« Today on the Brownstoner Backpages Tuesday Blogwrap »

February 26, 2008

Closing Bell: Walgreens Gets the Rat Treatment on Myrtle

walgreens-rat-feb08.jpg
Last week a rat popped up on Clinton Avenue. This week it's Myrtle. The union boys are miffed that Walgreen's (the store's doing the work not the developer) is using "untrained and unskilled" workers (their words, not ours) to build out their new digs on the ground-floor of the Clermont Condominium at 375 Myrtle Avenue in Fort Greene. Just curious: What kind of permit does an organization need to get to display an inflatable animal in the middle of the street?
The Clermont Condominium Open For Business [Brownstoner] GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 4:00 PM | Comments (55)
Categories: Closing Bell, Streetlevel

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4010

Comments

This rat is so comical, I dont think it has any impact to promote the Union agenda.

Every time I see it, it is usually accompanied by a couple of 300+ pound unshaven union shills handing out flyers and looking extra lazy. It makes me laugh more than care.

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 4:24 PM

I've been wanting to start a construction company called Rat Construction so I could take advantage of free advertising.

Posted by: slick at February 26, 2008 4:28 PM

Why work when you can hand out flyers?

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 4:36 PM

Yeah - why aren't they prettier - maybe thirty-something 6 foot, 180, with dark unshaven faces reflecting southern European heritage tempered with good American dentistry. That's the kind of union labor I want lazing around our streets. Oh, did I type that out loud?

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 26, 2008 4:52 PM

Cue jazz soundtrack...

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 5:20 PM

cue neocon circlejerk

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 5:39 PM

And not to mention that the rat is really far from the subway. I'm guessing that it had at least a 45 min commute from Midtown. And the walk was shitty in the rain along the park.

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 5:53 PM

Well said 5:53. LOL

I'm surprised the Rat would want to be that close to the PJ's.

Posted by: LimestoneKid at February 26, 2008 6:23 PM

5:39 = mobster will a no show union job

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 6:34 PM

6:34 = "aspiring writer" who hasn't had to work a day in his/her life.

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 7:03 PM

Well said, 5:39.

I love the rat. Sends its message instantly, loudly, clearly, and has got to get under the skin of developers who skimp on labor. And customers who are pro-labor.

Mr. B raises a good question, though, about permitting (not to mention consuming a parking space). If I put that rat in my front yard, I'd get a ticket instantly from somebody or other, I'm sure. They probably get away with it because anybody with the authority to write a ticket is also a union member.

As they say on the Simpsons: Ha-ha!

Posted by: Rehab at February 26, 2008 7:34 PM

the union boys are going back for seconds

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 7:48 PM

rehab - are you kidding? do you think alot of people take the rat seriously. I think it is funny, stupid, and hypocrtical all at the same time.

These Union Shlubs try to come off as the protector of the public from shoddy work and labor. But really they are protectionist commies looking to extort business for their own ranks' best interest.

Do I really need an organization that spends the majority of their revenues on political contributions to "Protect" me?

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 8:25 PM

My kids loved it this morning on the way to school.

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 8:50 PM

What's the matter with you people? Either you are too hip and cool for your own good or you are a bunch of Republicans, but what's with the union-bashing? Please educate me, because I don't get it - I work on Wall Street (so not a communist for sure), but I am European (yes, that might make me a communist right there, please spare me) and I don't get why it's apparently cool in Brooklyn to bitch about the unions...

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 8:51 PM

I am with 8:51 on this. There was some some union bashing on this site last week and I don't get it either. Anyway,

I think the Union's use of the rat is a good thing. It draws attention to contractors that don't use union labor or pay prevailaing wages or area standards. It's called free speech and while some of you think its silly or lame, it informs the public of their position. So what....

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 9:13 PM

I am not suggesting that their rights to free speech should be diminished, however I just think it is stupid and hypocritical for them to bring out a huge rat to protest people working on a jobsite that is creating work.

Granted it is not Union work, but so what? Why is it soooo important to pay for Union labor? If the building is unsafe, the DOB will shut it down. If the site is unsafe, OSHA, the State, or other angencies will interviene.

I think of Unions as winey loosers trying to make every buisness play by their rules for their own selfish interests.

By all means, keep the rat. It always brings a smile to my face.

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 9:39 PM

It's all the hedge fund fuckers that have streamed into Brooklyn. Cigar bar types. Fucktards and asshats all.

Posted by: guest at February 26, 2008 11:37 PM

I'm just saying I think the rat is effective political theatre. An immediately recognizable and simple message. Does the job really well. And has got to get under the skin of developers who skimp on labor. And customers who are pro-labor. I'm just saying it again.

Posted by: Rehab at February 27, 2008 12:00 AM

From what I can gather about construction, you can either pay non-union labor a modest wage to do a marginally competent job, or you can get a 5% quality improvement at 300% of the cost.

Posted by: slick at February 27, 2008 2:47 AM

And you gather this from what?

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 27, 2008 7:28 AM

IF you do high quality work, you will be rewarded with buisiness from people who are willing to pay. IF there is a cheaper alternative with similar quality, people will go that route if they choose to. Its economics 101.

Unions try to force themselves down your throat without having to compete on the merits of the quality and price for the work they do.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 8:16 AM

all those non union shitboxes on 4th avenue are all you need to see. CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 8:46 AM

Unions makes money for their older workers simply by keeping other younger willing workers out of the market. Its not about helping all working men and women its about squashing competition and locking new workers out of the market to the benefit of the few at the top. Half these threads could be eliminated if people took a few basic economics courses.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 9:04 AM

9:04, I thought I was cynical! I happen to have taken a few basic encomics courses and still believe unions have advantages (e.g., curtailing child labor practices, improving worker safety, increasing wages for both union and non-union workers, raising everyone's standard of living, reducing the hours in a work week, providing public education for children, and bringing other benefits to working class families). I agree they are not perfect, but I do believe they are necessary.

Posted by: Biff Champion at February 27, 2008 9:24 AM

My economics course discussed the role of unions in evenning the playing field between labor and capital. And indeed corporations over the past twenty years have jetisoned older employees (unionized, non-unionized, professionals etc) in order to hire younger, cheaper employees. Hard to see how this is something a society should be proud of, all though it has made some corporate raiders wealthy.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 27, 2008 9:25 AM

Good point, Putnamdenizen. I would find it hard to argue that older workers over the past 20 years+ have been treated better than younger workers!

Posted by: Biff Champion at February 27, 2008 9:26 AM

Literally, guys like 9:04 see a union construction worker drinking a cup of coffee and proclaim ever person in every union everywhere as a corrupt mobster. Infantile view.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 9:38 AM

Well, some of these Masters of the Universe see everyone as beneath them, and unworthy. For such an over educated group, many seem to have not attended any of the history, sociology, psychology and business classes that would have taught them not to judge everyone in a group by the actions of a few.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 10:35 AM

then when there's non union workers on the same site with union guys, the non union guys are not allowed to use power tools but can lug cinder blocks all day. how foul is that?

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 11:17 AM

The rats are made in a non-union shop.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/artifact.html

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 11:20 AM

Those crappy condos are designed that way. How the non-union workers put it together has nothing to do with the underlying crappy design.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 11:39 AM

but how the non union workers die on the job and get paid less with no benefits has everything to do with the overall crappassed, greedy mentality of those who wish to squeeze every last nickel of profit

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 12:40 PM

Who cares, Union or Non-Union? It should be a choice by whoever wants to hire the labor whether or not they are Union.

If they feel the product they get is worth the extra $ they will hire Union. IF they feel the cost outweighs the benefit they will hire non-union.

I never see non-union guys picketing on a job site because they are using Union labor. Seriously, these guys toting around the stupid rat are trying to take work away from the people actually working on the job. Who are they to decide for us?

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 12:56 PM

Please explain to me how this works today:

"raising everyone's standard of living"

And please limit the discussion to the present. We are not talking about the elimination of child labor. Thanks.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 1:17 PM

uh and this too: "providing public education for children"?

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 1:19 PM

The point of unionized labor is to reduce the ability of capital to pick and choose between different workers, to reduce the amount of available labor, to present a united front against the far greater power of capital. They do this to gain higher wages, better work conditions, better benefits, etc. Once they get strong enough unions also may seek governmental help in setting minimum wages, occupational safety, family leave policies, etc. To demand that any discussion of labor unions be limited to "the present - we are not alking about the elimiantion of child labor" is like saying a discussion of childhood immunization be limited to the present because we are not talking about polio. While one might argue that childhood labor is a thing of the past here, how can we really know when employers hire undocumented. let alone un-unionized labor. You think 14 year olds don't cross the border looking for good jobs? The decline of unions has had the same effect on the labor market that public heatlht advocates fear a decline of universal child immunization will. While in the past the strenght of unions had the effect of keeping general wages high and work conditions acceptable, they no longer are stong enough to have that effect in non-unionized work environments. Just like the outbreaks of measles which happen when too many parents forgo immunizing their children (in the past the number of unimmunized children was too small to allow a sufficiently large pool for the an epidemic to grow).

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 27, 2008 2:09 PM

If the mob did not "influence" builders to use Union labor, no one would use them. They add no additional value or quality but they overinflate the costs.

12:40 - union labor can die on a work site, so your over-the-top and inappropriate comments make no sense.

And btw: unless union labor wants to invest their money up front in a project, they are not entitled to the profits. Union labor are hired hands and have no right to any profits.

Union labor adds no additional value.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 2:10 PM

Yes, union labor can die on a work site--and their union will be there for them. When the Guatemalan dude being paid shit falls to his death he gets bupkus. Corporate whore.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 2:27 PM

Yes, anyone who dies at work and is not in a union has no recourse what so ever.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 2:31 PM

"Union labor are hired hands and have no right to any profits."

Sentiments like that really indicate a complete disrespect for the value of labor in this country.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 27, 2008 2:37 PM

And a disrespect for the labor that built this country.

And thanks for your prior post Putnamdenizen. I was going to respond, but you did it much more effectively than I would have.

Posted by: Biff Champion at February 27, 2008 2:54 PM

putnamdenizen your argument is fallacious. what you are basically saying is that if we immunized enough people to eliminate a disease from the planet that we should continue to vaccinate them regardless of the fact that the disease no longer exists. and then you go on to make the same point i previously stated which is that unions do not currently: "raising everyone's standard of living". They raise the standard of living for a select few. Some poor guy working two jobs should have to pay out extra at the token booth so a clerk can retire at 50?

Also, why would anyone need to know if someone was hiring "un-unionized labor"? Its not a crime.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 3:20 PM

RONALD REAGAN TAUGHT US ALL THAT WE CAN BREAK THE UNION WITH NO DISRUPTION OF SERVICE. IT'S A SCARE TACTIC THAT WITHOUT UNIONS THIS COUNTRY WOULD FAIL.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 3:47 PM

a balloon for every objection

http://www.bigskyballoons.com/

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 4:20 PM

Since we haven't eliminated unfair wages, dangerous work conditions, and disrespect for the working man/woman, I kinda think we aren't finished immunizing the workplace. Since under your system of savage capitalism a token booth worker would have to work at minimum wage until she was fifty than be fired to be replaced by an even cheaper and somewhat more nimble twenty year old, yes I think it is perfectly fine for her and her colleagues to get together and force management to pay her enough to raise a family and plan for more than being abandoned in a field at 55. And I am willing to pay a bit more for my subway ride for that.

3:47 - if Ronald Reagan is your hero, could you please move a little closer to the subway platform edge. yeah, that's it. Just a bit closer...

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 27, 2008 7:36 PM

Putnam: Your post at 2:37 does not address my point. You can only make profits if you are the investor.

Manual labor is just a hired hand and its value is overstated because unions create an unjustifiable expense for something that is readily available at a much lower price and with no difference in quality.

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to address that points to the lack of a valid point in your agrument.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 8:19 PM

You are right, 8:19, labor unions serve no purpose, and manual laborers and other workers should accept that they have no right to join together to seek higher wages, but should be satisfied with a life which is short and brutish. May I pour you some more champagne, sir/madam?

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 27, 2008 8:45 PM

Also, why would anyone need to know if someone was hiring "un-unionized labor"? Its not a crime.

No...it's not a crime but when the rat goes up the word goes out. No self respecting union tradesperson is going to cross that picket line or shop at that store. It's how we protect each other and promote collective bargaining. Also, the unions are usually just appealing to the public at large to call the owner and say that they should hire union or (at least) pay area standards. Apparently, from most of the responses here, they are wasting their time in the areas frequented by those that read this blog but there were a few people here that are down with us. Rock on.

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 10:56 PM

8:19 says

"Manual labor is just a hired hand and its value is overstated because unions create an unjustifiable expense for something that is readily available at a much lower price and with no difference in quality"

In 8:19's world

Unjustifiable expense = decent wages and benefits.

Readily Available = the day laborers that one can hire at the day laborers' shack down by Cesar's Bay Shopping Center and shamelessly exploit because they do not have papers. Try finding skilled ironworkers, steamfitters, scaffolding or master carpenters that aren't card carrying memebers. Not so easy.

No Difference in Quality: I'll pick the AOL Time Warner building and the scaffolding on the GW Bridge and the Washington Monument as an example of what quality union labor can produce. You can pick whatever you want, but let me point you in the direction of any of the shit shacks on 4th avenue and the scaffolding on Clinton Ave. Let's talk quality......

Posted by: guest at February 27, 2008 11:10 PM

jeez.

i can't believe the readership of brownstoner is made up of people who took econ 101 at their private university and now think they're now pretend other than simple-minded rush limbaughs when they complain about the extra penny or two that might potentially be charged for a pack of gum at the drug store that used union labor to build it, and when they make those complaints *on a website dedicated to discussing your million dollar homes*.

Posted by: aviatrix at February 28, 2008 1:12 PM

11:10: The greatness of the AOL building is due to the architects (non0union), not the people who assembled the parts. As for the steel in that building, it came from a non-union shop in China. Guess unions aren't needed for quality work. As for your other two examples, they are rather sorry excuses for a union. Scaffolding?! Really.

Putnam: Of course people can unionize, but that does not mean they get what they want just because they ask for it. Manual laborers are a dime a dozen. It is a simple function of supply and demand. If you want to make more money to be able to raise a family or own a home, get a higher education or a unique skill set that will demand higher wages. There is nothing anywhere that states that everyone gets the right to earn a living wage or raise a family. That is harsh, I know, but it is the system we live in. You can disagree with it and people can do what they can to change it, but that is the reality on the ground.

Aviatrix: This is economics, not politics. The fact that you must resort to calling people who are commenting on the underlying economics simple-minded points to the fact that you have no valid argument agaist what is being said.

Posted by: guest at February 28, 2008 4:44 PM

Solidarity forever.

More champagne?

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 28, 2008 7:57 PM

I guess you have no real retort, Putnam. So sad that you can't accept the reality of the modern American labor market.

Posted by: guest at February 29, 2008 7:03 PM

The kind of permit needed to inflate the Rat, is the kind you need to catch all the hot air exhaled by the anti-union comments made on this web site.

Posted by: kidbklyn at August 1, 2008 8:10 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions