Nashville-Davidson Metro Local-Hire Mandate for Taxpayer-Funded Projects Initiative, Amendment 3 (August 2015)
| Voting on Labor and Unions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Ballot Measures | ||||
| By state | ||||
| By year | ||||
| Not on ballot | ||||
|
A measure to establish a local-hire mandate for large, public projects was on the ballot for voters within the limits of the consolidated city-county metro of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, on August 6, 2015. It was approved.
This measure required that a minimum of 40 percent of work hours for any project funded by more than $100,000 in metro taxpayer money would have to be from local hires from within the county rather than from any in-state workers from outside of the county. Moreover, the amendment was designed to require that "a significant effort be made to ensure" that at least 10 percent of "Total Construction Worker Hours are performed by low income residents of Davidson County."[1][2]
The amendment excepted work hours from out-of-state workers from the calculation. Thus, for example, if a project took 200,000 work hours and 100,000 of them were from out-of-state workers, only 40,000 of them would have to be from local workers, and only 10,000 of them would have to be from low-income workers. This exception for out-of-state workers was provided to avoid conflict with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[1][2]
Supporters argued that Amendment 3 would ensure that jobs, economic growth and tax revenue stayed local.[3]
Opponents argued that the measure would be impractical and would make public projects more expensive, hurting the taxpayers and the economy. They also argued that the amendment violated constitutional prohibitions against employment discrimination.[4]
Election results
| Nashville Amendment 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 56,973 | 57.80% | ||
| No | 41,590 | 42.20% | ||
- Election results from Nashville Election Commission
Text of measure
Ballot summary
The following summary of Amendment 3 appeared on the ballot:[2]
| “ |
This amendment would provide that: The Division of Purchases, when expending funds of the Metropolitan Government in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more on a public real property improvement project, shall require that Davidson County residents perform forty percent ( 40%) of the total construction work hours worked by construction craft workers on each project. The Division of Purchases shall require on each such project that a significant effort be made to ensure that no less than ten percent (10%) of the total construction worker hours are performed by low income residents of Davidson County. The number of hours performed by non-residents of Tennessee shall be excluded in determining the total construction worker hours for each project. A procedure for reporting total construction worker hours and a penalty for failure to comply with this requirement may be provided by ordinance or the Division of Purchases.[5] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the amendment is available here.
Support
Supporters
A group called Nashville Organized for Action and Hope (NOAH) backed this measure.[6]
The Laborers' International Union of North America also supported Amendment 3.[3]
Arguments in favor
Supporters of the amendment argued that it would boost the local economy, provide local jobs and help increase local tax revenue.[3]
Ashford Hughes, an assistant business manager for the Laborers' International Union of North America, said, "We have a workforce here that is being underutilized, and we need to make certain that as taxpayers, we keep portions of our money local to grow people out of their impoverished environment."[3]
Hughes, co-chair of NOAH's economic equity task force, stated, "One of the first things we saw in all of these Metro-funded construction projects going on around the city is that there hasn't been any transparency as to who is on these jobs. Right now, there's no necessary incentive for contractors, who will do what they need to do to win the bid. If part of the bidding process is that 40 percent of these local hours need to go to local Davidson County residents, I guarantee you they will do what they need to do to win that bid."[3]
Hughes also said, "I believe we feel very confident. For the last nine to 10 years, concentrated poverty in Nashville has risen twofold. ... Not everybody is seeing pieces of 'It City.' We feel that this is the right work at the right time...We want tax dollars to go to local jobs. We know we have the workforce.”[3][7]
Opposition
Opponents
Below is a list of some individuals and organizations that opposed Amendment 3:[3][7][8]
- Ralph Schulz, representing the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce
- Bob Pitts, senior policy adviser for the Associated Builders and Contractors, Greater Tennessee chapter
- The Coalition for Fair Employment in Middle Tennessee[9]
- Mayor Karl Dean
Arguments against
Opponents of Amendment 3 argued that it was impractical and badly written. They said that the fact that the amendment exempts work hours from out-of-state workers from the calculation defeats the stated purpose of the amendment: keeping jobs and tax revenue local. In fact, critics argued that the amendment would actually encourage project managers and employers to bring in workers from outside the state to avoid the amendment's provisions altogether. They also argued that workers from outside the metro area could often work for less because of the lower cost of living. The conclusion, according to opponents, was that the amendment would make city projects more expensive and cost the taxpayers in the long term.[3][10]
