GREATER SYRACUSE LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE
We reserve the right to publish the results of this questionnaire on our website – www.cnylabor.org
NAME: Brad Ward OFFICE YOU ARE SEEKING: County Legislator District 3
1. A Project labor agreement is a comprehensive pre-hire collective bargaining agreement that establishes standardized conditions and wages for all contractors and subcontractors on a PLA covered project. PLAs offer:
Stable labor costs so you can bid without guessing.
Reliable supply of local skilled workers for the project duration.
Apprenticeship trained and certified workers.
A no-strike, no lockout commitment.
Binding procedures to settle disputes, so no work stoppages.
Management flexibility to meet special project needs.
Do you support Project Labor Agreements? If not, explain why.
I do support PLA’s because, as all good agreements, they benefit all parties involved. Prior to entering into any PLA a feasibility study must be conducted by an independent third party to quantify cost savings to the owner. While I believe a PLA makes good economic sense for the community, the findings of a feasibility study add credence to that opinion. With a PLA local labor, contractors, and sub-contractors enjoy certain guarantees during construction and upon completion, the owners and end-users get a quality finished product. PLA’s also allow Building Trades Local Unions the opportunity to expand apprenticeships and workforce development training throughout the local community. In addition, minority and female participation clauses offer training and well paying jobs to local residents not commonly employed in the construction industry. PLA use has had positive economic impacts in Central New York, and I will support them in the future.
2. Private school vouchers and other schemes like education tax credits for K-12 private school expenses undermine public education by taking scarce public funds away from public schools that are open to the public and shifting them to private schools.
The AFL-CIO strongly supports legislation that would strengthen public education by helping states and local school districts reduce their class sizes and finance school repair, construction, and modernization projects with protection for prevailing community wages. A growing number of public schools all across the country are being forced to set up classrooms in trailers, hallways, and closets in order to accommodate their rapidly rising enrollments. One-third of all public schools also need extensive repair or replacement.
What is your view of proposals to provide for private school vouchers and/or charter schools?
I oppose using public money to finance private school vouchers or charter schools. Public funding should not be used to enhance private, for profit schools. First, as for the building trades, there is no prevailing wage protection for any construction work done on private or charter schools. Vouchers would lower standardized test scores of public school students, lure talented teachers away from public schools, lower the overall quality of education a public school can offer, and ultimately accelerate the spread of poverty, lowering the quality of life throughout our communities.
What would you do to improve the state of disrepair many of our public schools are currently experiencing?
The current condition of our public school buildings is disgraceful. I would work to partner with other elected officials on the local, State, and National levels to secure the funding necessary to rebuild both our schools, and our public education system. Public school students need the opportunity to learn the skills employers are looking for in today’s job market. Rebuilding the facilities necessary to implement these programs is an important first step to allow public school students to succeed after graduation.
3. Ninety-four percent of workers say firing an employee for supporting union representation is an “unacceptable action” and 80 percent say they are aware that such actions are against the law. Nevertheless, employers illegally fire union supports in 31 percent of organizing campaigns and many use other tactics to thwart workers’ efforts to form unions.
A recent report by Human Rights Watch shows that existing laws are too lax and unenforced to prevent employer attacks on workers’ rights. For instance, while employers can prevent unions from contacting workers at their work places to discuss the advantages of union membership, they are free to deluge workers with anti-union messages.
Do you believe employers should be held accountable for their anti-union activities?
Yes, employers just as all members of the community need to be held accountable for their activities. We cannot continue to subsidize developers and employers with tax breaks and incentives without holding them accountable. That is not to say that 100% of their employees will be Union members, but those same employees deserve the opportunity to join a Union if they so desire.
If yes, what actions should be taken against companies that violate workers’ rights to organize?
Employers found intimidating workers or otherwise illegally tampering with organizing campaigns should no longer be eligible to bid nor perform work on any publicly funded project. In addition civil penalties should be considered against employers that resort to illegal tactics to stop an organizing campaign.
How could labor laws be improved to guarantee workers’ right to organize?
Number one on this list is for the U.S. Senate to follow the lead of the House of Representatives and pass the EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT. Earlier this year the House passed this bill by a wide margin. Since that time, Labor has been lobbying the Senate to pass their bill and send it to the President. On the local level we could restrict firms from competing for publicly funded projects if they refuse to recognize the right of employees to organize. Another option is to stop giving tax breaks and incentives such as PILOT agreements through SIDA or OCIDA to firms that refuse to allow their employees a fair chance to organize.
4. While the economy has been growing, this growth has been accompanied by a sluggish job market that seems to provide too few with a rising standard of living or greater economic security. Economists have attributed this unique predicament to several factors, including corporate downsizing, global competition, the introduction of labor saving technologies, and a pattern of increasingly large rewards to more highly skilled employees. Indeed, a recent study found that most Americans today are worse off than they were before the 1989-1991 recession.
Many northeast communities have lured businesses or encouraged them to stay through tax incentives. However, these incentives have not prevented those companies from downsizing the jobs of those very same taxpayers who offered the tax breaks in the first place.
Should companies be able to accept such tax breaks only to downsize thereafter?
Absolutely not, again this raises the question of accountability. We as employees are held accountable for our actions and productivity levels. Where are the accountability standards for employers? We’ve all heard examples of firms that take advantage of Empire Zone benefits and never even come close to meeting their original hiring goals. On the statewide level the Empire Zone program needs a complete restructuring.
How would you correct this apparent inequity?
