THE JOB LINKAGE APPROACH TO COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
A STUDY OF BOSTON'S PERMANENT JOBS HIRING AGREEMENTS
by
KERI
B. S.
LYNN LUNG
Stanford University,
1980
Submitted to the Department of
Urban Studies and Planning
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Degree of
MASTER IN CITY PLANNING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June
@ Keri
1985
Lynn Lung
1985
reproduce
permission to
author hereby grants to M. I. T.
The
thesis document in whole or
to distribute copies of this
and
in part.
Signature of Author__
Department of Urban Studies
Cetiie
by--Certifiedbbbbbbbbbbbbr.
Accepted
by _
_
VtDr. Ph
Rotch
Bern
dJ.
lip
L.
Planning, May 8,
/d
Frieden,
Clay,
o0
--..--....
.....
Thesis Supervisor
...... ..
)CP Committee
L EC
s ' NST6I
gC
.JAA
1
303
Sc
1985
Chairman
THE JOB LINKAGE APPROACH TO COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
A STUDY OF BOSTON'S PERMANENT JOBS HIRING AGREEMENTS
by
:ERI
LYNN LUNG
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on May 8, 1985 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master in City Planning
ABSTRACT
The
paper presents a study of the City of Boston's permanent
jobs hiring agreement program.
Boston's program provides an
example
of
the job linkage approach to
community
economic
development:
the strategy of linking downtown expansion
or
revitalization
to
jobs
for
city
residents.
The
paper
hiring
evaluates
Boston's
permanent
jobs
describes
and
agreement program in order to guide the development of future
job linkage programs in Boston and other cities.
designed
Boston's permanent jobs hiring agreement program is
new
provide
private developers and employers to
to
induce
minorities,
women, and
permanent jobs for Boston residents,
Although
low income persons in exchange for public subsidy.
Boston's program is too new to permit a conclusive assessment
of its success, five variables appear to be important: 1) the
2) the degree of
type of industry that the employers are in;
financial
of
3)
the amount
involved;
pressure
political
to
and
access
retains;
4) the City's
leverage
the
City
project
and 5) the size of the
over the employers;
control
The importance of
these
and
number of employers involved.
more
is tested in a case study of one of Boston's
variables
the
employment
successful permanent jobs hiring agreements:
negotiated with the developers of the $540 million
agreement
Copley Place mixed-use development.
to
Boston's
of the
analysis,
modifications
As
a
result
to
permanent
jobs hiring agreement program are recommended
In closing,
however, the
make the program more successful.
recognizes the limitations of the job linkage approach
paper
of
to community economic development and presents an example
the
another
strategy which cities may want to combine with
job linkage approach.
Thesis Supervisor:
Title:
Dr. Bernard J. Frieden
Professor of City Planning
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
OVERVIEW OF BOSTON'S PERMANENT JOBS HIRING AGREEMENTS
III.
A.
History of Agreements...............................
B.
Role of the Neighborhood Development and
Employment Agency (NDEA)............................. 10C:
C.
Description of Agreements...........................
12
D.
Resultst
15
E.
Factors That Seem to Influence Compliance...........
CASE STUDY
A.
to Date.....................................
17
OF COPLEY PLACE PERMANENT JOBS HIRING AGREEMENT
History of Project
1.
Description of Copley Place Development.. h.......2
2.
Plannino
Process:
Establishment of
8.
8
Nature of
The "Front
End"
2
Approac h ...... 23
Employment Goals........
... ..
25
Agreement
1.
Description of Documents.................
2.
Role of
the Liaison Committee............
Role of
the NDEA.........................
27
.. 30
C.
Hiring Process and Results to Date
1.
Results to Date.......................... .......
u32
2.
Hiring Process........................... .......
a35
D.
E.
Factors Influencing Compliance
1.
Type of
2.
Pol.itic al
Industry................................37
.. a ..
.
47
Financi alI
.. a ..
.
49
4.
Control
Over Employers..
.. a ..
.
50
5.
Size of
Prosject and Empl oyers..
........
Future
Pressure.
.. a .
Comp liance...........
.
52
53.
54
IV.
CONCLUSION .................................
V.
FOOTNOTES.........
V1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................63
VII.
INTERVIEWS..............................................65
59
.........
4
INTRODUCTION
The
strategy of promoting inner-city community economic
development
expansion
is
a
by linking downtown
or revitalization
fairly
growing
residents
new but increasingly popular response
cities.
formalize
Boston
such a linkage
designed
to
downtown
growth
spread
to
is
the
primarily
its
to
discrimination
residents
in
one of the
benefits
Boston's first
counter
and poverty in
strategy by
residents.
Boston's
the
projects.
Boston
agreement
of
low income
provide
temporary,
that
many of
the
cities
Boston's
to
programs
phenomena].
and
minority
was
designed
opportunities
for
construction-related
has recently developed a
program
the
implementing
job linkage program
and
to
first
created by publicly-subsidized downtown
hiring
district)
to jobs for inner-city
problems of unemployment
nation's
jobs
(central business
extends
revitalization
permanent
the
job
jobs
linkage
strategy to the permanent jobs created by publicly-subsidized
projects;
a program with much
greater potential
benefits for
Boston's residents.
While
in
preliminary research
cities
the United States have recently implemented or are in
process of
programs
related
is
indicates that other
implementing job linkage programs,
are directed only towards
jobs.
sparse,
permanent
Information
especially
temporary,
the
most of these
construction
on existing job linkage programs
information
jobs linkage programs.
on
Thus,
the
less
common
the purpose of
this
paper
is
to describe and evaluate Boston's
permanent
jobs
hiring
agreement program in order to guide the development of
future job linkage programs in Boston and other cities.
permanent jobs hiring agreement
Boston's
history
roles;
provide an overview of
first. part of the paper will
The
of
3)
success
the program;
2)
the actors involved
and 4)
the structure of the agreements;
of
Boston's
the program to
is
program
date.
in
and
results
the
variables
from individual
that
assessment
affected
identify
success
of
1)
the
the
the degree of
involved;
3)
the amount
4)
financial. leverage the City retains;
control
the employers;
over
project and employers
in
the
order to
2)
pressure and publicity
In
in
paper compares
industry that the employers are in;
political
and
this
Five variables appear to be important:
agreements.
type of
have
might
Instead,
agreements
linkage
it is still too new
and the results too sparse to permit a conclusive
of the success of the program.
their
although
permanent jobs
the nation,
the
the overall
Unfortunately,
one of the first
programs to be established
1)
program:
order
detail
agreements:
developers
development.
reveals that all
employment
the
$540
Analysis
five
of
size
the
the paper investigates
the more successful permanent
the
of
the
involved.
to test these variables,
one of
access to
the City's
and 5)
of
million
jobs
hiring
agreement negotiated with
Copley
of the hiring results
Place
the
mixed-use
at Copley Place
variables cited above were important
in
determining
the
success of the
particular,
the
type
crucial
the
employment
been
industry appears to have
of
In
agreement.
a
This finding raises the question of whether
factor.
success of permanent jobs hiring agreements is more
the
of
the
result
mix and employment needs
of the occupational
particular industries involved than a conscious effort on the
part of employers to comply with the agreements.
a general evaluation of
with
concludes
jobs hiring
agreements.
1) what is
questions:
permanent
Boston's
This evaluation is centered on three
the goal
of
2)
the agreements;
and
3)
the
Recommendations for improving
the
how
accomplish
agreements
be improved.
agreements
follow directly from the analysis of the
the
success of
paper
do the
might
goal;
this
agreements
inf].Lencing
paper
the
the analysis of Copley Place,
from
Drawing
the
agreements.
also recognizes the limitations
however,
the
permanent
Jobs hiring agreements,
to the recommendations.
7
even if
In
factors
closing,
of
the
improved according
OVERVIEW OF BOSTON'S PERMANENT JOBS HIRING AGREEMENTS
HISTORY OF AGREEMENTS
The
concept
of
resident-preference
subsidy
hiring practises in
originated in
Coalition
Boston
and
requiring employers in Boston to
was
exchange for
the late 1970's when the
organized under the slogan
people."
"Boston
The Coalition consisted of
and persistent discrimination of
unions
which
public
Boston
Jobs
for
jobs
community groups
minority construction workers organized to
blatant
adopt
counter
local
the
construction
had been generally excluding Boston
residents
1
(white,
minority,
discriminatory
princi pal
period
practises
was
the
(HUD).
major
practices in
In
election)
firms
a
Housing
Boston
determining
this
and
Urban
the Nixon Administration's
these
Boston primary
federal
funds
in
(under Mayor Kevin White)
the
construction
hiring
Boston.
1979,
persuading
administering
role in
these
Boston during
HUD had given the City of
the City of
Thus,
Boston.
Department of
As a result of
for
responsibility
over
was heightened by the fact that
federal
new federalism plan,
a
Public outcry
source of construction funds in
Development
had
female).
and
the Boston Jobs Coalition was
Mayor
White
successful
(who was under the pressure
to sign an Executive Order
requiring
of
in
re-
construction
working on projects funded by the City or with federal
funds administered by the City to employ at least 50%
residents,
25% minorities,
and
8
10% women
out of
Boston
the workforce
for each construction trade
the first city in
became
constitutionality
Executive
The construction unions challenged
of this
resident hiring
Boston City Ordinance in October of
Ordinances of
The
1983 Chapter
1983
(Document 62:
the
quotas
also be applied to
the
by City-funded or administered
political
1983,
30).
Boston Jobs Coalition had originally
hiring
the
quota but
was upheld by the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
in
2
1983
and was subsequently incorporated into
a
of
created
Boston
Order
February
the
the project.
the United States to implement such
a resident hiring quota.
the
involved in
pressure for
proposed
that
permanent
jobs
projects.
However,
permanent jobs hiring quotas
was
not
as strong as for construction jobs because discrimination
in
permanent
universal
of
the
goals
jobs
hiring was neither
were
included in
property
revenue
bonds)
or
developers
subsidized
(UDAG's)
determined
jobs
the
City's
Industrial
loans
economic
Development
employers
as
development
Finance Authority
Development Corporation
loans from federal
since
HUD's
a
condition
for
(BLDC).
some
receiving
Urban Development Action Grants
approval of these projects was
by the number of jobs that would be
9
on
(industrial
jobs hiring agreements were also required of
and
as
hiring
several projects receiving leases
and the Boston Local
Permanent
nor
Although not part
permanent
publicly-subsidized
from
agencies--the Boston
(BIDFA)
blatant
as in construction jobs hiring.
1983 Boston City Ordinance,
public
as
partly
created
for
unemployed,
low income,
for
applied for,
received,
resulted
pressure
and
jobs
form
of
and administered by the City, public
in the incorporation of
Agency
Employment
hiring
were
UDAG's
hiring
resident
Development
The City of Boston's Neighborhood
1984,
(NDEA) standardized
an
into
agreements
permanent
these
Initiative
Employment
any
projects receiving
(EIA) to be applied to all
Agreement
created
the City's UDAG loan agreements.
goals in many of
In
since the
Boston residents,
specifically
HUD's
Although
not based on the number of jobs to be
was
approval
and minority persons.
public financial assistance in
The
Boston.
