Do Union Demands Stymie Affordable Housing?

are Novo and The Smith also examples of how slowly it takes with non-union labor?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:31 AM

also cheaper if don't have DOB issuing StopWOrkOrders for safety violations.
Or those damn pesky building codes. Let's get rid of them too.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:32 AM

What about slave labor?

That must be pretty cheap.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:33 AM

I agree. It's about 30% more expensive to use union labor. It makes it impossible to build affordable housing without greater subsidy.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:35 AM

Labor Unions are slowly destroying this city and country - Greedily extracting self-serving concessions from taxpayers and private entities alike. They then funnel millions into politicos that will further their protectionist and greedy goals.

They hamper competition, reduce efficiencies and promote extrotionist tactics to protect their members at the expense of the general public at large.

Whenever I see that stupid rat outside of a building or store, I laugh and think how pathetic these guys are to go to such lenghts in trying to convince us they are actually protecting us from some unfair or unsafe condition. They are only trying to protect their own lazy asses from having to compete in the real world against people that arent bound by archaic work-rules that limit how many bricks can be layed in an hour, or how much concrete can be poured...

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:45 AM

9:45 The only reason we're not all working six days a week for sub-minimum wage jobs with no healthcare, retirement, etc. benefits is because of unions. Blow me, you conservative "businessman" d-bag.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:55 AM

Also, I thnk the project on Schermhorn/Livingston b/w Smith and Hoyt was union, and it went up 25 stories very quickly, maybe 1-2 stories a week. And I think the reno and expansion at 110 Livngston was also union labor.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust a new building built without decent wages -- if they are cutting costs there, there's no reason to assume they aren't cutting costs elsewhere.

Also, shouldn't the lead article for this posting have been the Voice's reporting on death threats against union organization -- I don't recall hearing about it on this site before. Maybe those type of threats are just too commonplace to warrant highlighting, but it's still interesting to hear.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:57 AM

Shorter Spun: If only we didn't have all those stoopid unions, we'd have more poors to build themselves more affordable housing. That they couldn't afford.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:03 AM

pretty much every problem in America traces back to unions

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:07 AM

9:45 is correct
9:55 is an idiot

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:11 AM

The problem isn't necessarily "Unions" as a concept - but rather that overtime Unions (and management) lose cite of their original purpose and become static (often corrupt) institutions that cost far more than they deliver.
There is no question that Unions add cost and thereby make housing more expensive, but since builders can also use non-union labor, it doesnt matter - it creates for healthy competition.
And as to the saftey issue, I am fairly certain that all the crane accidents (and near misses with unsafe cranes) were on Union Jobs (with Union inspectors also btw).

The only Unions that I think should be illegal are municipal unions - it gives workers too much power - political (through voting and organization) as well as normal negotiating power - this creates ridiculous excesses and expenses - when the workers can vote for who is management - I fail to see the need to also have a Union.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:14 AM

Unions were good -- for coalminers in the 1890s.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:14 AM

Damn those lazy, selfish union workers for demanding fair pay and safe working conditions.

It's gotten so bad I only can only take off 6 weeks this summer to lounge around at my mansion. (Where the servants ARE NOT union members). What is this country coming to?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:15 AM

i work a non-union job, in a non-union industry, and make 250K /year

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:16 AM

9:45 I'm intrigued as to how you manage to posit that a force whose numbers and political influence has been in a downward death spiral for 30 years - and this is thanks to Federal hostility to its purposes and goals - is "slowly destroying" the country. That suggests a strengthening, not a weakening, force. It would be more accurate to say that the executive branch, beginning with Reagan, has been "slowly destroying" - obliterating - labor. I hate to go all ad hominem, but why is this misconception - that organized labor is SOMETHING NEW and subversive, that it is a force on the rise rather than on the wane, so common among conservatives? How do your minds manage to annihilate sixty years of U.S. history in which labor unions helped create the middle class? Oh yeah, those sixty years never happened, right?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:18 AM

good thing there are landmarked districts - because you know no affordable housing could be built in those areas with those extra costs.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:18 AM

"9:45 The only reason we're not all working six days a week for sub-minimum wage jobs with no healthcare, retirement, etc. benefits is because of unions. Blow me, you conservative "businessman" d-bag."

The only reason we are not all working six days a week for sub-minimum wage is because of capitalism and free markets, not unions. I am not in a union and do quite well because I am skilled and provide value to my employer. I compete everyday and get ahead because of that, not because I have seniority or political protection. Unions force us to pay what they want through extortion and political lobbying and pay-offs. We pay for it through increased cost of housing, products transportation, government agencies (i.e. Taxes)and virtually everything we buy. If many of these people had to compete based on the merits of their skills and value of their abilities, they would dissappear...as they should.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:18 AM

You can add the failure to educate our children properly to that list Dave. At least unions in the private sector die once they've killed their golden goose. Government sector unions are already bankrupting cities and its just the beginning.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:19 AM

why use american organized labor when you can use child labor in asia.
Just some rice and a cot. If they get sick just get rid of them. Those labor unions are trouble.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:20 AM

My three personal experiences with unions:
1. Worked for a non-union shop that unionized; got a raise equal to my union dues.
2. Worked for a non-union shop that unionized; got a substanial raise and had my hours cut so I earned the same as before.
3. Worked for the city and was given the option of paying union dues or paying an equal amount and receiving no benefits, thereby leaving me little choice.

