Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, March 30, 1992 TAG: 9203300204
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But whether the question is local vs. non-local, or union vs. non-union labor, the political noise doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Which is as it should be.
With private projects privately funded - the Dominion Tower, for example, or the proposed Hotel Roanoke renovation as currently packaged - the city has no more authority to tell the owner who his contractors must be, or where his workers must come from, than it does to tell you whom to hire to paint your house.
With public projects publicly funded - the proposed conference center next to the hotel, for example, or the hotel itself if public funds are added to the pot - any such directives might be an illegal use of taxpayers' money.
Virginia's procurement laws are founded on the principle of free competition among responsible bidders. The "responsible" part includes such things as demonstrated ability to handle the job, creditworthiness and bondability. It does not include commitments to using local or union labor.
Where federal regulations are involved, the state law gives way. And the state law allows localities to adopt their own procurement codes, which the city of Roanoke has done. But if Roanoke were to insert a local- or union-labor preference in its code, beyond the framework of the state law, it could well run afoul of the oft-cursed Dillon Rule.
If so, it would be one instance where the rule, which says local governments in Virginia have only those powers specifically authorized by the state, would be a blessing. The cost-reducing effects of competitive bidding on publicly funded construction should not be eroded simply to benefit one segment of that public. And a proliferation of local-labor rules would be a disaster.
Consider: If the city instituted such a policy, the natural response would be for other localities to follow suit, thereby depriving Roanoke contractors and labor of a fair shot at out-of-town work. In the end, every city and county in Virginia could have its own local-labor rule: Chaos and constriction would prevail, and taxpayers and workers alike would be the losers.
What Bowers seems to miss is the fact that construction-related employers in the Roanoke area stay in business by serving not just the city, but a large region of Western Virginia. Roanoke is, in this sense, a net exporter. It stands to lose the most if localities were to start erecting barriers to commerce.
Fortunately, there's little threat of this happening; Bowers' assurances have been mostly empty posturing.
Local officials could, we suppose, find ways to torpedo a project - which, if the project is worthwhile, would be the ultimate in counterproductiveness. But short of that for a private project, and short of a legally questionable change in the city's procurement code for public projects, local officials are powerless to impose local-labor preferences.
Trades people in the Roanoke area who watched Dominion Tower go up conspicuously, while they remained jobless or scratched for work hundreds of miles away, are understandably upset and frustrated. But they should seek real answers from union leaders and local politicians - not the illusory hope of protectionism.
Labor leaders may hold out such hope for reasons related to the harsh economy and the especially tough times unions have suffered. Politicians' posturing is more cynical. Of course, local leaders when appropriate might jawbone for employment of local workers. It is well, nonetheless, that such talk is not backed up by any authority.
by CNB