NDEA
developed the EIA in an attempt to rationalize the agreements
and
protect
thus
of
arbitrariness
included
prior
in
agreements
project basis,
individual
EIA to be applied to all
ROLE OF THE
The
NEIGHBORHOOD
City
had been
are
to
residents
on
negotiated
an
projects.
DEVELOPMENT
AND EMPLOYMENT
Neighborhood
Boston's
AGENCY
Development
and
(NDEA) was formed in 1982 when the
City's
the
City's
Agency
merged
and Employment Policy Agency.
objectives
goals
the
Whereas
the NDEA set standard goals in the
Development
Neighborhood
Boston's
of
Agency
Employment
Economic
agreements.
former
the
over
complaints
from
City
the
provide
employment
with
The NDEA's
general
opportunities
and to promote housing and
for
neighborhood
development.
One of the NDEA's primary responsibilities
is
to
and
and
placement
establish
administer
10
job
training
programs for economically disadvantaged and unemployed Boston
service.
In
receives
and
Boston,
insuring that the
monitoring
UDAG
responsibility
the NDEA was given primary
Plan,
Mgnagement
the City's
of
As part
for
federal
with
compliance
in
action guidelines.
affirmative
for
grants
the
administering
Grant
Action
procedures
City's
the
outlining
Plan
Management
City
1983 HUD required
In
Develoment
Urban
an
develop
to
City
of
City
the
funds for
federal
distributes
adheres to federal grant requirements.
the
which
since the NDEA is the agency
addition,
NDEA is responsible for
the
referral
Exchange
Jobs
Boston
the
including
residents,
permanent
project compliance with the
jobs
hiring agreements included in UDAG loan agreements.
Within
the
NDEA,
the monitoring
Compliance and Enforcement
Division,
originally
quotas.
jobs hiring
Enforcement
Division
and
has taken over
enforcing all of
agreements,
hiring
Since November
including
1983,
the
the Compliance and
responsibility
agreements
prior to the development of the standard EIA.
City
agencies
projects
with
the
are
still responsible for
receiving public subsidy,
NDEA
in negotiating
the
negotiated
Although other
approval
of
these agencies cooperate
permanent
agreements which the NDEA will enforce.
11
the
of
jobs
permanent
the City's
those
established
construction
the 1979 Mayor's Executive Order to monitor
monitoring
of
jobs hiring agreements is assigned to the Contract
permanent
by
enforcement
and
jobs
hiring
DESCRIPTION OF AGREEMENTS
The permanent jobs hiring agreements negotiated by BIDFA
and
BLDC prior to the development of the standard Employment
Initiative
resident
were
Agreement
hiring
(EIA)
goal.
of
only
a
industrial
Agreement"
permanent
(if
the employers
jobs
negotiated
agreements.
resident
Boston
defined as
in either loan agreements
hiring
agreements
included
to
UDAG
prior to the EIA incorporated
and varying
minority,
loan
a
50%
female,
the
198.
construction
jobs
hiring
Boston City Ordinance,
quotas
the permanent
permanent workforce.
total
standard
EIA now specifies "new
goals of 50% Boston residents,
females,
in
The
goals do not apply to each occupation but to the
hiring
The
revenue bonds)
leased City-owned property).
hiring goal
established by the
project's
(if the
income,
contrast
Jobs
included
economically disadvantaged
(originally
4
and impact area resident goals.
"CETA-eligible"),
low/moderate
In
hiring
Boston
agreements
employers and were
employers received State-subsidized industrial
or leases
50%
Most of these BIDFA/BLDC
negotiated with
as "Memoranda
included
with
an
additional
permanent
30% minorities,
goal
to
jobs"
and 50%
be
negotiated
for
These
categories
are
6
economically
not
disadvantaged persons.
mutually exclusive:
new employees can be counted
many categories as they qualify for.
apply
to
disadvantaged
residents.
all
minorities,
persons,
Like
the
permanent
12
or
as
In addition, the goals
females,
whether
in
not
jobs
or
they
hiring
economically
are
Boston
agreements
the hiring goals also apply
negotiated prior to the EIA,
the
within
employer
to
individual
each
The NDEA no
the project.
all
include
should
the
eliminated
not
workforce,
longer
targets
impact
residents because it now feels that the
area
impact
area
total
project's
The
Boston.
of
to
also
has
NDEA
(originally
category of low/moderate income
required by HLD) because the maximum income levels set by HUD
were so high that most projects far exceeded the low/moderate
7
goals.
income hiring
The goals for Boston residents,
established
in
labor
current
minorities, and females
the EIA were based on the City
and
statistics
market
of
recent
Boston's
employment
8
-18%
of
the City of
that
felt
NDEA
created
Boston's labor
However,
and
respectively,
the
that
(finance,
insurance,
real
be likely
the
jobs
new
by minorities and females,
since the current employment trends
the type of
indicated
would
force,
27%
approximately 30% and 50% of
Boston should be filled
in
respectively.
sectors)
and females represented
Since minorities
trends.
industries expanding
estate,
in
Boston
and professional
service
likely
to hire women but less
to
hire minorities, the NDEA expected that the 50% female hiring
goal
would
be
easy to
relatively
minority hiring goal
attain
the
while
30%.
In contrast
would be more challenging.
to the minority and female hiring goals, the NDEA established
the
50.
figure
Boston
resident hiring goal
since only 37.
of all
jobs in
as more
of
a
target
the City were currently
manufacturing
that most new firms were not in the
indicated
trends
employment
the
and
residents
Boston
by
filled
industries that traditionally employed Boston residents.
provision
"first-source"
public
Exchange for job referrals 10 days prior to any other
required
are
employers
the
monitoring
the EIA establishes a
Boston residents,
new employees,
minorities,
is
developer
the
development,
In
workforce.
total
project's
the case of
efforts"
incorporating
include
a
the
speculative
required to "use
best
its
abide by the EIA;
to rent to tenants who will
efforts"
and
apply only to
the hiring goals
categories,
occupational
Although
employers
are broken down by individual
reports
and
females,
economically disadvantage persons that were hired.
these
submit
to
hiring and workforce reports indicating the number
quarterly
of
which
in
employment
new
and
vacancies
job
addition,
In
positions.
process
all
for
advertising
Jobs
Boston
in the project to use the
employers
requiring
a
includes
also
EIA
The
"best
of
encouragement
written
tenant compliance in the tenant leases.
The
inclusion
City
to be
intended
is
EIA
legall y
speculative
the
developer of the project
development)
employer-initiated
or the employer
development).
as long as the loan or lease is
goals
apply
both
the
initial
hiring due to expansion
14
(in the case
of
(in the case of
Since the EIA remains
effect
to
the
by
in the loan or lease agreement negotiated
with
subsequent
through
binding
in
effect,
hiri ng
or
a
an
in
the hiring
period
t urnover.
and
to
However,
the
unlike
the
1983 Boston City Ordinance for construction jobs,
permanent jobs EIA does not
specify sanctions
(such
provisions
for the recovery of public funds),
will
as
initiated
be
corrective action
RESULTS
Of
requirement
proving that the "best
the
projects involving
33
on
employees.
completed
and
had
Unfortunately,
all.
of
prior
negotiated
an analysis of
agreements
can
new
hired
these
hiring
only
18
permanent
18 agreements were
the
standard
EIA.
included a 50% Boston resident
for
the agreements served as models
and some of
goal
jobs
July 1984,
to the development of
since each agreement
However,
permanent
as of
record at the NDEA
were
projects
the EIA,
has not been met.
TO DATE
agreements
hiring
this
of
is thus limited by the language of the loan
or lease agreement and usually entails
ef-forts"
extent
The
necessary.
the
although
"corrective action"
operational procedures state that
NDEA's
or
assistance
as suspension of financial
compliance
non-
for
the hiring results from these earlier
be useful
in
predicting the success
of
the
EIA.
Twelve
of
BIDFA and BLDC
by
agreements were negotiated
and included only a 50% Boston resident hiring
Five of the 18 agreements were negotiated by the NDEA
goal.
with
the 18 earlier
project
federal
developers
or directly
with
UDAG loans and included minority,
15
employers
female,
and
over
low
income persons hiring goals as well
In
addition,
negotiated
public
by
there
as Boston
is one permanent jobs hiring
the NDEA on a project that
financial
resident goals.
assistance.
In
this
did
agreement
not
case,
involve
the
hiring
agreement was included in a City-issued license.
While
are
the majority of
reported
negotiated
permanent
the 18 agreements for which there
hiring
by BIDFA/BLDC,
UDAG's,
with
40%
of
the jobs filled
Copley Place development alone.
for
the
1B
agreements
many
of
is
agreements
projects
by
Thus,
indicate
the
filled
receiving
$540
million
although the results
that
in
aggregate
prior
to note that since these 18
to
the EIA did not
be reported by each employer
difficult.
to
individual
evaluate
project
require
goal.
agreements
that
hiring
within a project,
compliance
the
hiring goal,
the smaller projects have not yet reached the
negotiated
Due
agreements
have exceeded the 50% Boston resident
also important
reSuLlts
were
78% of the permanent jobs
these agreements are from the five
Under
It
results
even
it
on
is
an
project basis.
to the variation
in agreement requirements,
the 18
projects with reported hiring results can only be compared by
their
As
compliance with the 50% Boston resident
of
July
1984,
only nine of the
18
hiring
projects
reported
compliance with the 50% Boston resident hiring goal;
the
five
18
of
target.
projects had reached 75-90% of the target
the
projects
had attained less than
goal.
four of
goal
60%
of
and
the
There are many variables that could have contributed
16
The NDEA considers the
to these different compliance rates.
factors to be
following
or employer;
developer
My
involved.
own
project compliance:
the City's access to and control
over
agreements
in
variables.
The
interpretation
order
analysis
Boston
residents:
service
these
of
be
also
COMPLIANCE
compliance
industries most
traditional
with
the
which
the
hire
to
likely
blue-collar manufacturing and
of
percentage
industries that employ a high
10
resident
the
Given that
workers.
low-skilled
sector
low-paid,
goal
hiring
importance
18
the
the case study.
