
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, March 7, 1991                   TAG: 9103070476
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-12   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

LOCAL LABOR/ COUNCIL VS. TAXPAYERS?

AT THE behest of local unionists, some members of Roanoke City Council seem intrigued by the idea of requiring contractors on city-funded construction projects to hire local labor. If they pursue the idea, let's hear no more folderol about how they're the taxpayers' friends.

Like trade protectionism, another union favorite, such a policy has superficial appeal. But also like protectionism, the net effect would be to help one sector of the economy at the expense of everyone else.

In this instance, the everyone else would be city taxpayers. They would have to bear the extra expense of municipal contracts awarded on the basis of labor source rather than lowest cost.

Often, of course, there's no conflict: Contractors who can figure on productive local labor are contractors who can submit low bids. But when that's the case, a local-labor requirement is pointless.

The requirement would have a point only when local hiring and low bidding are not synonymous - in which case it's city taxpayers whom the point would wound.

by CNB