What Was Actually Voted On

A Community Workforce Training Agreement — like a Project Labor Agreement — is a policy that sets the terms for how public construction projects are awarded. It determines:

• Which contractors are eligible to bid on county-funded projects
• What labor requirements those contractors must meet
• Who gets to work on projects paid for by San Joaquin County taxpayers

In practice, these agreements typically require contractors to operate under union labor terms — which effectively excludes the majority of qualified local workers and businesses who are non-union. In San Joaquin County, that’s approximately 85% of the construction workforce.

When competition is reduced, costs go up. Independent research consistently shows that agreements like this increase public project costs — costs that come directly out of the county budget and ultimately out of taxpayers’ pockets.

On the surface, that looks like a straightforward vote. It wasn’t.

Here’s what happened, what was said, and why this vote — and what comes next — matters to every worker, contractor, and taxpayer in this county.

How It Was Brought Forward — And Why That Matters

The vote was 5-0. But two of those five supervisors made a point of saying the process was wrong.

Supervisors Rickman and Ding both raised concerns about how this item was introduced — specifically that Board Chair Dhaliwal brought it forward via email on a Friday afternoon, giving fellow supervisors, local businesses, workers, and the public minimal time to review, respond, or weigh in on a decision of this significance.

This was not a small thing. And the community deserved more notice than a 4:00 PM, Friday email.

Their willingness to say that on the record — even while voting yes — is significant. It signals that the process used to push this agreement through is itself a legitimate concern, separate from the policy debate.

Decisions that affect thousands of workers and millions in taxpayer spending deserve transparency. They deserve public input. And they deserve more than a weekend’s notice.

That’s not a political position. That’s a basic standard of accountability.

In Their Own Words — What Supervisors Said at the Meeting

At the April 28 board meeting, two supervisors who voted yes on the CWTA took the unusual step of publicly criticizing how the item was brought forward. Their statements are part of the official public record.

Coalition Issues Legal Warning Before the Vote

Before the April 28 vote, Eric Christen — Executive Director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) and a 25-year veteran of PLA battles across California — sent a formal written warning to all five San Joaquin County Supervisors.

The email, sent April 24, 2026 and CC’d to county staff and local media, cited serious concerns about the meeting agenda — including broken document links that prevented the public from reviewing key materials before the vote, and what Christen described as a confusing and contradictory agenda structure designed to obscure public business.

The warning was direct:

Please REMOVE these two items (Item VI.3 and Item VI.6) from the April 28 meeting agenda. Respect the public.

Be forewarned that we will immediately file a lawsuit under the Ralph M. Brown Act if Item VI.3 is approved.

— Eric Christen, Executive Director, Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction | April 24, 2026

The supervisors did not remove the items. The vote proceeded. Item VI.3 was adopted 5-0.

CFEC’s legal response is forthcoming.

What This Means for Local Workers and Taxpayers

A CWTA adopted by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors is not the end of the road — but it is a significant step in a direction that will have real consequences for real people.

For non-union workers: If you are one of the thousands of skilled tradespeople in San Joaquin County who has chosen not to unionize, this agreement affects your access to publicly funded work in your own community. Not because of your qualifications. Because of your union status.

For local contractors: If you run a non-union construction business in the Valley — one that hires locally, competes on quality, and pays fair wages — your ability to bid on county projects just got more complicated. The playing field is no longer level.

For taxpayers: Reduced competition on public bids means higher costs. San Joaquin County is already navigating budget pressure. Agreements that limit who can compete will drive project costs up — and those costs are passed directly to the public.

What Happens Next — And Why Your Voice Still Matters

A vote to adopt a CWTA framework is not the same as a finalized agreement. Negotiations between the county and the Building Trades Council are ongoing. The details of how this agreement is structured — what it requires, who it covers, how contractors are affected — are still being worked out.

That means the window for community input is not closed.

The supervisors who represent you are still hearing from constituents. The contractors and workers most affected by this agreement are still speaking up. And the public record of this vote — including the concerns raised by Supervisors Rickman and Ding about process and transparency — is part of the ongoing conversation.

This is the moment to be heard. Not after the agreement is finalized. Now.