INFLUENCE
the type of
employers were in
employers
compare
will
resident hiring goal were projects in
Boston
results
hiring
the variables will
of
of the nine projects found in
All
50%
TO
the
test
to
importance
SEEM
the
of
employers
and
industry that the
the type of
investigated more thoroughly in
FACTORED THAT
retained
project
the
of
following
The
in.
are
the
the
perhaps more important factor influencing
another,
reve aled
over
size
the
and
employers;
the
with
leverage the City
financial
of
degree
political
the degree of
project;
publicity associated
and
pressure
important:
applies
the
to
total
workforce
(not
residents tend to be employed
by
in
occupation)
and that Boston
low-paying,
low-skilled positions., it follows that the higher
the
percentage
industry
of
low-paying,
or business,
the more
17
low-skilled positions in
likely the
resident
an
hiring
goal
be met.
wi.ll
is
found
in
by the agreements),
income
persons.
sector
+found
contrast,
most
high
although
employers in
five
goal
In
persons.
of
the
employers
probably
manufacturing
do not employ a high percentage
low
of
manufacturing firms that produce
(for example,
specialized rather than mass-produced products),
difficulty
persons,
non-complying
the
that
report
not
income
low/moderate
suggest
results
These
did
also
these employers were in
of
some
sector.
have
Boston
52-82%
of the nine projects not found in compliance
percentages
skilled labor
low/moderate
manufacturing
the
income
low/moderate
Boston resident hiring
the
collectively
82%
compliance reported hiring
75-93%
and
hiring
The
in
residents
with
62% Boston residents and
hiring
reported
Copley
at
the employers
hotels and many retail businesses)
(two
low
low-paying,
presumably to fill
For example,
positions.
skilled
do
(even if they were not required to
income"
"low/moderate
as
classified
persons
of
percentage
high
a
hired
also
had
Boston resident hiring goal
the
with
compliance
Place
the employers
by the finding that most of
implied
so
The predominance of low-skilled jobs
attaining the Boston resident
and thus may
hiring
goal
because Boston residents tend not to have adequate skills.
variable
Another
that
seemed
to
affect
project
compliance was the degree of political pressure and publicity
associated
projects
with
found
the
project.
in compliance
For
with
example,
all
two
minority.,
of
the
female,
low/moderate income, and impact area resident hiring goals as
18
well
the 50% Boston resident hiring goal were
as
assisted
Copley
licensed
cable
publicized,
TV
company.
have
their
City
and
were
well
and
would
Conversely,
the
50%
permanent
are
jobs
most of the projects that
Boston
resident
these projects are located outside of
area
a
thus they were under
hiring
smaller and less-publicized industrial
of
Boston
permanent jobs:
public pressure to fulfill
achieved
involved
Many
of
commitments.
not
projects
Both
to have City-wide impacts,
create a large number
hiring
UDAG
Place development and Cablevision,
expected
tremendous
the
thus outside
the
goal
businesses.
the
center
downtown
of
public
attention.
Project
degree of
developer
or
employer
jobs
a project
For
example,
developer
of
(depending
neither
Although
non-compliance,
over
the
hiring agreements
the
on
who
EIA
nor
City can have some
NDEA
attributes
Copley Place in
the
part
delay payments over questions of
of
leverage
compliance
the
of
to the fact that the
UDAG
enabling the City
to
However,
it
non-compliance.
if permanent jobs hiring goals are not met,
difficulty
for
financial subsidy.
unlikely that the City could recover already
funds
the
earlier
the
financial
by threatening to withhold
the
signed
specify any sanctions
loan was administered in installments,
is
over the
financial leverage that the City retained
agreement).
permanent
compliance also seemed to be influenced by the
distributed
due to the
proving that the developer or employer did not
19
use
its
"best
leverage
amount
efforts."
Thus,
of their financial
Two
other
variables
compliance were:
that
seemed
to
with the project developer
employer-initiated developments)
involved
many
Only
legally
bound
language
project
small
the
cases,
to
case
with the employer
employers
or
a
few
than directly
negotiated
with employers.
because
between the developer and tenant only
the
"encourages"
The NDEA also does not have direct access
to the NDEA through the developer.
projects should be lower than
employers
by
employers,
compliance
many
employers:
effort
promote
the
in
Thus,
the total project,
small
compliance
in
these
not based
rather
can
Since compliance
on
should also be lower if
employers
report
projects where the NDEA
directly responsible.
determined
involved
not
lease
the employer's hiring records because the tenants
hold
the
large
the employers are tenants and are
the hiring agreement
of
(in
and whether
four of the 18 agreements were
tenant compliance.
to
or directly
project developers rather
these four
affect
(in
the
employers.
receiving
revenue bonds.
developments)
project
of
whether the permanent jobs hiring agreement
negotiated
case of
full
assistance prior to the hiring
speculative
In
financial
as is the case with projects
State-subsidized industrial
with
no
over developers or employers that receive the
permanent employees,
was
the City has
than
is
individual
the
a
project
few
more numerous the employers the greater
large
the
required of the developer and the City to monitor and
compliance.
The limited sample of
20
four
developer
negotiated
Copley
agreements tends to support this
Place
found in
projects
attributed
addition,
compliance,
the
case study will
project's
the
of
reveal,
In
not all
In
compliance.
the
of
fact,
to
the
over
compliance of the two hotel employers which account for
50-%
of
the permanent
employers
compliance
one
in
agreements, the Boston
the
to
of
been
have
Marine
factors
Industrial
affecting
this
case,
project did not reach full compliance even though it was
Industrial
Corporation
own Economic
(EDIC).
at least 28 different small
the EDIC's
difficult
In
Park.
role of monitoring
to fulfill.
21
Development
This surprising
can be explained by the fact that the project
with
of
developer-negotiated
other
the
developed and managed by the City's
and
The size and number
jobs created.
appear
also
be
discussed.
compliance is primarily due
overall
four
compliance could
and this
employers at Copley Place are in full
the
one
the other factors previously
to
as
the only
was
development
The
reasoning.
industrial
result
involved leases
tenants,
making
and promoting tenant compliance
CASE STUDY OF COPLEY PLACE PERMANENT JOBS HIRING AGREEMENT
HISTORY OF PROJECT
Description of Copgev Place Development
Copley
Place
is
a
massive
$540
million
mixed-use
development located on 9.5 acres of land and air rights
the
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
totals
Turnpike
TurnpikI::e
3.4 million
apartment
square feet of
junction of
Bay
Bay,
End,
In addition,
the
Copley site
including:
and a 9-story
Copley Place marks
St.
the
including the Back
Botolph,
and
Fenway
the development abuts Boston's
was cleared in
Massachusetts
undeveloped
and
Turnpike
desqjate
for
1965 by the MTA as
extension.
15 years,
blight in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Turnpike
and
development
Copley Square.
The
of
buildings;
1984].
South
The
State's
two hotel towers 36 and
several Boston neighborhoods,
neighborhoods.
historic
four 7-story office
Village,
the
building space
space;
building [Yudis:
from
(MTA).
Authority
35,000 square feet of retail.
38 stories high;
leased
over
large
interchanges,
vacant
pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
barrier between
creating
the adjacent
remained
a
major
The combination of
railroad and utility
spaces made the site
It
part
rights-of-way,
hazardous
to
both
thus presenting a physical.
neighborhoods.
Unfortunately,
the existing roadways and rights-of-way also made development
of
the site difficult,
and major
street and utility
to
proposals
However,
lease
came
however,
expertise
interest
the site.
in
the Urban
foot
to
and
financial
and Development
had recently completed a 3
development
Company
(UIDC),
Life
a
and
square
million
retail/office/hotel development in Chicago and proposed
construct a similar development
to
LJIDC's
[Hollister and Lee:
chain
Flzannin~
Process:
The "Front
record
and
a firm commitment
hotel
site.
at the Copley
track
strong
UIDC had obtained
In
financial.
from
a
major
1979).
End"
AD2roach
State was concerned with the negative impacts
that
a large development could produce but at the same
time
The
with
expressed
of Aetna
subsidiary
resources.,
was
backing
The funding and development expertise
Investment
UIDC
addition
such
and
1977 a development team with
and in
wholly-owned
Chicago-based,
Casualty.
site.
Market conditions strengthened
from one of the partners in the
primarily
team,
Copley
the
proposals were not able to meet the City
the 1970's,
substanti.l
developers
development climate in Boston,
State development objectives.
in
develop
and
partly due to a weal:
earlier
these
relocations.
State had been approached many times by
The
with
requiring construction over roadways
anxious to have the Copley site developed and
the strength of UIDC's proposal.
"Copley
Flace"
came in
the wake of
impressed
UIDC's proposal
the infamous
"Park
for
Plaza"
Park
of
In the case
fiasco nearby in Boston.
development
Plaza, both the City and the State had followed a traditional
the
impacts;
2)
development
proposals;
3)
The
process.
approval
to a public
the chosen proposal
submitting
planning
traditional
this
hearing
and
of
the
was painfully aware
State
of
public
opposition to the chosen development proposal
strong
that
was
project approval was delayed for six years
the
retrospect,
State
Park
over
incorporating
from
eventually withdrew
developer
outrage
Plaza:
approach at Park
failure
the
and
proposal;
a
choosing
detailed
fairly
soliciting
public
realized
Plaza
review
that
another
avoid
minimize the risk of
been
fiasco
so
and
In
public
the
avoided
by
of
the
stages
earlier
into
planning process [Hollister and Lee:
To
of
much
have
could
project.
the
for
potential.
site based on a preliminary assessment of the
environmental
4)
1) preparing development guidelines
approach:
planning
1979).
Park
like
Plaza
and
to the project,
losing UIDC's commitment
chose a "front end" planning approach
for
The State granted an option to UIDC for
the
development of Copley Place but required UIDC to subject
all
Dukakis
Governor
Copley
Place.
proposals
the
Thus,
to
the scrutiny of a Citizens
final
development
Review
evolved
concept
interaction between the developer and the public:
Committee.
through
the public
was able to propose as well as react to plans.
The Citizens Review Committee
formed
by
(CRC) for
representatives from at least
24
25
Copley Place was
community
and
and
development of
the
major
five
3)
coordinating
4)
Establishment
As
community
beneficial
(of
was
on
nearby
and
5)
projects;
ameliorating
and economic
impacts.
a Task Force on
impacts of
representatives considered the
aspects of
to be one of
specific
the
Place.
Copley
creation
job
most
important
proposal
The final UIDC
the project.
for the creation o-f
Community
make
to
formed
the employment
the development
of
social,
the CRC process,
Development
recommendations
called
access;
with
of Egmigyment Goals
part of
Economic
impact
design
and
scale
adverse physical,
significant
The
rejoining adjacent neighborhoods;
2)
pedestrian
improving
approximately 6,280 permanent
jobs
and
650
3,350 were expected to be new positions)
which
construction
jobs.
unemployment
rate
experienced
the
maximizing economic benefits to
communities;
surrounding
on
centered
The CRC recommendations
1)
concerns:
for
to be presented to the State and
the site
with UIDC.
negotiated
recommendations
the CRC formulated
meetings,
informal
workshops
Through a series of
organizations.
neighborhood
At
that
time,
overall
Boston's
even
higher
rates
in the neighborhoods adjacent to
Copley
Place.
was
7. 2%.
with
indicated that Boston residents
were
capturing a decreasing portion of the jobs in the City,
with
In
only
1.977
addition,
38%
studies
of the City's jobs filled by Boston
[Boston Redevelopment Authority:
residents
in
Thus,
one
1980, p.16].
of
the
that
objectives of the Task Force was to insure
the major
people
new jobs created at Copley Place would go to the
most in need and most affected by the project.
Based on current City of Boston labor market statistics,
the Task Force recommended that hiring goals of 50% women and
Agreement
were
EIA,
Unlike the later
(EIA).
later
Initiative
into the NDEA's standard Employment
incorporated
jobs
permanent
goals
same
These
Place.
Copley
at
created
established for the new
be
.30% minorities
however,
the
defined "permanent jobs" to include the part-time
Force
Task
and
seasonal. jobs created at Copley Place because many of the new
jobs were not expected to be full-time, year-round positions.
concern over the loss of
community's
The
the
residents,
high unemployment rates in
Copley Place,
near
jobs
the neighborhoods
and the issue of neighborhood
also spurred the Task Force to recommend
suburban
to
displacement
resident
50% Boston
11
"impact
1.7.2%
and
resident goal
Boston
Ordinance
resident
labor
area resident"
for
goal
force
addition
to
hiring
City
impact
area
The
was based on the fact that
these
in the
designated
goals,
hiring
the
17.2%
17.2% of the City's
area.
impact
Task
Force
also
reduced rents to minority and community-owned businesses.
These
Task Force recommendations were accepted by
included
Task
In
space
recommended that LJIDC provide community-oriented retail
at
50%
was modeled after the 1983 Boston
construction jobs.
resided
The
goals.
as
Force
provisions in the MTA lease
recommendations
26
were
not
UIDC
and
agreement.
Three
by
UIDC:
accepted
1)
a
5% hiring goal
requirement
source"
3)
and
the application of
the
within
business
total
at
development
and
Copley
each
every
across
an
major
rather than to
the
workforce.
Subsequent
its
to the MTA lease signing,
scale
of
Urban
Development
proposal
and sought federal
Action Grant
(UDAG).
UIDC
increased
the
subsidy through
an
federal.
Since the
of Housing and Urban Development
Department
more
or
the hiring goals to
group within the business,
occupational
project's
seven
action employment office established
affirmative
Place;
employers with
"first
provide advance notice of job vacancies to
to
employees
for all
a
2)
for handicapped persons;
requires
(HUD)
that projects receiving UDAG's provide benefits to low income
the
Citizens Review Committee was able to reinforce
the
people,
goals
hiring
included in the
MTA
and
lease
propose
additional. goals for low income people in the UDAG agreement.
NATURE OF AGREEMENT
Description of Documents
The
earliest
document
incorporating a
permanent
jobs
hiring agreement for Copley Place was the MTA lease signed by
Dukakis and UIDC in
Governor
lease
has
(entitled
hiring
a
term of
1978 and amended
99 years.
"Affirmative Action")
Schedule D
in
1980.
The
of
the
lease
includes the permanent
goals negotiated with UIDC during the citizen
27
jobs
review
process:
50% Boston residents,
and "good
impact area residents,
17.2%
30% minorities,
and,
counter to the Task Force recommendations,
the
total
of
in
included
Office)
Copley
Place
Employment
action
hiring
during the initial
affirmative
facilitate
leasing period;
of
composed
Committee
Liaison
to
to
organizations
Schedule
goals.
commitment
its
training
training
hiring
assist employers with meeting
the
D also requires UIDC to notify
tenants
goals and encourage the tenants
to the hiring
report
to
their hiring results
the
Liaison
employees
to
Committee
"at least every four months during the first
after
the
with
such
frequency
D
also
"at
the
as
a year
once
affirmative action status" of
to
these
provide
hiring
the
Liaison
review
the
overall
In
addition
the development.
agreements,
15, 000-20,000
square
28
to
determine."
to
UIDC to report
requires
least
shall
EMTAJ
Schedule D requires
feet
of
five
thereafter
and
Increase Date
Initial Rent
years
Committee
of
UIDC must encourage tenants having seven or more
to comply.
Schedule
the
Boston
the
and
recruitment
based
a
2)
from
the City and State manpower
community
and
agencies,
and
representatives
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination,
Redevelopment Authority,
a
(the
office within the development
and referral
recruitment
the
1)
of:
establishment
are the
D
Schedule
by
recommendations
hiring
Force
Task
apply only to
created
jobs
new permanent
Other
development.
to hire
efforts"
faith
women,
These goals are not mutually exclusive
handicapped persons.
number
50%
UIDC
to
community-oriented
and
space with reduced rents for minority
retail
businesses.
owned
Place after signing the MTA lease and decided to seek
Copley
subsidy
federal
a UDAG.
through
The
Cogly
However,
income
in
developments
Eoston,
persons.
employees
as
persons
Associates:
Research
employment
City
Based
on
40% of the jobs created at
Copley
[Economics
income
p.62].
Although
1979,
the
qualify
low/moderate
of
same
the
the
total
at Copley Place would be CETA-subsidized
jobs,
projections indicated that only
created
of
office
retail,
were expected to pay salaries that would
Pl ace
persons
and
trends at comparable hotel,
employment
estimated that 25% of
1% of
of
be
the projected jobs could
that
by CETA-eligible persons based on the projection
filled
25%
and CETA-eligible
jobs
permanent
the
the project that would be filled by
by
low/moderate
the
application guidelines required the
HUD's
to also estimate the percentage of
created
MTA
in the
the same permanent jobs hiring agreement included
lease.
UDAG
Place
1980 incorporated
Application submitted by the City to HUD in
City
for
UIDC changed its proposal
As previously mentioned,
jobs.
Community
the jobs created would be unskilled or service worker
positions [Economics Research
included
Associates:
p.613.
these percentages as additional hiring
UDAG Grant Agreement
between
established in
the MTA
29
the
goals
in
jobs
hiring
the City and HUD.
Two other documents reinforce the permanent
agreements
then
HUD
lease and UDAG
Agreement:
1)
the
1981
Grant
and
Loan
Agreement
establishing
the
procedures by which the City would transfer the UDAG funds to
UIDC;
and 2)
the 1983 Cpley
Implgmentation
jobs
hiring
take
to
tenant
UIDC's commitment to
stating
job
its
commitment.
fairs and informational
handbooks
describing
maintaining
communication
governmental
recruitment
allocating
funds
programs.
In
obtaining
a
for
operate
Employment
the
the
with
and
addition,
in
permanent
UIDC
would
steps
included:
seminars,
producing
hiring
agreements,
community-based
training
pre-employment
1984
and
agencies,
and
the
skills
City
and
training
succeeded
in
"first-source" agreement from UIDC requiring the
UIDC Management Company
and
These
Plan of
Gals:
agreements and outlining the steps
fulfill
sponsoring
Place EmGloyment
Copley
(the agency hired by UIDC to maintain
Place)
to
notify
the
Copley
Place
Office five days prior to public announcement
of
any job vacancies.
Role of the Liaison Committee
The Copley Place Permanent
was
Place
established
in
Jobs Hiring Liaison Committee
1982 to assist the employers
with meeting the hiring goals,
in
at
Copley
accordance with the
Task Force recommendations and the MTA lease.
The
Committee
included
representatives from the MTA,
the State Employment
Training
Council,
Commission
the
Massachusetts
Against
Discrimination, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the NDEA,
for
Action
Boston Community Development
organization),
community-based
and the affirmative action officer for UIDC.
While none of
permanent
(a
jobs
the documents comprising the Copley
hiring agreement gave the
Committee
Place
formal
authority to enforce the hiring agreement,
Schedule D of
MTA
lease
empowered
procedures
Moreover,
the
as
it
to monitor
to
rather
these
Committee
to
"establish
deems
necessary
to
its
their
with confront the Copley Place
by occupation rather than
will
be discussed further
As
compliance,
face-to-face
in
obtaining
were
occupation
management
Place,
employers
directly
than through LJIDC and to obtain the hiring results of
workforce.
In
operation."
that the Liaison Committee had the
authority
12
hiring practises.
Thus, the Committee was
employers
factor
such
both LJIDC and the Copley Place employers were under
impression
able
the
critical
contact
in
the
entire
the section
with employers was a
on
key
reports
by
achieving affirmative action
at
compliance,
in
for
and
hiring
levels.
addition to monitoring the hiring process at
the Committee assisted employers in
residents,
minorities,
recommending
populations,
hiring
women,
and
procedures
participating
recruiting
low income
targeted
Copley
Boston
persons
towards
in job fairs and
mass
employers
with
appropriate
organizations and job training and referral
by
these
hirings,
helping to establish the Copley Place Employment Office,
linking
the
and
community-based
agencies.
Role of
the Neighborhood Develoment
previously
As
Plan
Manggement
Development
and
responsible
agreements
mentioned,
for
role
the
semi-annual
of
Boston's
City's
(NDEA)
and
UDAG
Neighborhood
as
enforcing
the
agency
the
included in the City's UDAG agreements.
NDEA's
reporting
the
Agency
monitoring
case of Copley Place,
the
the City
identified
Employment
ad Eggg2ment Agency
hiring
In
the
the Liaison Committee largely fulfills
although
the
NDEA
project's overall
is
responsible
for
to HUD on
hiring results
a
basis.
HIRING PROCESS AND RESULTS TO DATE
Results to Date
As of October 1984,,
Copley Place had hired
UIDC reported that the employers at
],143 new permanent employees:
these employees were Boston residents,.
26% impact area residents,
women,
and 6% CETA-eligible persons.
Copley
Place
the
hiring
goals
Thus,
fulfilled
except for the
minorities,
83% persons of
income,
had collectively
35%
25%
62% of
50%
low/moderate
the employers at
or exceeded all
CETA-eligible
of
goal.
However, analysis of the reports made by the larger employers
to
the
Liaison Committee reveals
that,
on
an
individual
basis,
none of the larger employers had fulfilled all
hiring
goals,
As
the
even excluding the CETA-eligible
indicated in Table 1,
of the
hiring goal.
the Marriott and Westin Hotels and
UIDC Management Company have come close but not
reached
TABLE 1
COPLEY PLACE HIRING RESULTS
(as of October 1984)
EMPLOYER
NEW HIRES %BOSTON
ZIMPACT AREA
TO DATE RESIDENTS XMINORITY ZFEMALE RESIDENTS
%LOW/MOD ZCETAINCOME ELISIBLEt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARRIOTT HOTEL
955
65.6%
44.0%
47.0%
17.3%
94.7%
WESTIN HOTEL
829
62.6%
47.0%
40.7%
27.1%
97.3%
14.1%
NEIMAN-MARCUS DEPT STORE
235
48.1%
23.4%
63.0%
22.1%
82.6%
0.4%
UIDC MANAGEMENT CO
171
53.8%
46.8%
39.8%
24.6%
69.6%
9.9%
72 OTHER RETAIL STORES
953
61.3%
17.5%
59.1%
35.8%
60.1%
4.3%
61.5%
35.4%
50.0%
26.3%
82.6%
5.6%
50%
301
50%
17.2%
40%
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
HIRING GOAL
3,143
25%
tPrivate employers have difficulty determining CETA-eligibility without violating privacy laws.
Thus, these reports are not accurate counts of the number of CETA-eligible persons hired.
SOURCE: Progress Reports by Copley Place employers to the Copley Place Liaison Committee,
July-October 1984.
the
female hiring goal,
50i
department
Neiman-Marcus
the
has almost met the 50% Boston resident hiring goal
store
and the 72
is far from reaching the 30/. minority hiring goal,
even
are
stores
retail
other
further
meeting the minority hiring goal.
that
demonstrates
collectively
from
On the other hand, Table 1
of the employers
all
impact
to
these
retail,
and
area
building
approximately
jobs would be created at Copley
office
3,000
hotel,
UIDC had estimated that
management positions,
the
low/moderate income hiring goals.
resident and 40% perscos of
addition
to
repcrting
Liaison Committee have managed to meet the 17.2%
In
but
Place.
These
office jobs were expected to be filled primarily by employees
from other locations rather than new
transferred
neither
Thus,
Finally,
of
goal
faced
is
it
is
important
partly
due to the difficulty
determining
in
government's
criteria
to note that
for
welfare
the
determining
The
family
status.
do not generally ask for this type of
because of
privacy laws and are thus unable to identify
eligible applicants or employees.
permit
In contrast,
employers to classify persons
34
federal
CETA-eligibility
on the applicant's prior
payments) and
hiring
employers
that private
employers
NDEA
apparent
CETA-eligible
CETA-eligibility.
included detailed information
(including
results.
hiring
all employers to meet the
require
NDEA
Committee nor the
employers to report their
these office
failure
Liaison
the
employees.
of
income
Private
information
CETA
HUD and the
low/moderate
paid
upon
Due to the large number of employees hired at one
time,
income
on
based
they
salaries
the
be
will
employment.-
Hiring Frgess
new
state
generally use the services of
hotels
employment
agencies
13
pools.
to recruit and hire employees from statewide
decided
to
Both the Westin and Marriott Hotels at Copley Place
since
However,
the
DES-conducts mass hirings based on
target. Boston residents,
minorities,
the DES hiring with other
supplement
necessarily
income
or low
hiring
practises.
the Marriott and Westin Hotels went beyond their normal
Both
hiring
procedures
by
minority,
recruiting
and women's newspapers,
employees from community-based referral
Hotel
Westin
The
also
held
training
agencies.
meetings
with women's organizations and sponsored job
for women.
Boston
and
special
fairs
In addition, the Marriott Hotel agreed to hire 10
minorities
positions,
fairs,
job
community
sponsoring
advertising in community,
and
women,
the
the Liaison Committee convinced the hotel employers
persons.,
to
not
by the employers and does
required
(DES).
Security
Employment
of
Division
the
through
hirings
mass
such
conduct
Massachusetts
skills
labor
even
to
though
be
trained
they
for
normally
level
management
and
train
promote
14
employees for management positions from within.
The next
store,
largest employer,
initiall.y
began
to
the Neiman-Marcus department
hire
employees
through
its
traditional
However,
method
these
of
advertising
initial
hirings
in
major
resulted
newspapers.
in
very
percentages of minorities and Boston residents hired.
on
the Liaison
also
sponsored
Boston.
While
hiring
recommendations,
Neiman-Marcus
a
in the
community
job
the
very
Committee
has
minority
Acting
Committee's
fair
minority
job fair was successful
minority and Boston resident applicants,
up
low
few
of
these
in
attracting
Neiman-Marcus ended
applicants.
managed to increase the Boston
hiring at Neiman-Marcus,
in
Although
the
resident
and
the store has
still
not
also
had
come close to achieving the minority hiring goal.
Surprisingly,
difficulty
Company,
obtaining
Liaison
Committee
compliance from
the
has
UIDC
Management
the building management company hired by UIDC.
Committee
was
especially concerned with
non-compliance
company
the
because
it
expected UIDC's
to set an example for the rest of
employers.
Despite
recruitment
and
UIDC
constant
referral
by
pressuring
the
Management's
own
the
and
Committee,
The
management
Copley
even
Place
direct
the
UIDC
Management Company has not meet the 50'. female hiring goal.
Except
Committee
for a few of the larger employers,
has not asked the 72 other retail
Place to report
range
in
restaurant
employees.
the
stores at Copley
individually to the Committee.
These stores
size from a specialty shop of two employees
of
124
As
employees,
Table
I
with
indicates,
36
a
Liaison
mean
these
size
72
to
of
a
13
retail
establishments
collectively
women.,
area
impact
exceeded the
resident,
resident,
Boston
low/moderate
and persons of
percentage
income hiring goals but were extremely low in the
of
minorities hired.
FACTORS INFLUENCING COMPLIANCE
Iyge
of
Industry
In
case
the
goals are applied to the entire workforce and not
hiring
the
occupations,
low-paid,
of
lowest
the
worth
noting
It is
are
area
in hotels
are
Equal
Employment
worker"
department
in
also in generally low-paid positions
[U.S.
Opportunity
of
The
problem
meeting
the
consistent
hiring goals because
with
their
the
"sales
Commission:
employers themselves anticipated having
1983].
generally
Boston
"service
or
"unskilled"
and 48% of the labor force employed
positions
workers"
paying
low
the
that 61% of the labor force employed
indicate
by
the more likely
for the metropolitan
statistics
industry
stores
industry,
will comply with the goals.
employers
in
the percentage
labor employed in an
skilled
that
higher
the
since the
As was previously noted,
compliance.
employer's
industry
determining
factor in
have been a critical
to
appears
of
type
the
of Copley Place,
goals
established
little
were
hiring
15
patterns.
Further
patterns in
analysis of hotel
and department
store
hiring
Boston reveals that the major employers at Copley
37
Place
would probably have met most of the hiring goals
without the permanent jobs hiring agreement.
In fact,
for a much higher percentage of minorities hired,
patterns
of
markedly
from industry-wide hiring patterns in
the
employers at Copley Place
Table 2 demonstrates,
Boston
(as
except
the hiring
not
differ
As
Boston.
union statistics on employees at eight
hotels indicate that Boston and impact area residents
defined
comprise
in the Copley Place hiring agreement)
a
generally
area
do
even
large percentage of
to
unionized
workforce--
exceeding the 50% Boston resident and
17.2% impact
resident hiring goals.
unionized
the
tend
The distribution for all eight
Boston hotels is 69.4% Boston residents and
22.6%
impact area residents, compared to the 65.6% and 62.6% Boston
residents and 17.3% and 27.1%
the
Copley
Place Marriott and Westin
(see Table 1).
department
department
level
and
department
hiring
store
48.1%
store
patterns:
residents
results
may also be similar
the
unionized
employed 44.9% Boston residents
Boston
hired
by
to
Boston
compared
to
16
Neiman-Marcus.
the unionized workforce does not include management
employees,
managers,
respectively
stores in Boston suggest that the hiring
industry-wide
Although
Hotels,
by
Union statistics on one of the few unionized
at the Neiman-Marcus
the
impact area residents hired
these employees
professionals,
(defined as officials
and technicians) comprise only
18% of the workforce in metropolitan Boston
hotels
and
14%
and
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES IN UNIONIZED BOSTON HOTELS
(as of February 1985)
# UNION
EMPLOYEES*
EMPLOYER
--------------------------------------------------
----COLONNADE
COPLEY
%IMPACT AREA
%BOSTON
RESIDENTS** RESIDENTS**
74.3%
32.7%
303
70.3%
23.4%
30
76.7%
HOTEL
PLAZA HOTEL
COPLEY SQUARE HOTEL
LENOX HOTEL
111
73.0%
28.8%
PARK PLAZA HOTEL
429
70.9%
16.6%
PARKER HOUSE HOTEL
374
64.2%
16.8%
RITZ CARLTON HOTEL
286
58.4%
17.1%
73.5%
27.6%
69.4%
22. 6%
SHERATON
----TOTAL.
653
BOSTON HOTEL
-------------------------------------------------------2, 388
*These figures do not include managers, professionals, and
technicians.
**"Boston" and "Impact Area" residents as defined
Copley Place permanent jobs hiring agreement.
SOURCE:
in the
Membership mailing lists of the Hotel, Restaurant,
Institutional Employees and Bartenders Union,
Local 26 in Boston.
department
Opportunity Commission:
Union
Equal
respectively [U.S.
stores,
Employment
1983].
contracts do not required unionized Boston hotels
and department stores to give preference to Boston residents.
Thus,
the
department
employers
1)
the
employees
to work and are thus
weather
or
more
traffic
the majority of the positions available
and/or 2)
not pay enough to attract suburban residents who tend
have higher
As
Tables
and 4
3
labor
forces as well
metropolitan
the
illustrate,
similar
and
force
to the Copley Place hiring results:
45.8%
females
and
and
department
store
department stores,
Marriott
and
employed
metropolitan
by
and
67.0%
force
and
70.3%
labor
respectively.
Westin
stores
are
there are 5).2%
in the metropolitan Boston
employed
respectively,
Place
and department store
department
hotels and
of
distribution
as the distribution of females
Boston
to
levels.
incomes and skill
females in the metropolitan Boston hotel
in
and
propose
tendency:
this
adverse
in
reliable
and
conditions;
I
the hotels) prefer to hire
(especially
flexible
do
for
explanations
can walk or ride msss transit
that
hotels
stores generally hire nearby residents.
plausible
two
suggest that Boston
union statistics
hotel
labor
Boston
hotels,
in
Boston's
females
employed
by
Boston
By comparison, the Copley
Hotels hired
47.0%
and
40.7%
females, respectively, and the Neiman-Marcus department store
hired 63.0% females
(see Table 1).
40
TABLE
3
DISTRIBUTION OF MINORITIES & FEMALES
IN HOTEL & RETAIL INDUSTRY LABOR FORCES
(Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1980)
EXPERIENCED
CIVILIAN
LABOR FORCE* %MINORITY**
INDUSTRY
HOTELS & LODGING PLACES
TOTAL RETAIL
Department
Apparel
Stores
Eating
Pl aces
%FEMALE
064
14.6%
TRADE
215, 090
5.5%
50. 0%
Stores
24,526
4.1%
70.3%
19, 176
5.6%
68.3%
58,946
9.6%
50.5%
11
,
50.2%
"
& Accessory
& Drinlking
*"Experienced Civilian Labor Force" includes all
employed
and experienced unemployed persons residing in the
Boston SMSA (including part-time & seasonal employees).
**The U.S. Bureau of the Census cautions that Census counts
tend to underestimate Blacks, Hispanics, and persons of
low income.
SOURCE:
1.980 U.S. Census of Population: Detailed Population
Characteristics (PC80-1-D)q Table 227.
Data are
estimates based on a sample.
TABLE
4
DISTRIBUTION OF MINORITIES & FEMALES
EMPLOYED IN HOTELS & DEPARTMENT STORES
(Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area,
INDUSTRY
HOTELS,
TOURIST
#EMPLOYEES*
MOTELS,
COURTS
DEPARTMENT
XMINORITY**
1983)
%FEMALE**
AND
STORES
7' 103
25. 7%
45.8%
28, 749
6.9%
67. 0%
*These totals only include the employers located within the
Boston SMSA that are required to report to the EEOC:
employers with 100 or more employees.