We need to maintain records on companies that accept tax breaks for a period of time after the incentives are offered. The larger the incentive, the longer their records are subject to review. We need to stop the cycle of firms accepting public funds and not returning any benefits to the community. For example, a PILOT is an agreement, and any agreement has to contain certain guarantees for all parties involved. Firms that enjoy the tax relief of the agreement need to keep their end of the bargain. Again it is merely a matter of accountability. Municipalities and IDA’s need to add tangible milestone goals to agreements they offer, and rather than grant all the financial benefits at the beginning of the agreement, disburse the financial benefits throughout the life of the agreement.
5. An honest day’s work should be rewarded with an honest day’s pay. That’s what a
“Living Wage” is all about.
Living wage ordinances have been enacted in 80 localities across the nation and have been passed in Rochester, Buffalo and New York City.
A living wage ordinance requires employers to pay wages that are above federal or state minimum wage levels. Only a specific set of workers are covered by living wage ordinances, usually those employed by businesses that have a contract with a city or county government or those who receive economic development subsidies from the locality. The rationale behind the ordinances is that city and county governments should not contract with or subsidize employers who pay poverty-level wages.
The living wage level is usually the wage a full-time worker would need to earn to support a family above the federal poverty line, ranging from 100% to 130% of the poverty measurement. The wage rates specified by living wage ordinances range from a low of $6.25 in Milwaukee to a high of $10.75 in San Jose ( A wage of $8.96 an hour with health benefits is recommended for Syracuse, NY.).
Living wage ordinances provide much needed raises for low-income workers. Wages for the bottom 10% of wage earners fell by 9.3% between 1979 and 1999. The number of jobs where wages were below what a worker would need to support a family of four above the poverty line also grew between 1979 and 1999. In 1999, 26.8% of the workforce earned poverty-level wages, an increase from 23.7% in 1979.
Can you provide a good reason why you would not support legislation that requires a living wage for workers? Please include your position on a living wage for Syracuse-area workers.
There is no reason not to support living wage legislation, period. We need to reward the worker, not the wealthy. Opponents of living wage legislation will continue the hollow argument of raising wages by 2 to 3 dollars an hour will drive business out of the area. The truth is the tax burden placed on business is cited as the number one reason business leaves Central New York. Enacting living wage legislation will actually lower the tax burden on business by lessening the stress now placed on social service programs. Workers earning living wages with health benefits will no longer rely solely on these social service programs thereby lowering the cost of these programs. Once the costs of these programs are contained, business taxes can be reduced.
6. “Down-waging” has become a standard practice by highly profitable companies who
replace full-time workers with part-timers, temps or sub-contract out for lower wages and poorer benefits. Between 1980 and 1995, 42-million jobs were lost in the United States. Each year, there are 50 percent more people laid off than are victims of crime, which raises the question of which is the greater social ill.
Reduced wages and benefits negatively impacts on families’ ability to afford adequate health care. Forty-three million Americans do not have health insurance and another million lose it each month.
And, while many parents believe college costs will be the biggest expense they face for their children, in fact many will spend more in a year on quality child care than on public college tuition, according to a new Children's Defense Fund (CDF) report.
The AFL-CIO supports guaranteed high-quality child-care, health care, job education and training. What steps can elected officials take to ensure that these benefits are available to all Americans?
All of these vital programs require necessary funding to operate efficiently. A first step elected officials can take to ensure the availability of these programs is to stop their hypocrisy and end unfunded mandates. During election season it’s difficult to find a candidate at any level taking an anti-child care, anti-health care, anti-education stance. After the election however, how many of these same officials vote to adequately fund these programs? Which brings us back to accountability issues, the voters must hold their elected public officials accountable for their actions. Secondly, the economy can more easily afford to adequately fund child care, health care and education with a fairer tax structure. Today too much of the tax burden is placed on working families while the wealthiest in our society continue to grow their wealth. This structure is simply not fair and cannot be allowed to continue.
7. Those who advocate the privatization of government services seek a significant
reduction in the government’s role in society. But, market-oriented policies cannot be relied on, by themselves, to meet our citizens needs.
Studies conducted by Cornell University found that the claims by privatization ideologues, are “quite groundless” and the empirical research supporting such claims are “so flawed as to be useless as a policy guide.”
Instead, privatization of government services has been shown to
·diminish the access to public services
·reduce employee morale, productivity and turnover
·exploit part-time workers through low wages and benefits
·increase discrimination against minorities
·cause the loss of government sovereignty
·weakens constitutional rights (e.g., whistle blowing, ethical conduct)
·reduce quality of services
·increase corruption, bribery and kick-backs
·lose accountability for public values and services.
Do you support privatizing public services? Please explain your answer.
I cannot support piratizing, rather privatizing, public services. Similar to the living wage debate, lowering wages by a few dollars is not a long term solution to improve our economy. In fact, outsourcing services to a for- profit company may actually drive the cost of those services higher. Replacing full-time public employees with part-time low wage employees is a very short sighted attempt to control spending. In fact privatization would add to the stress on social service programs and actually increase the tax dollars necessary to continue them. Everything in our society and our economy carries a cost. When employees earn competitive wages and benefits they actually finance their own health care and retirement, and don’t need to rely on social services as their safety net. I see privatization of public services as a further erosion of the middle class, widening the gap between the wealthiest in our society and the working class.
8. As an elected official, how would you ensure that the voice of labor and community-based agencies are recognized on decision-making bodies such as the Industrial Development Authority?
One item I want to the City and County IDA to adopt is language ensuring the use of local labor and prevailing wages in any future agreements. Again, agreements are a two-way street. If a firm or developer wants the incentives an IDA can offer, the IDA must insist on certain beneficial returns to the community by enhancing the local job market. The days when companies can “take the money and run” must end. In the past we’ve all seen IDA sponsored projects completed by out of town companies and their transient workforce. This is just not fair to the taxpayers of Central New York and must be addressed.
SIGNED: DATE: