenticeship programs are required to reserve up to 10 percent of their new apprenticeship slots for direct entry of graduates of public high schools who are graduates of the C-Skills program, 10 percent for veterans referred by H2H (though any veterans whose qualifications allow them to enter unions as journey persons would be counted toward this 10 percent), 10 percent for women who have completed pre-apprenticeship training at NEW, 10 percent for NYCHA and Section 8 residents and economically disadvantaged adults who have graduated from C-Skills or NEW, and 5 percent for qualified employees of certified minority- or women-owned business enterprises and other employers not signatory to CBAs (employees who are qualified to enter unions as journey persons would also be counted toward fulfillment of this goal).

The MOU requires extensive reporting as part of the process to monitor the implementation of community workforce provisions. These reports must include quarterly listing of total numbers of residents who were referred to and entered into unions and apprenticeship programs during the prior year through the C-Skills, H2H, and NEW programs; quarterly subtotals of the numbers of apprentices by union, apprenticeship program, residency, race, and gender; total number of apprentices who were residents in each apprenticeship program; total number of new apprentices by apprenticeship program; and subtotals of these numbers by residency (zip code), race, and gender. In addition, unions and employers are required to report on their efforts to encourage joint apprenticeship programs to meet targets.

The MOU established the New York City Committee on Construction Work Force and Contracting Opportunity (Construction Committee) to serve as a forum for assessing the implementation of the provisions. The committee is required to meet at least quarterly and publish an annual report on the status of the Work Force and Contracting Opportunity policy. The committee includes representatives from the city’s executive branch, NYCHA, School Construction Authority, NY-BCTC, the Building Trades Employers Association (including at least one representative of minority- or women-owned businesses), representatives from the contractor community designated by the mayor (including at least two representatives of minority- or women-owned businesses from union and non-union contractors), one representative appointed by the speaker of the City Council, and one representative appointed by the comptroller.

Outcomes of the MOU implementation for the first year almost doubled the goal of 45 percent for newly registered first-year apprentices, who should be New York City residents (see Table 4). Through joint efforts of pre-apprenticeship programs and unions, 523 NYC residents entered skilled trades’ apprenticeship programs in 2010. This represented 88 percent of the total newly registered apprentices in that year. Targets set for women and graduates of public high schools were also exceeded. Results for veterans and NYCHA residents fell short by 7 and 5 percent, respectively. Although the MOU did not set goals for race and ethnicity of the new apprentices, it is important to note that 69 percent of the new apprentices who were New York City residents are African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and members of other minority groups, according to data collected by the New York State Department of Labor. Table 4 shows results and targets for the first year of the implementation of MOU terms as well as data on the demographic characteristics and place of residency of all union apprentices in 2010.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

New York City (NYC) Apprentice Goals and Outcomes.

	First-Year Apprentices in 2010	Percentages	Memorandum of Understanding Goals for First-Year Apprentices	All Apprentices in 2010	Percentages
NYC residents	523	88% of total	45% of total	6,518	88% of total
African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Other	359	69% of NYC residents	(no goal)	4,114	63% of NYC residents
Women	59	11% of NYC residents	10% of NYC residents	647	10% of NYC residents
Public high school graduates	68	13% of NYC residents	10% of NYC residents	n/a
Veterans	18	3% of NYC residents	10% of NYC residents	n/a
New York City Housing Authority residents	26	5% of NYC residents	10% of NYC residents	n/a

Source: Construction Industry Partnership (2010).

Note: n/a = not applicable.

A key lesson that can be drawn from this experience is the need for flexibility in setting certain goals, particularly those related to place of residency. According to the NY-BCTC, setting highly detailed targets, such as by zip code, might limit rather than expand employment opportunities for union members in a market where the workforce has significant diversity as in New York City. For instance, construction unions have active apprentices and union members living in NYCHA buildings, but they (the union members) might prefer to work in construction projects other than the ones covered by the MOU. Granting credits to contractors for off-site employment of target area residents might work better in markets like New York. Another important lesson that reaffirms the experience of CWA implementation in other parts of the country is the key role of pre-apprenticeship programs for recruiting individuals from the target populations and for providing them with direct access to the registered apprenticeship programs.