**The EEOC does not count temporary or seasonal employees.
Since these positions tend to be disproportionately filled
by women and minorities, the EEOC figures may underestimate
the actual percentages of females and minorities employed.
SOURCE:
U.S. Equal
1983 EEO--1
Employment Opportunity Commission,
Report Summary By Industry Within SMSA.
similar
A
reveals,
however,
succeeded
the
that
the
Tables 3 and 4
Copley
Place
Boston hotel
distribution
hotels
Marriott
and
of
and
minorities
department
Westin
minority hiri ng goal
Hotels
have
employ only 25.7%
30% minority hiring goal,
of
patterns
Boston retail
department
respectively,
minorities
labor forces and
by
metropolitan
Copley
exceeded
less
than
10% minorities
30%
14.6%
minorities.
While
the 72
other
meeting
the
17.5% minorities that
in
the
metropolitan
by metropolitan
Boston
that compliance with minority
also related to the
within an industry:
low-paid,
compliance.
low-skilled
Not
jobs,
surprisingly,
and department
stores overall
occupational
the higher the percentage
the
the
more
likely
as well as by the major
or sales worker
43
of
Boston hotels
employers are generally much higher within
unskilled/service
the
distributions
minorities and females employed by metropolitan
paying
the
stores.
female hiring goals is
Place
Place
far exceed the industry-wide
labor force or employed
distribution
of
of
store nor
the 23.4% and
Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate
and
minorities
stores at Copley Place have succeeded in
have been hired,
have
labor force and metropolitan
the Neiman-Marcus department
retail
1
of
The
both
Table
although minorities comprise only
hotels overall
neither
employed
stores.
the metropolitan Boston hotel
Boston
and retail
to
employers
in hiring a much higher percentage
the metropolitan
Boston
of
of
would be expected given the distribution
than
in
comparison
the
Copley
lower
positions than
in
TABLE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF MINORITIES & FEMALES
EMPLOYED IN BOSTON HOTELS BY SELECTED OCCUPATIONS
(1983-1984)
%FEMALE
%MINORITY
OCCUFATION*
--------------------------------------------------------HOTEL EMPLOYERS
REPORTING TO EEOC
Managers/F'rofessionals/Technicians
10).2%
33.8%
Unskilled/Service Workers
33.2%
44.3%
Managers/Professionals/Technicians
23.8%
36.5%
Unskilled/Service Workers
55.9%
47.4%
16.3%
33.8%
51.6%
38.3%
COPLEY FLACE MARFIOTT HOTEL
COPLEY PLACE WESTIN HOTEL
Managers/Frofessionals/Technicians
Unskilled/Service
----
Workers
-------------------------------------------------------
*Occupational categories as defined by and reported to the
Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission.
SOURCES:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
1983 EEO-1 Report Summary by Industry Within SMSA.
-----------------------------------------------------Progress Reports by Copley Place employers to
Copley Place Liaison Committee, July-October 1984.
TABLE
EMPLOYED
6
DISTRIBUTION OF MINORITIES & FEMALES
IN BOSTON DEPARTMENT STORES BY SELECTED
(1983-1984)
XMINORITY
OCCUPATION*
OCCUPATIONS
XFEMALE
DEPARTMENT STORE EMPLOYERS REPORTING TO EEOC
Managers/Frofessionals/Technicians
3.6%
47..%
Sales Workers
7.0%
78.0%
COPLEY PLACE NEIMAN-MARCUS
DEPARTMENT
Managers/Professionals/Technicians
Sales Workers
STORE
0.0%
20. 0%
65.6%
71.4%
*Occupational categories as defined by and reported
Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission.
SOURCES:
U.S. Equal
1983 EEO-1
to the
Employment Opportunity Commission,
Report Summary by Industry Within SMSA.
Progress Reports by Copley Place employers to
Copley Place Liaison Committee, July-October 1984.
the
compliance
with
industries
is
hired
by
hotels and department store at
the
resemble
metropolitan Boston employers
Tables
Copley
ma.jor
percentage
Place
of
employers
for
have
the
than
both
level
positions
department
stores employ overall,
metropolitan
and
Boston
lower
level
Neiman-Marcus
While
women
than
the
for
Boston
metropolitan
in
department
stores.
In fact,
in
Finally, it
the store has
the
level
and
as well
hired
in the case of the
goal,
the
type
occupational distribution determined the
as compliance with the goal.
described, the 40% persons of
As
of
goal
previously
low/moderate income hiring goal
set by HUD based on the City's estimate that 40% of
created at Copley Place would pay salaries
46
a
position to date.
is important to note that
low/moderate income hiring
Boston
metropolitan
Neiman-Marcus has not
single minority for a management
jobs
higher
the meager percentage of minorities employed
positions
itself
much
the
to
level
industry
that
failed
management
of
a
all
(across all
higher percentage of
management
persons
hired
Place
by
hired
management
hiring a much
even
females
Copley
in these industries
in
has succeeded
match
females
exceptions to these findings.
notable
level
Neiman-Marcus department store presents two
The
positions..
lower
5 and 6 indicate once again
minorities
overall,
employers
of
distributions
the
occupations),
these
the distributions of
while
However.,
Thus,
in
minority and female hiring goals
largely due to the dominance of
occupations.
was
positions.
managerial/professional/technicican
that
the
would
qualify
the employees as persons of
City's
projections
Boston.
and office employers in
retail,
hired
of the major Copley Place employers have
all
Although
from
were based on salary distributions
hotel,
comparable
The
income.
low/moderate
more
than the predicted 40% persons of
this
result
income,
low/moderate
is more a reflection of the inaccuracy
the
of
City's projections than of the employers' attempts to recruit
be paid at Copley Place,
will
exceeded
the
the
they
the fact that employers
have
low/moderate
manner,
income level.
employers
to
hiring goals.
however,
HUD's
City
the
(and
pay low salaries
In fact,
in
of
the
below
by permitting
low/moderate income
may
HUD)
40%
actually
order to comply
in
encourage
the
with
This is probably not the case at Copley Place,
because
the qualifying salary level
definition of
according
low/moderate income is much higher
the median salaries paid
hotel
in
and retail
to
than
17
industries.
Pressure
Political
The
size and
location of Copley Place alone were enough
to focus public attention on the development.
as
are
pay salaries that
available
employers to classify persons of
this
the
the 40% goal simply implies that more than
positions
defined
salaries
low/moderate income based on
of
persons
as
employees
the employers to classify
allows
concurrence)
HUD's
(with
Since the NDEA
low/moderate income.
persons of
previously
discussed,
47
Copley
Place
In
addition,
presented
an
opportunity
themselves
project's
for
the
Mayor
after
the
Park
receipt
and
the
Plaza
of an $18.5
Governor
fiasco.
million
to
redeem
Finally,
UDAG,
the
the
largest
public subsidy in Boston's history, forced the developer, the
City,
and
the
State
to demonstrate that
concrete
public
benefits would be produced in exchange for the subsidy.
The Copley Place permanent jobs hiring agreement was the
first
with
comprehensive
a
private developer
language
the
employment agreement to
of
Boston.
goals,
efforts"
to comply.
limited
legal
only
compliance
that the developer use
its
the
with
"best
As a result, the City and the State had
control
Mayor
negotiated
Unfortunately,
the agreement does not require
hiring
pressure.
in
be
and resorted primarily
White,
Governor Dukakis,
staffs were in direct contact with UIDC.
to
political
and both of
their
In addition,
Mayor
White held special meetings with the managers of the Marriott
and Westin
and
the
Hotels
empl oyers at
pressure.
the
[Hawes:
May
1,
1980].
Luckily,
Copley Place were vulnerable
to
such
UIDC wanted to establish a good relationship with
City to facilitate future UIDC projects in
the hotel
both UIDC
Boston,
and
and retail
employers realized that their businesses
18
also depended on a good public image.
The
Mayor,
motivated
focused
by
on
the
the
Governor,
tremendous
and
their
amount
employment impact of
of
staffs
were
also
public
Copley
attention
19
Place.
In
addition to public participation in formulating the permanent
jobs hiring agreement,
public "watchdog" organizations
48
made
with
the
implementing
with
accordance
claiming
HUD
permanent
the
complaint
was
residents
outside
of
the
that
jobs
provisions
accompanied
administrative
(ACORN) filed an
Organizations for Reform Now
complaint
in
hiring
the
City
in
agreements
20
ACORN's
UDAG.
by protest marches
the NDEA offices and
City's favor,
not
was
by
community
at
also
Copley
Although HUD eventually resolved the complaint
Place.
For
roles.
1983. the Massachusetts Association of Community
in
example,
their
parties involved fulfilled
that all
sure
in the
ACORN felt that the publicity caused the City,
and the employers at Copley Place to give more serious
21
attention to the hiring agreement.
UIDC,
Lev erarjE
Financial
Similar
Initiative
the later Employment
specify
any sanctions or corrective action that can
taken against UIDC if the hiring goals are not met.
since
the
UDAG
installments
able
payments
to
UIDC
were
be
However,
in
administered
(with payments still forthcoming),
the City was
to withhold payments in order to force UIDC to meet the
terms
of
withhold
because
"best
Agreement
the Copley Place permanent jobs hiring agreement does
(EIA),
not
to
the loan agreement.
payments
The City could
if UIDC failed to meet the
not
legally
hiring
goals
the hiring agreement only called for UIDC to make
efforts" attempt.
In
practise,
however,
the
a
City
withheld UDAG payments often over the history of the loan for
49
various
reasons:
dissatisfaction
to
delay
completion,
fulfillment
of
groups
According to the NDEA,
Mayor
a strong commitment to
agreement
UIDC
UIDC's
and
and,
the
were
permanent
not coincidentally,
the City
understood
that
the
Mayor's
for withholding the payment.
concern
Emplogrnent
Elace
As a result,
Goals:
committing LJIDC to specific,
taken to meet the agreement,
Plan
verifiable
jobs
found
Both the City
over
permanent jobs hiring agreement was one of the major
Copley
the
White wanted UIDC
reasons to withhold UIDC's next UDAG payment.
and
to
questioned
the construction jobs hiring goals
demonstrate
hiring
community
Prior
over UIDC's commitment to the permanent jobs hiring
agreeement.
to
reason,
with UIDC's hiring practises caused the City
payment on at least one occasion.
project's
skeptical
although not the publicly-stated
the
reasons
UIDC prepared the
of
Implernentation
actions that would
and the withheld payments
be
were
released.
Control
Over Emlgyers
The
gave
Place permanent jobs hiring
the City legal authority over UIDC.
formal
The
Copley
access
City
agreement
The City
to or control over the employers
was also unable to extend its
only
had
themselves.
financial
leverage
over the employers because the employers did not receive
benefit
Committee
from
was
the UDAG payments.
The Copley Place
able to circumvent these
limited degree, however,
no
restrictions
any
Liaison
to
a
due to the MTA lease provision which
50
permitted
the Committee to establish procedures as it deemed
necessary to its operation and the employers' impression that
the
Committee
Copley
Place
individually,
which
had more formal
employers
the
to
authority.
report
By
their
asking
hiring
Liaison Committee was able
to
results
determine
employers were not complying with which goals and
accordingly.
The
employers
report their hiring results according
to
Committee
Access to this
categories.
the
was also able to persuade
to
information was essential
act
the
job
for the
Committee to monitor and achieve limited success in promoting
compliance
in management
level
positions.
Although the Committee had no legal
employers' compliance,
of
intimidation."
their
and
authority to enforce
the Committee operated on the
In this regard,
the Committee felt
ability to require the Copley Place personnel
upper
crucial.
level
policy-makers
to
report
in
that
managers
person
was
This face--to-face contact reinforced the managers'
personal. commitment to the hiring
or financial
control
goals:
over employers,
compliance hinged upon such personal
Overall
however,
only limited control
succeeded
in
with little
legal.
the Committee
23
commitment.
felt that
the City and the Liaison Committee had
over the employers.
While the Committee
improving minority recruitment at the
Marcus department store, it
Neiman-
could not force the store to hire
qualified minority applicants.
unable
"power
Likewise,
the Committee was
to force the UIDC Management Company to increase
51
its
female
even
hiring,
though the Committee
itself
referred
qualified female applicants.
Pr o1ct and EmIgyers
Size of
The Copley Place example tends to support the hypothesis
that
size of
the
the project and the
affect the enforcement of
goals.
individual
the
all
Place
Copley
employers
ultimately
hiring
workforce,
were
department store which
6C
of
the total
major
collective
suggests
agreement
applied only
retail
accounted
and
employer,
Although
both
Neiman-Marcus
employers
(reporting
for
changes
and
in
the
hiring,
to
72
employers
smaller
the
Neiman-Marcus
minorities than the 72 smaller
24
(see Table 1).
stores collectively hired
percentage
of
the
employers
hiring
collectively) surpassed
minority
received
Neiman-Marcus,
that the greater attention paid to large
significant
over
for
of the hiring results
Comparison
more
larger
to
both the City and the Liaison
hiring results of the 72 smaller retail
pattern
(the
initial
These employers also
produced
wide
with
individual basis
collectively
workforce.
public attention.
the
Thus,
primarily concerned with the two hotels
the
the most
tenants).
100
did not have enough time to meet
Since the hiring
total
Committee
to
approximately once a month during the
period).
the project's
employers
close
included
of the Copley Place employers on an
met
of
and thus compliance with the hiring
(excluding the office
Liaison Committee
Committee
for
number
results.
retail
industry
hired
a
retail
FUTURE
COMPLIANCE
With
Place,
any Committee member can call a meeting on
25
UIDC
will
hoc basis if they feel it is necessary.
continue
to
obtain
required
demonstrated,
NDEA
the
project's
aggregate
these
reports
the
MTA
by
and
employers
individual
has often refused to comply because it is
UIDC
to
of
Although the NDEA has attempted
do
so by
the
agreements.
As
has
aggregate reports can be misleading.
cannot obtain reports by individual
the gains
employment
the NDEA according to the terms
and UDAG agreements.
occupations,
not
report
to
statistics
to
at Copley
However,
ad
lease
of the new permanent jobs filled
the Liaison Committee will no longer meet on a regular
basis.
an
over 90%
made by the Liaison Committee
especially a concern because of
industries.
employers,
may be lost.
been
If
many of
This is
the high employee turnover
However,
the hotel
and retail
succeeds
in obtaining reports by individual
even
in
if the NDEA
employers,
NDEA does not have the Liaison Committee's informal
to confront these employers face-to-face.
the
the
authority
CONCLUSION
An
evaluation
objective of
the program.
objective
targeted
Boston's
of
the program is not simply to
the
general
attain
these hiring goals are
changing the hiring patterns of
Boston employers in
benefit Boston residents,
low income persons.
employers'
the
merely
In
this
a
of
manner
minorities, females, and
respect, any positive change in
hiring patterns that can be attributed to the
agreements
hiring
hiring
for achieving the program's broader objective
mechanisms
the
jobs
It is important to recognize that
hiring percentages;
that will
permanent
program must first start by defining
agreement
the
of
be regarded as
should
evidence
of
the
success of the program, whether or not the target percentages
are met.
Given
hiring
general
objective,
Boston's permanent
agreements appear to have produced only mixed
jobs
results
The example of Copley Place demonstrates that even
to date.
if
this
take
employers
practises,
special
steps to
improve
their
hiring
their hiring results may not differ markedly from
industry-wide hiring patterns.
At Copley Place, this may be
due to the fact that the hiring goals set
in the Copley Place
permanent jobs hiring agreement were not high enough to serve
as goals for the hiring of Boston residents, females, and low
income
other
While
persons in
hand,
the hotel
and retail
the minority hiring goal
minority
industries.
the
may have been too high.
hiring appears to be the only area in
54
On
which
Copley
employers
Place
patterns.,
it
exceeded
hiring
hiring
is also the only area in which employers
from meeting the hiring goal
far
industry-wide
set in the
were
permanent
jobs
agreement.
importance
The
of the type of industry in
goals
in
jobs hiring agreements should be tailored
to
tend
to
hiring patterns suggests that the hiring
employer
the
permanent
the
type
of
industry involved.
employ higher percentages of
hence
higher
and
females,
Industries
goals
low
income
occupation
levels.
In
should
combined
with
be
programs
are
this case,
skill
In addition,
residents,
persons
the
and
goals
occupations
should be tailored to the
and
females,
higher
low income persons) should have
(and
minorities,
residents,
percentages of Boston
industry to insure that Boston
each
that
low-paid, low-skilled labor
than those that employ lower percentages.
hiring
determining
the
within
minorities,
employed
hiring
in
all
agreements
management
training
to meet the hiring goals at more skilled occupation
levels.
The
Copley
importance
rather
than
of
critical
jobs
example
working directly
with
demonstrates
individual
role in promoting compliance with
personal
the
employers
employer
The Copley Place Liaison Committee played
hiring agreement because of
establish
also
through project developers to improve
hiring practises.
a
Place
the
permanent
the Committee's ability
to
and
to
relationships
with
employers
monitor
individual
Committee
will
monitoring
employer
performance.
Although
no longer meet on a regular basis,
of
this
type
seems
crucial
to
the
continued
maintain
the
improvements in employer hiring practises that were achieved.
Finally,
strengthen
City
the
the permanent jobs hiring agreements to give
more legal
and financial
control
efforts"
and
strengthened
"encourage"
employers.
to require compliance.
in
the
case of
use
The agreements
the
if
agreements,
jobs hiring agreements to the
for publicly-subsidized
would
negotiated
control
be
over
loans or to property
the interest rate or
increased.
agreements,
interest
In
the
case
of
be
over
rate
taxes:
property
developer
the City could obtain access to
employers by requiring the developer
tenants responsible for compliance in exchange for
a
be
employers do not comply
developer-negotiated
employers did not comply,
taxes
its
For example, the City could link compliance with
permanent
charged
the
should
structured to give the City direct access to and control
employers,
to
The
tenant compliance should
also specify sanctions to be taken if
and,
over
language requiring only that the developer
current
"best
Copley Place example indicates a need
share in the public subsidy
to
and
hold
receiving
(in the form of reduced rents,
for example).
Although there are many ways to strengthen the permanent
jobs
these
hiring
agreements,
agreements
developers
and
rely
it is
on
employers.
56
the
important
to
remember
cooperation
The
more
of
that
private
burdensome
the
agreements,
the
less
likely that developers and
employers
accept them in exchange for a limited amount of
will
Indeed,
subsidy.
that future public subsidies will
indicate
Thus,
current and impending federal
public
budget cuts
be even
smaller.
the long-term viability of this approach to
community
economic development can be questioned.
Cities considering the job
economic
development
linkage programs
longer-term
link
may
want to
consider
benefits.
One
In
Citizens
Review
agreement
Once again,
accordance
with
be
provided
at
Approximately
below market
"equal. opportunity"
businesses
to
In
by the project.
square feet of
space
which at least 70% will
least
15,000
to
50% of
to
this
the
space was
community
and
for community and minority-owned
17,500
rents to at
lease
addition, UIDC was expected to
developed
of
the
"community-oriented"
rents
obtain contracts for
services required
of
MTA
to set aside
space for
minority-owned businesses.
provide
for
the Copley Place development with
adjacent neighborhoods.
to
Copley Place offers a good
LJIDC to "attempt"
stores serving to link
opportunities
Schedule D of the
square feet of retail
2 0,C
potentially
the recommendations
Committee,
required
job
approach worth exploring is
public subsidies to entrepreneurial
example.
combining
with other approaches that offer
community residents.
to
linkage approach to community
providing
As of
March
the
1985,
support
UIDC
had
community-oriented
retail
be rented
market
at below
IC) community and minority-owned businesses.
Al though
17,50C) square feet of
than
of the total
5%
communi ty
space represents
space at
retail
Copley
Place,
and minority-owned businesses offer
employment
opportunities
occupation
levels
provide
retail
for
(including
financial
resources
community
residents
fund
these
training
entrepreneurial)
to
less
as
at
well
future
and
all
as
community
development.
In conclusion,
hiring
agreement
approach
may
this analysis of Boston's permanent jobs
be an effective means of
economic development,
tailored
to
effectiveness
to
indicates that
program
the
especially if
type of
industry
However,
promoting
the hiring
and
job
agreements are
occupations.
either through formal
authority or through
the approach
is
informal
linkage
community
of the approach depends on the city's
enforce the agreements,
financial
the
political
The
ability
legal
and
pressure.
ultimately limited by the amount of
public subsidy that the city
can offer to induce employers to
cooperate.
58
FOOTNOTES
1.
This
movement originated in the late 1960's when black
construction workers formed the United Community Construction
Workers
to gain access to construction jobs in Boston.
The
black/minority
construction
workers movement did
not
make
significant gains, however, until 1976 when it was discovered
that
local construction unions were also excluding
Boston's
white
residents.
Thus,
the
black/minority
construction
workers
changed
their strategy and formed the
Boston
Jobs
Coalition
in 1977 with over 40 community
groups--white
and
minority.
[Clark: 1985].
2.
The
Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers and
the
Boston
construction unions argued
that
the
resident
hiring quota violated the commerce clause of the Constitution
which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce and
thus
the
movement of labor "among the several states."
However,
the
U.S.
Supreme fCourt ruled that the commerce clause
does
not
apply if
the city
is "participating" in the labor market
aF
an
employer
or contributor of
funds
to
the
project.
[Peirce:
198:.J.
3.
