MPN had a great opinion piece about the proposed apprenticeship program requirement for anyone who bids on Public Works projects within the town.....and quite frankly I was surprised that they had the opinion that they did. Pleasantly surprised.
I learned when I returned from vacation that they were considering the sum of $150,000 for contractors and $100,000 for sub-contractors as the "trigger" for apprenticeship program requirements in order to bid.....instead of the $500,000 "trigger" I had previously read about.
Do you realize how many local contractors will be excluded from Public Works projects due to this requirement?
I don't have anything against apprenticeship programs or any "learning" or on the job training that improves skills in the trades. I do have a problem with amending a law that will discriminate against many smaller, minority owned businesses.
There were three speakers that I was extremely impressed with at the meeting on July 21st. Link to meeting videos.
1. Mike Caccamise at about the 42:20 mark of the video - Taxpayer for 25 years or more in Irondequoit, Has operated his own business for 31 years, ML Caccamise Electric Corp. He didn't go to the meeting to "throw rocks" at unions, or democrats or republicans....he is there stating his opinion that he grew up believing in free enterprise, and that this law goes against what he believes in. This law will discriminate against smaller businesses like Mr. Caccamise's - a business that has done many jobs around Irondequoit like McAvoy Park (twice), Town Hall projects, and currently on the 590 project.
If this apprenticeship program requirement was in effect right now? Mr. Caccamise would be out of all of those projects because he wouldn't be able to bid on them, because he doesn't have an apprentice program.
You may ask: "Why doesn't Mr. Caccamise just fill out the forms to offer apprenticeship programs at his business?"
At one time, when Mr. Caccamise's business was just electrical work, they did have a successful apprenticeship program, and he graduated several people from it. Since then, his business has become a "specialty" contractor, working on traffic signals and street lighting. They turned in a new application for the apprenticeship program and NYS turned them down because they can't fulfill the training requirements (they don't do substation work). The State doesn't offer a program based on the type of work that Mr. Caccamise does, so he is pretty much out of being able to bid on any Public Works projects over $150,000 if this law goes on the books......at no fault of his own. He would like to offer an apprenticeship program through his business, but he can't because the State does not offer one for his line of work.
This law would discriminate against a longtime resident, taxpayer, and small business owner in Irondequoit.
2. Rebecca Meinking, president of the Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) at the 48:20 mark of the video - Here's a great link to a news blurb in Syracuse, with Rebecca quoted. (What a smart, informed person and I'm so glad she traveled all the way to Irondequoit to speak about it! I have to copy all of her input on here because I thought it was very good.)
Ms. Meinking was there to speak in opposition to the apprenticeship requirement, and she was concerned that the board as a whole did not fully understand how apprenticeship works both in the "union" sector of the industry, and the "non-union" (merit shop) sector of the industry. She said that "by virtue of the fact that they (union contractors) are signatory to a trade union, they meet this requirement. They have to do nothing else, they don't actually ever have to use an apprentice. But because they are signatory to the union, and therefore signatory to the union program, they meet this requirement."
"In NYS, for a "merit shop" "open shop" contractor, a non-signatory contractor, the only way they can participate in apprenticeship in NYS, is to independently sponsor their own program, as an individual company. And as a result of that, for many of the trades that have very large scopes of work, some of the trades have 5 year programs...they have 10,000 hours of on the job training that are required, in lots of different areas within a trade. Many smaller contractors, like Mr. Caccamise mentioned, have developed "niches" within certain trades, and that's really their market. And because they can't prove to the Department of Labor that they can provide the entire scope of work for apprenticeship program, they aren't qualified to get one. It doesn't mean that they don't train their workers in the responsibilities that those workers must assume in order to perform their work....it just means that they can't meet the requirements of a formalized apprenticeship program."
"And when you talk about a contract level of $150,000, in today's construction world.....that's a very small contract. A lot of houses cost more than $150,000 to build. So, it is my belief, that this requirement, will have a very negative impact on a number of smaller and minority and women owned businesses who simply cannot meet the requirements of apprenticeship."
