Economics

Union Rift Threatens Local Oakland Jobs

Published

8 years ago

October 13, 2017

Over the last several months, Oakland residents have been bombarded by phone calls, mailers, leaflets and most recently an online poll opposing one the largest development projects in recent memory. The claim from a group called East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (EBRRD) is that SunCal, master developer of Oak Knoll, has refused to negotiate project labor agreements with Oakland unions. But, SunCal has a deal with one of Oakland’s largest unions.

Forbes recently ranked Oakland as one of the 10 fastest-growing cities in the U.S. SunCal’s Oak Knoll promises to create thousands of jobs as the company prepares the former site of the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital for the construction of new homes, new retail and new community facilities.

Unions in Oakland once maintained an unbreakable code of brotherhood—rooted in conduct that supported labor and all the various trades.

“It didn’t matter who was working, as long as it was a local union. We supported our brothers and sisters, end of story,” says Fernando Estrada, Business Manager-Secretary/Treasurer of the Local 304 of LiUNA—the Oakland union that has executed a project labor agreement with SunCal.

But over the summer, this code of conduct was broken when Estrada and the Local 304 were targeted by the East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (EBRRD) after signing an agreement with SunCal.

The East Bay is backed by the mechanical trades, leaving LiUNA in uncharted union waters. “I just can’t understand why they’re trying to undermine us—it just doesn’t make any sense,” said Estrada.

EBRRD has saturated Oakland households with a stream of robo- calls and direct mail imploring residents to “Stop SunCal” and “Say NO to Oak Knoll” which, if successful, would kill the project and the thousands of associated jobs.

The problem started when the Building Trades, an umbrella organization, failed to broker a broad union deal on Oak Knoll. “Word came down that each union should go out and try to negotiate their own contract, which was standard,” said Estrada.

Fernando Estrada, Business Manager-Secretary/Treasurer of the Local 304 of LiUNA.

“This system was employed for years and was completely respected,” Estrada added. “Just like when the mechanical trades got the Mervyns job over in Hayward. We didn’t get it, but fully supported them. This is how it’s always worked and we were proud to stand by our union brothers.”

“The majority of our jobs go to Oaklanders,” said Estrada. According to the Office of the Oakland City Administrator, a FY 15-16 and FY16-17 review showed that the Laborers from the 304 generated 54 percent of all project work hours;

74 percent of local hires; and was responsible for 65 percent of the Oakland apprentice work hours for the entire City of Oakland.

“It’s always been a priority for us to make sure that the construction work at Oak Knoll be made available to residents of Oakland. Our agreement with the Local 304 will now ensure that more than 70 percent of the work will stay in Oakland—no other labor union can make those claims,” said SunCal spokesman David Soyka.

“This phase of our involvement with the Oak Knoll project is just the beginning for Oakland unions,” says Estrada. When it’s time to build sidewalks, houses and roads, we look forward to seeing unions doing the work,” he added.

“My job is to make sure that folks from Oakland and members of our union have a chance to have a career,” Estrada said. “This project is good for our members and it’s good for Oakland and we will do our part to make sure city leaders know it.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:laborers local jobs Oakland Unions

Up Next

OUSD Will Cut Additional $14.2 Million – A Total of $46.7 Million Since January

Don't Miss

Fans, Neighbors Differ Over Proposed A’s Stadium

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Business

California Launches Study on Mileage Tax to Potentially Replace Gas Tax as Republicans Push Back

Under current law, California depends heavily on revenue from the gas tax to fund roads, highways, and infrastructure, but those revenues are projected to shrink as electric vehicle use grows and overall gasoline consumption drops. The mileage study would look at a “road charge” system where drivers pay based on how many miles they drive, rather than how much gas they buy.

Published

4 days ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City is the author of AB 1421. File photo.

By Tanu Henry, California Black Media

California lawmakers are moving forward with a study to explore a mileage-based tax as a potential replacement for the state’s traditional gas tax — a shift supporters say is driven by declining fuel tax revenues as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

The research, tied to Assembly Bill (AB) 1421, would extend and support work by the state’s Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee through 2035.

The bill does not yet enact a new tax. Instead, it extends the study and advisory work until 2035 and would have the Legislature receive findings and recommendations, with a report due by Jan. 1, 2027.

Republicans in the California Legislature have been vocal in their opposition. Assembly Republican Leader Heath Flora criticized the proposal.

“We already pay the highest gas taxes in the nation. Now Sacramento is talking about adding a new tax for every mile people drive,” Flora said. “Piling on another tax right now shows just how out of touch politicians in Sacramento are with the reality working families face.”

The plan has drawn broader GOP criticism from leaders outside the Legislature as well. California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton called a mileage fee “absolutely outrageous” and said, if elected, he would veto the tax, adding that tracking and charging drivers for every mile is unacceptable.

Supporters say the study is a pragmatic response to long-term funding challenges.

On the Assembly Floor on Jan. 29, Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D–Suisun City), the bill’s author, said that California’s transportation funding is “becoming less stable, less equitable, and less sustainable as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and zero-emission vehicles.”

“Drivers using the same roads often pay different amounts for that use,” Wilson continued. “Low income and rural commuters who must drive farther and less efficient vehicles can pay more while others contribute less despite roadway impacts.”

Wilson and other supporters contend that a per-mile road charge could ensure that all drivers contribute fairly to the costs of maintaining roads, regardless of the type of vehicle they drive.