This
presentation
of the evolution of
permanent
jobs
hiring
agreements in Boston is based on interviews with Joan
Ducharme,
Neil
Gordon,
and
Henry
Hardy
of
the
City's
Neighborhood Development and Employment Agency (NDEA).
4.
"CETA-eligible" refers
to
the
now
defunct
federal
Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act which funded
jobs
for
economically disadvantaged persons.
As the case
study
will
ill.strate,
determining CETA eligibility
was
difficult
for
private
employers.
The
NDEA
now
targets
the
same
population under the category of "economically disadvantaged"
and
refers qualified applicants to the employers so that the
employers are not responsible for making this
determination.
5.
The
EIA defines "new permanent jobs" as full-time
jobs
expected
to
last at least two years
beyond
the
project's
completion
that
were
created
by
the
project,
not
just
transferred from another location within Boston.
However.,the
NDEA's
use
of the term "new permanent jobs"
is
confusing.
While
the
EIA
definition excludes jobs
transferred
from
another location in Boston, the NDEA often includes "retained
jobs" (jobs in existence prior to the project which depend on
the
project
for
continued
existence) in
the
total
jobs
created
by
a project when determining
project
compliance.
This is because employers do not always report compliance
by
"new" versus "retained" jobs.
59
6.
"Boston
resident"
is defined as a person
who
resides
neighborhoods
(as
specified);
within
one
of
Boston's
"minority" is defined as an individual having origins in
any
Puerto
Mexican,
a person of
racial
group of Africa,
black
Rican,
Cuban,
Central
or
South
American
origin,
or
an
American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or
Cape Verdean;
and "economically disadvantaged" is defined as
not
exceed
a
person
whose
income prior to employment did
specified levels or whose household receives welfare payments
or who receives food stamps or who is a foster child on whose
behalf state or local government payments are made.
7.
HUD classified persons of low/moderate income as persons
whose
income prior to employment did not exceed 60% of
the
Boston SMSA median income for persons with the same household
size.
If
prior
income and/or household size was
unknown,
employers
were permitted to use current income and assume
a
household
size
of four.
Thus,
in
1984,
a
person
could
qualify as having low/moderate income with a salary that
did
not e x ceed $24,650.
8.
Boston's
labor market statistics and recent
employment
trends were compiled in September 1983 by the NDEA using
the
1980 U.S. Census and a 1982 HUD study of employment in recent
Boston
developments
entitled
"The
Employment
Impacts
of
Economic
Development"
[cited
in memorandum from Neil Gordon
to James Younger, both of the NDEA, September 19, 1983].
9.
This
reasoning
is
not
entirely
minority
and
female
hiring
goals can
minorities
and females who are not City
the
goals should not be based solely on
minorities and females in the City labor
logical:
since
the
be
met
by
hiring
of Boston residents,
the distribution
of
force.
10.
The previously cited 1982 HUD study revealed that Boston
residents
tend to be hired for lower paying,
lower
skilled
manufacturing
and
positions
in the traditional blue-collar
service
sectors whereas they are less likely
to be
employed
financial,
insurance,
real
in
the
growing
white-collar
estate, and professional service sectors.
area
Task.:
Force defined the "impact area" as the
11.
The
surrounding
Copley
Place which would feel the
most
impact
included
the
of the project.
This area
from
development
neighborhoods
of
the South
End,
St.
Botolph,
Back
Bay,
Chinatown,
and
South
Fenway,
Lower Roxbury,
Bay Village,
Cove.
12.
Interview with Joan Rooney,
member of the Copley Place
Liaison Committee, NDEA, February 26, 1985.
13.
Telephone
conversation with John
Pope,
Massachusetts
1985.
Division of Employment Security, March 11,
60
14.
Since
the
Marriott
Hotel
operates
its
training
program
on a nation-wide level,
these
minorities
will
not
necessarily be
placed
in
positions in the Boston Marriott Hotels.
15.
management
10
Boston
management
Interview with Joan Rooney, NDEA, February 26,
1985.
16.
A comparison of the percentage of impact area residents
hired
is
not appropriate in this case since
the
unionized
department
store
(the Jordan Marsh
department
store)
is
located outside the Copley Place impact area boundaries. The
percentage
of Boston residents employed at Jordan Marsh
was
derived
from the membership mailing list of the United
Food
and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1445 in Boston.
17.
For
example,
in
1984 a person earning up to
$24,650
qual i f i ed
as
a person of low/moderate
income
(assuming a
family
size of foLtr) whereas the minimum wage rates demanded
by Boston's unionized hotel employees did not exceed $20,000.
According to the 1980 U.S.
Census,
median salaries paid
to
full--time,
year-round
employees
in
the hotel
and
retail
industries were less than $15,000 in
1979.
18..
Interview with Lyda Peters,
UIDC,
March 21,
1985.
19.
Interviews
with Joan Ducharme and Joan Rooney
of
the
the
Boston
Lyda
Peters
of UIDC,
Mitch Fischman of
NDEA,
Redevelopment
Authority,
and James McCreight
(representing
ACORN).
20.
ACORN claimed that the City violated the UDAG agreement
because it
had neglected to require UIDC to target persons of
low/moderate income and CETA-eligible persons.
In addition,
federal
HUD
ACORN
claimed
that
the City had violated the
Secti on
3
regulations
by
not
setting
hiring
goals
by
of
its
omission
The
City
corrected
levels.
occupation
low/moderate income and CETA-eligible hiring goals.
However,
HUD
ruled that the Section 3 requirement for hiring goals by
occupation
applied
only to
the
construction-related
(not
permanent) jobs created at Copley Place.
21.
Interviews with James McCreight
Joan Ducharme of the NDEA.
(representing ACORN) and
22.
This example of the City's
use of financial
leverage to
is
agreements
commitment
to the hiring
strengthen
UIDC's
based on interviews with Joan Ducharme and Joan Rooney of the
NDEA,
Lyda Peters of UIDC,
and Mitch Fischman of the Boston
Redevelopment Authority.
23.
Interviews with Joan Rooney of the NDEA
of the MTA (both Liaison Committee members).
61
and Agnes McCann
for
.24.
Note that Table 1 suggests a contradictory finding
However, as
of Boston and impact area residents.
the hiring
of Boston and impact area
the hiring
previously argued,
was
industry
Copley Place generally conforms with
at
residents
of
differences in the hiring
Thus,
patterns.
hiring
wide
to
and impact area residents are not necessarily due
Boston
in the enforcement of the permanent jobs hiring
differences
agreements.
25.
Interview with Joan Rooney,
62
NDEA,
April
19,
1985.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"All Systems
April 30.,
'Go" for Copley Place."
Boston Gobe.
1980, p. 18.
Boston Redevelopment Authority.
gpgley Elace Urban
April 1980.
Develoment Action Grant Application.
Center for Community Change.
"Organizing for Jobs: Looking
at UDAGs and IRBs."
Washington, D.C.: undated.
Claffey, Charles E.
"A Lifeline for City's Resident Jobs
Plan." Boston Sunday Globe.
April 10, 1983, p.A18.
Clark, Gordon L.
Judges and the Cities.
Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1985, Chapter 5
"Politics and Local Jobs."
IL:
Corporation for Enterprise Development.
"Linkage Information
Pac:ket."
Washington, D.C.: undated.
Robert Earsy and Kent Colton.
Boston's New Hig!h-Rise
Office Buildings: A Stdy qf the Emgloyees and Their
Housing Egferences. Boston Redevelopment Authority:
July 1974.
Economics Research Associates.
Study.
Boston, MA: 1979.
Hawes,
Alexander B.,
Jr.
April
Boston Globe.
"Coalition
June 8, 198f,
May
Cogey Place Housing Imgact
"Agreement Reached on Copley Jobs."
29, 1980, p.15.
Seeks Copley Place Halt."
p.38.
Plan Gets Big
"Copley
--1, 1980, p.15.
OK."
Boston Globe.
Boston Globe.
Robert Hollister and Tunney Lee.
Develogment Politics:
Private Develoment and the Public Interest.
Washington, D.C.: Council of State Planning Agencies, 1979.
King, Nick.
"High Court Backs Hub on Jobs for Residents."
March 1, 1983, p. 1 .
Boston Globe.
"Local Hiring Rule in Boston is Upheld."
March 1, 1983.
63
The New York Times.
Massachusetts State Employment and Training Council,
Department of Manpower Development.
Recommendations of the Copley Plage Task Force on
December 1978.
Commuity Eggnomic Development.
"Linkage Between Downtown
Mayor's Advisory Group.
Report to the
Development and Neighborhood Housing."
Mayor of Boston, October 1983.
"Boston Experiments With Resident Jobs
Peirce, Neal R.
May 23, 1981, p.EB.
Plan." The Washingtgn Post.
"Repercussions Seen From Boston Jobs Plan."
April 15, 1983, p.
Public Administration Times.
2
.
"Strategies on Jobs Sounded Similar."
Robinson, Walter V.
September 6, 1983, p. 2 1 .
Boston Globe.
"Targeted Jobs Demonstration Program
Rutgers University.
New Brunswick, NJ: 1983.
Evaluation."
U.S.
1983 EEO--1
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Reports for SIC
Reggrt SummEy By IndgstCy Within SMSA.
Codes 701 (Hotels, Motels, Tourist Courts) and 531
(Department Stores) in the Boston SMSA.
"Copley Place Developer Pledges Funds for
Vennochi, Joan.
May 11, 1983, p. 2 5 .
Boston Globe.
Jobs."
in
"$3 Billion
Yudis, Anthony.
Boston Globe
Cityscape."
Section, p.26.
64
Projects Changing the
November 11, 1984, Special
INTERVIEWS
Joan Ducharme, Assistant Director of Compliance and
Enforcement, City of Boston Neighborhood Development and
series of interviews, November 1984
Employment Agency:
1985.
to April
Mitch Fischman, Project Coordinator for Copley Place,
Boston Redevelopment Authority: March 7, 1985.
Neil. Gordon, Assistant Deputy Director, Office of Program
Development and Planning, City of Boston Neighborhood
Development and Employment Agency: November 1, 1984.
Henry Hardy, Manager of Planning/Program Information Unit,
Compliance and Enforcement Division, City of Boston
Neighborhood Development and Employment Agency:
December 5, 1984.
Tunney Lee, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Capital
Planning and Operations, Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
telephone conversation March 13, 1985.
Agnes McCann, Equal Employment Opportunity Officer,
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority: telephone conversation
March 7, 1985.
James M. McCreight, Staff Attorney, Greater Boston Legal
Services (representing Massachusetts Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now--ACORN),
February 12, 1985.
Lyda Peters, Affirmative Action Officer, Urban
and Development Company, March 21, 1985.
Investment
John Pope, Manager of Job Matching Unit, Massachusetts
Division of Employment Security: telephone conversation
March 11, 1985.
Myrna Putziger, Attorney, McCormack and Zimble (representing
UIDC): telephone conversation March 11, 1985.
Joan Rooney, Copley Place Liaison Committee Representative,
City of Boston Neighborhood Development and Employment
Agency: series of interviews, February - April 1985.
65