Ms. Meinking goes on to comment on the fact that she had called the Town office that day to try to get a copy of the proposed law so she could review it. She said "I would assume that when you are holding a Public Hearing on a proposed law, that the law should be available to the public. I wanted to see the language, whether you have language in there that would mean contractors have to have apprentice programs in all of the different trades in which they perform work....whether it applies to contractors that only employ labor on the job site....or whether it applies to everybody. I couldn't even get a copy of the law. I didn't even get a call back from the Town office to be able to look at the law."
(Welcome to Irondequoit, Ms. Meinking.)
"I guess, as the leader of an organization, I always appreciate when someone comes to me and opposes something, but offers me some sort of an alternative. And I guess my concern is that maybe we're rushing into this, and I'm not sure the due diligence has been done both on the public side - because to my knowledge - nobody in the public has seen this law, that we're having public comments on...and I would like to know if you as a Town Board have looked over the last 5 years...at all the projects that have bid out.....and compared contractors that were awarded that work, and whether or not those contractors had apprenticeship programs....and if you would have been able to award that work to that contractor under this requirement. Has that been done?"
The Supervisor responds: "We did look at the past few years."
Ms. Meinking responds: "Has that information been made public?"
The Supervisor conveniently ignores this question, and says: "I do have a question....Barb.....did we, um, have this posted appropriately through the Irondequoit Press as we were required to do?"
Barb says: "Yes, as the public hearing."
Supervisor: "So, was the law included within the release for the public hearing"
Barb says: ".................................................."
Pat Malgieri says: "The law says that the notice be published, but the law....the text of the local law does not have to be published with the notice, but it does have to be posted on the signboard."
Supervisor to Barb: "Was it on the website?"
Ms. Meinking says" "No. At least I didn't see it on the website."
Supervisor says: "Ok. Thank you for bringing that to my attention."
Ms. Meinking says: "So, I would just ask that maybe that we take a step back, let's re-look at some of these issues, and see if we can come up with a solution that works for everybody. I applaud you for wanting to support training in the construction trade....but I truly do not believe that this is the way to do it. And, I would offer my support to looking at some alternative solutions. Thank you."
That was some kick-@$$ public input!!
3. Scott Harris at about the 71:00 mark of the video - One of the shortest public input comments I have ever been witness to, but Mr. Harris makes a good point with this comment: "What I don't understand is....does the Town of Irondequoit have an apprenticeship program for it's union employees?"
Some laughter from the audience, and a pause from Mr. Harris, and he then says: "Can you answer me that?........No, you don't."
Supervisor says: "I can, but you did for me, thank you."
Mr. Harris says: "Ok, so what are we talking about this for then."
He starts to walk away from the podium, and the Supervisor says "Thank you" and Mr. Harris says "You ought to start with the Town employees."
Boo yah!
I missed a good meeting! I would have loved to have had a chance to corner Ms. Meinking and learn more from her.
There was more input, for and against....but I think Ms. Meinking made a valid point about the law not being out there for the public to review before commenting on it during a public hearing. Posting the law on the sign board is the least they had to do. I don't think it would have been that big of a deal to include the wording of the law with the public hearing notice, or a link to the law on the Town website.
I was wondering why nobody from the board offered up a copy of their own to Ms. Meinking, or offered to make a copy of it right there when she asked for it....they should have had a copy of the law in front of them considering that it was a public hearing about the law.....dontcha think?
Wait a minute.....we're talking about Irondequoit's leaders here.....why would they have a copy of a law in front of them before voting on it? Silly me.
Tabling the issue was the only thing the Supervisor could do after public input, and specifically Mr. Caccamise's and Ms. Meinking's comments.
As for the upcoming vote to pass it? My guess is that the Supervisor and one board member will vote no, and the rest will vote yes to pass it.
I'm sure you all are familiar with that game.
I sure hope common sense prevails, and politics doesn't.
It would be a nice change.
