In a closed-door meeting last week about a hotel and office development proposed for city land at 750 Moffett Blvd., Mountain View’s City Council decided against a “labor peace” requirement that would have allowed union organizing to go on at the hotel without interference.
All seven City Council members refused to comment about the decision for the city’s lease of the “Moffett Gateway” site this week, citing Brown Act provisions allowing real estate negotiations to happen behind closed doors. “Council has directed staff to not pursue a labor peace agreement requirement as a part of the project,” announced City Attorney Jannie Quinn at the end of the Sept. 9 council meeting, adding that her announcement was not required by law.
“It appears that the council majority chose added city revenue over the right to bargain for fair pay and decent working conditions,” said City Council candidate Lenny Siegel. “Since the city is in effect the indirect employer, the city is driving down pay.”
In June the council voted 4-3 to select San Francisco-based Broadreach Capital over 11 other interested developers to develop the 6.7-acre site at on Moffett Boulevard near Highway 101. The development firm had proposed a 182-room hotel and 146,000-square-foot office building.
City staff had previously reported that the labor peace agreement would mean a reduction in city revenues from the Moffett gateway site, but that may be a “misguided assumption,” said Sarah McDermott of Unite HERE local 19 — the main union organizing hotel workers in the area.
“Labor peace is a way for the city to protect its proprietary interests from a labor dispute and make sure its investment isn’t going to be cut into by a labor dispute,” McDermott said.
“Despite our expertise in this area, we were never consulted about any financial information (on revenue projections with and without labor peace),” McDemott said. “It is unclear to me that the city corroborated any financial info they were given or did their due diligence on it.”
Candidate reactions
Seven of this year’s nine City Council candidates have told the South Bay Labor Council that they generally support labor peace, McDermott said. Greg Unangst and Jim Neal did not participate in the labor council’s endorsement interview, but Unangst told the Voice that he is for a labor peace agreement on the site.“I advocate the right of unions to organize and they should not be interfered with in doing that,” Unangst said.
“I’m strongly in favor of labor peace,” council candidate Margaret Capriles said. “This is something that really impacts people having their freedom to choose — I think this is what our country is based on.”
“I believe this decision flies in the face of sustainability,” candidate Siegel said. “Hotel workers need a union to have a chance of being able to live in or near Mountain View, and all ‘labor peace’ does is give them a fighting chance to bargain collectively.”
“I am in support of labor peace agreements when possible,” said candidate Ellen Kamei. “It is important to have all involved parties work collaboratively and in good faith for the duration of a project, and that the jobs created are good jobs that pay a living wage and provide benefits for people to be able to live in the area.”
“We should be a city where everyone can earn a living wage,” said candidate Lisa Matichak. “It is hard to comment on council closed session decisions since the discussion and deliberation is private and we have no way of knowing what transpired.”
“I wholeheartedly disagree with the Council on this issue,” said candidate Mercedes Salem. “I’m flabbergasted that the council voted against Labor Peace. This was a chance to protect the city’s investment and set a good standard for future developments. Labor Peace should have been required in the RFP while this was still a competitive process. Mountain View deserves more.”
Siegel added that the issue would likely come up again if the proposal by Virgin Hotels for the city property at Hope Street and Evelyn Avenue moves forward.
Council member Margaret Abe-Koga and union members have warned that the consequences of no labor peace agreement can be seen at the Hyatt hotel in Santa Clara — a boycott and years of picketing by union members.
“The workers want an expedited process for joining the union and the boycott is cutting into the tax revenue that the city gets,” McDermott said of the situation in Santa Clara. “So the city council in Santa Clara is very aware of that and we’ve been able to work well with them on other hotel projects,” including a requirement for labor peace at the Hilton hotel in Santa Clara “because they didn’t want another labor dispute.”
“Workers are scared of losing their jobs if they fight for their rights,” said Vanessa Anchondo, member of Local 19 of Unite HERE, who spoke to the council in June about the need for a labor peace agreement to secure decent wages. “I hope this project can move forward with labor peace in place so the project can move forward without labor unrest and give workers like me a voice.”
Last November, Abe-Koga had argued for a labor peace agreement, saying the developer and hotel operator “would agree to not interfere with labor and what the city would get in return is there would be no labor unrest.”
Countering her were council members Jac Siegel, Mike Kasperzak and then-mayor John Inks, who blamed a required labor peace agreement for the demise of deals to subsidize a four-star hotel on city land at Charleston Road and Shoreline Boulevard — one with Google in 2008 and another with Robert Greene in 2010. Abe-Koga blamed the recession for the failed North Bayshore hotel deals.
Email Daniel DeBolt at ddebolt@mv-voice.com
