Picket lines at Meadowview Hospital last week temporarily halted work authorized by the Hudson County Board of Freeholders, as the county and unions tried to work out contract details. Although an agreement with the county started the work rolling again, the construction project caused a clash between Freeholder William O’Dea and the County Administrator Abe Antun as union workers from Local 32 claimed certain tasks were being performed by unqualified workers. In 1998, the freeholders began setting up policies that would require contractors to follow specific guidelines when dealing with their employees, which included providing pay at the prevailing rate, along with providing medical benefits and pensions. They also required the contractors’ employees to be state-certified through an apprenticeship program. In October of 1999, they expanded the mandate to include sub-contractors hired by the general contractor. Freeholders had named Paragon Inc. of Sayreville in December as the general contractor for construction work at Meadowview, a county hospital in Secaucus. According to O’Dea, however, the construction work at Meadowview, which started a few weeks ago, apparently violated these standards. O’Dea has asked the county to halt work until the matter is resolved. “I demand that the work be suspended until the contractor provides a written guarantee that he will fully comply,” O’Dea said in a Feb. 9 letter to the county administrator. Antun, however, said most of the issues had been resolved with the contractor. “We obtained a written agreement from the general contractor that they would comply with our requirements,” Antun said. “The contractor has accepted except for Local 32.” Members of the Local 32, whose picket line the other unions honored and would not cross, have a dispute with the general contractor over whether or not work being done in a certain area of the hospital should be done by union workers. Antun said he was reluctant to halt the project because the general contractor has complied with county mandates in every other area, and that the county has stepped in to try and work out the details with Local 32. This dispute between O’Dea and Antun comes on the heels of what one observer called “a minor rebellion” at the Wednesday, Feb. 8 freeholder caucus meeting, where O’Dea and the other freeholders balked at authorizing a $2.1 million contract for an administration building in Jersey City’s Lincoln Park because it lacked the provisions relating to employees. O’Dea, whose district is Jersey City where the project would benefit his constituents, led the attack, saying that the freeholders had spent the last year working out details of basic rights for workers in the county, and that these had not been negotiated into the contract. Antun said that the contract did not contain the language, but that Belcor Construction Inc. of Hackensack, had agreed to abide by the county’s policies. This was not good enough for O’Dea or Chairman Sal Vega, who said he wanted to see the agreement in writing. O’Dea hammered home the point, saying, “I don’t want a letter saying they’ll agree to follow our policies; I want it spelled out as to what they will do.” “This contract is too big to say, ‘We’ll do it the next time,'” Vega said, noting that he had given his word to union people during negotiations on these issues. “Either we get something in writing,” he said, “or I’ll be forced to vote against this.” O’Dea said that while the contract would benefit his constituents in Jersey City, he too would vote against it if the language was not included. “If picket lines go up in Lincoln Park, first I’m going to go down there and picket with them, and then I’m going to come back here and find out why we didn’t do what we said we should do,” O’Dea said. Freeholder William Braker also wanted assurances that contractor would reach out and attempt to hire minority-owned subcontractors for the project. Even the normally mild-mannered freeholder Albert Cifelli said he was distressed at the lack of proper language in the contract, noting that the freeholders had accepted union accolades when the provisions were first passed. “We all took the credit,” Cifelli said. “Now it is time to put up or shut up.” Freeholder Barry Dugan raised a related issue, noting that a similar county recreation facility already constructed in Bayonne and was underused, partly because personnel to run the facility were not assigned to the place at times when the public needed it. Vega assured Dugan the situation would be corrected. In an unrelated issue, Freeholder Maurice Fitzgibbons claimed that a bill before the state legislature could result in the state’s gaining power over the salaries of some county employees. While promoted on the state level as a bill to update fees for various public functions – such as obtaining copies of records – another provision would allow the state to set the salaries for what are called “constitutional officers,” a category that includes county clerks, county surrogates and the county sheriff. Currently, those salaries are set by the counties in which these employees work. Antun said county salaries are based on a scale that has the county executive at the top. He said the state’s action could be disruptive. If the bill should become law, the salaries for these officials would rise from $75,000 a year to $98,250.
Freeholders press to make contractors comply
