Gaylord pulls out of Chula Vista

[GoUSC]

I find it amazing that unions can get away with this. Basically the labor union said either you agree to use all-Union labor on your project or we will sue you at every step of the environmental impact (EIR) process. This is veritable public black-mail.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070706-1537-bn6gaylord.html

Here is a link to Gaylord’s letter to the City:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/070706gaylord_lett.pdf

Pretty no holes barred.

[citydweller]

I get the impression that Gaylord is just using the unions as an excuse to get out of the deal. With a possible recession ahead, a project that large would be pretty risky right now. Also, where were they going to get the financing to build it? With credit tightening their lenders may have been backing out.

[citydweller]

I get the impression that Gaylord is just using the unions as an excuse to get out of the deal. With a possible recession ahead, a project that large would be pretty risky right now. Also, where were they going to get the financing to build it? With credit tightening their lenders may have been backing out.

[GoUSC]

I disagree. I am in the development business and see this first hand. The Unions have gotten wise to the EIR process and are using the threat of lawsuits on developers to get their way. Gaylord was under no obligation to go forward with the project and could have just as easily said they didn’t want to go forward because of economic conditions.

[GoUSC]

I disagree. I am in the development business and see this first hand. The Unions have gotten wise to the EIR process and are using the threat of lawsuits on developers to get their way. Gaylord was under no obligation to go forward with the project and could have just as easily said they didn’t want to go forward because of economic conditions.

[temeculaguy]

Way to go Unions, instead of getting 50% of the 8,000 jobs, you got your members 100% of zero jobs. Unions are trending more toward what is good for the union rather than what is good for the members or the community. How come I never hear the unions in the building industry flex their muscle with regards to illegal alien workers which is what has truly held down the wages of their members.

[temeculaguy]

Way to go Unions, instead of getting 50% of the 8,000 jobs, you got your members 100% of zero jobs. Unions are trending more toward what is good for the union rather than what is good for the members or the community. How come I never hear the unions in the building industry flex their muscle with regards to illegal alien workers which is what has truly held down the wages of their members.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn’t limiting bids from unionized contractors and subcontractors ensure that Gaylord doesn’t hire illegal immigrants?

[Anonymous]

Wouldn’t limiting bids from unionized contractors and subcontractors ensure that Gaylord doesn’t hire illegal immigrants?

[GoUSC]

The problem is that the Union only represents 20% of the construction work-force in San Diego. If Gaylord would have agreed they would have cut out 80% of the workers in town. That would have created a virtual monopoly on the few unionized companies and resulted in significantly higher costs. Gaylord was fully prepared to PAY union wages and agreed to it. They just didn’t want to be limited to a small group of sub-contractors. I applaud them for telling the Unions to go to hell.

[GoUSC]

The problem is that the Union only represents 20% of the construction work-force in San Diego. If Gaylord would have agreed they would have cut out 80% of the workers in town. That would have created a virtual monopoly on the few unionized companies and resulted in significantly higher costs. Gaylord was fully prepared to PAY union wages and agreed to it. They just didn’t want to be limited to a small group of sub-contractors. I applaud them for telling the Unions to go to hell.

[Borat]

Huh-huh. You said “Gaylord”. Huh-huh.

[Borat]

Huh-huh. You said “Gaylord”. Huh-huh.

[citydweller]

The article in today’s Union Tribune said that the unions required only that Gaylord hire local workers, they did not require that they hire union labor. Does anyone know if that is true? I know the Union Tribune doesn’t always get it’s facts straight.

[citydweller]

The article in today’s Union Tribune said that the unions required only that Gaylord hire local workers, they did not require that they hire union labor. Does anyone know if that is true? I know the Union Tribune doesn’t always get it’s facts straight.

[Author]

Posts