Pitts argued, "The way the amendment is written, it actually provides an incentive to hire out-of-state workers because they do not count in the percentage calculation of the workforce on the job site. In manning a job using the 40 percent rule, if that became law, if I went and hired 100 percent of my workforce from out-of-state, I don't have to meet the 40 percent requirement. ... The very nature of the amendment specially exempts from that requirement any employees you bring in from out-of-state, so it defeats the very purpose that the proponents say they designed it to accomplish. Roughly 50,000 people a day come in to work, and roughly 50,000 leave to work in surrounding towns, so this becomes a complex issue. All of that mobility is a result of where the jobs are, what the training requirements are, where people are going to live, where they want their children educated. To try to build a wall around Davidson County as a regional economy makes no sense."[3]
Pitts also argued that the lack of already trained local workers would make the implementation of the proposal very difficult.[3]
Other opponents argued that the amendment would quickly run into legal trouble and would likely fall to a lawsuit soon after being approved. The chief argument for its illegality rested in provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution that guarantee equal protection of the law and prohibit certain kinds of employment discrimination. Opponents argued that the essence of Amendment 3 was to give those Davidson County residents seeking employment an unfair and unconstitutional advantage over those that live outside of the county.[4][11]
Editorials
- The Tennessean: The editorial board of The Tennessean wrote an editorial urging voters to reject Amendment 3. The board agreed with amendment proponents that unemployment in the city was a problem, but argued that Amendment 3 was the wrong approach. An excerpt of the editorial is below:
| “ |
However, the problem is not job availability. There is an excess of jobs in Davidson County and especially in construction. The problem is workforce training and ensuring employers can find the people to do the jobs that need to be done. [...] This effort seeks to solve a problem using the wrong approach. Efforts should be stepped up between private employers, Metro and Metro Nashville Public Schools to prepare more men and women for jobs that need to be filled. [...] Amendment 3 is well-intentioned, but impractical, which is why we recommend voting “No.”[5] |
” |
| —Editorial board of The Tennessean[7] | ||
Path to the ballot
In order to qualify this initiative for the ballot, supporters needed to collect 6,845 valid signatures by May 19, 2015. Members of NOAH said they turned in 16,019 raw signatures on the day of the deadline. In June 2015, the Davidson County election commission certified that enough of the submitted signatures were valid to qualify the citizen-initiated measure for the election ballot on August 6, 2015.[1]
Related measures
- Nashville-Davidson County Metro Marijuana Decriminalization Initiative (August 2015)
- Nashville-Davidson Metro Council Member Reduction and Term Limit Extension Ballot Initiative, Amendment 2 (August 2015)
- Nashville-Davidson Metro "Ban the Box" Initiative to Remove Criminal Background Questions from Metro Job Applications (August 2015)
- Nashville-Davidson Metro Council Term Limit Increase, Amendment 1 (August 2015)
Other elections
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Nashville local hire mandate Amendment 3. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Laws governing local ballot measures in Tennessee
- Local labor and unions on the ballot
- Davidson County, Tennessee ballot measures
- August 6, 2015 ballot measures in Tennessee
External links
Basic info
Support
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The Tennessean, "Marijuana push falls short, but 3 other referendums likely," May 19, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Nashville Elections Office, "Sample Ballot for Election on August 6, 2015," accessed August 3, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Nashville Scene, "Don't skip these additional matters — Council size and term limits, local hiring, vice mayor — once you've voted in the top races," July 30, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Beacon, "Discrimination in Davidson County," July 20, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Nashville Organized for Action and Hope (NOAH), "Home," accessed June 11, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The Tennessean, "Vote No, Yes, No on Nashville charter amendments," July 22, 2015
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Dean opposes local-hire amendment for Metro projects," July 15, 2015
- ↑ Facebook: Coalition for Fair Employment in Middle Tennessee, "News Feed," accessed August 3, 2015
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "Putting a price tag on amendment 3," July 31, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of Tennessee Blog, "Does the Constitution prevent Nashville from enacting a local hire law? Yes, it probably does." July 1, 2015
| ||||||||||
