Spokane passes labor mandate requiring 25% be ‘priority hire workers’

(The Center Square) – The Spokane City Council voted Monday to require public works projects costing $5 million or more to use labor agreements, mandating 25% of the hours go to “priority hire workers.”

More than 30 community members testified on the Public Dollars for Public Benefit ordinance, with about a third being in opposition. Despite Councilmembers Paul Dillon and Zack Zappone offering the idea, Council President Betsy Wilkerson, who typically votes with them on the progressive majority, sided with the conservative minority instead. Ultimately, the ordinance still passed with a 4-3 vote.

The sponsors see it as a means to promote job training and opportunities within the construction field through “project labor agreements” and “community workforce agreements.” The contracts outline the terms and conditions of a given project while also ensuring that tax dollars generate jobs in Spokane.

While intended to provide the most benefit to local taxpayers, contractors may face higher compliance costs due to the mandated benefits and ensuring that priority hires work the minimum hours required.

“What I did not get from this ordinance was … a fiscal analysis, and I’ve been trying to figure out, how are we going to measure the public benefit?” Wilkerson asked. “Every mandate I’ve ever gotten came with a cost attached to it; may have not been at the beginning, but it did come, and it did affect me.”

Contractors working under CWAs must now provide full healthcare benefits for their workers and their families, retirement benefits, prevailing wage and anti-harassment protections. Priority workers must perform at least 25% of the labor hours, with the hires being pre-apprenticeship graduates, residents from economically distressed areas and those with “barriers to stable employment or training access.”

Those “barriers” refer to individuals who were previously incarcerated, homeless and/or have “limited workforce participation due to historical exclusion, or transition from military service.” Wilkerson said many companies struggle to maintain a workforce with 15% from marginalized groups, let alone 25%.

Supporters argue that it could raise the area’s median income and create opportunities, while ensuring that tax dollars are reinvested in the community. Opponents cited increased costs under the law and reduced competition due to the potential exclusion of a significant portion of the existing workforce.

“I agree that not all employers are bad employers, and I think that’s important to recognize that, too,” Zappone said. “But the reality is, there are some bad employers, and that’s why we have protections.”

Councilmember Kitty Klitzke called on the city to offer higher wages to attract workers and businesses.

Councilmember Jonathan Bingle rejected that premise, arguing against mandates that the city doesn’t follow itself. Another benefit requires contractors to provide free parking at the job site, which Bingle says the city can’t afford. He questioned the idea that this law promotes fairness, citing the opposite.

Councilmember Michael Cathcart called the policy exclusionary and said the city already has the means to bar contractors from the procurement process if they’ve committed wage theft and other violations.

“I don’t believe that this will actually create a greater benefit to taxpayers, nor to the workers that are in my district,” he said.