Now that I got that off my chest, it is not logical, 9:55, to compare what unions needed to and did accomplish in the 19th century with what is happening today. Completely different situations. And I agree with 9:57, union trade people are more expensive but non-union isn't necessarily faster.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:21 AM

9:55 A very large reason most of us work long hours only to turn most of it around to government at all levels (taxes), and only to be subjected to an artifically inflated healthcare market, and only to have what little is left eaten by artifically caused inflation, etc. is because of unions (i.e., government). Eat me, you socialist "humanitarian" s-bag.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:22 AM

The greed in this country starts at the top. That is all that needs to be said in any argument about unions. Unions are not to blame.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:23 AM

9:45 -- Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. Unions are corrupt and destructive.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:25 AM

10:15 get your head out of your ass
your tired talking points are ineffective

the goal of a unoin is to squeeze as much money as possible for as little work as possible.

end result is an overpriced product or service

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:28 AM

Unions created the middle class in the fifties and sixties and seventies. I wouldn't have gone to college if my father hadn't been a union member and was paid a decent wage as a result. This is a social world and we all need each other. I've got nothing against competition except when it works against the mass of people. I believe in capitalism--regulated capitalism. And without unions and government capitalism operates unfettered and destructively. And with the current U.S. administration we see what is happening to workers in this country and the loss of jobs everywhere. . .No disrespect to the businessmen who believe otherwise, but you can do what 9:55 AM said!

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:30 AM

I think city requirement that we use licensed
tradespeople drives up cost of affordable housing. Too many gov't regs. Why should I have to used licensed plumbers, electricians etc when I can get illegal immigrants...Think how much could save and get more affordable housing.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:36 AM

As a member of the Mahattan Institute I'd like to clarify what the institute does as I would not consider it "right-wing" (unless of course you are a Marxist which it appears many readers/writers of this blog are)

The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is
to develop and disseminate new ideas that
foster greater economic choice and
individual responsibility. -- They look at market-oriented solutions to public policy issues rather than just saying the government needs to hand out a bunch of money to solve things. They were instrumental in the 1996 welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton signed.

Getting back to the topic at hand, of course labor unions had an important place in our history to make working conditions better, but today the only thing labor unions are good for are the union bosses. To think otherwise is ignorant of basic economics and commonly know facts.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Daveinbedstuy if unions are always to blame for problems with the MTA, Amtrak and the Post Office, how can other organizations with extremely powerful unions in those industries provide such good service. Ever heard of UPS, DHL? How about the European rail companies (yes I know they don't operate at a profit, but that's because those countries realize that public transportation should not be operated as a for-profit enterprise.)

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:43 AM

Anyone who thinks the unions deserve the blame for everything obviously know very little about city government. Waste starts at the top- and an unwieldy bureacracy creates the most waste. Let's not blame unions for soaring health care costs when those cost rise all across the board.

I'm no huge fan of unions- lord knows I hate the transit union with their illegal strikes- but having personally seen the ineptitude, and illegal construction done by non-union people, only a fool would use them. You get what you pay for. Don't blame the average union worker for the problems created by management, and the City. The city pushes new construction and development without proper oversight. It's the union worker who gets killed when a damaged crane crashes down.

Policies aren't made by the average union worker but by government and management. And that includes union management too. Get pissed off at them.

Want to complain about the teachers union? How about pointing a finger at the board of ed that gives them too little in resources and help? I know teachers who had to use a stairwell and buy their own supplies so their students could have stuff. they get to go into classrooms unprotected, with little help and back up. their workday doesn't end at 3- as so many people seem to think. They take home work and do it on the weekends too.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:49 AM

A friend who works for the union finished a task early and started a new task. His boss called him into the office and yelled at him for doing additional work. He said that if he finishes a job early he is to stand in the corner with his hand on his hip and a coffee cup in his hand until they give him more work to do.
My friend said that out of a typical 8 hour day he actually does about 2 hours of work.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:56 AM

unions suck. they are ruining this country.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:02 AM

Unions are nothing but thugs. Cry me a river if you're over 35 and have zero marketability in the workforce. Now that you pissed your life away, didn't finish school, didn't take your early jobs seriously by telling the manager off or getting in fights and now your approaching 40 and have several kids to support.

It's your fault for wasting your years and now you want to make more money than you deserve by extorting owners and the public officials.

If you wanted an affordable living wages without having to work 6 days a week then you should have done something about during your earlier years. And, the I can't afford college is a cop-out. If you're smart enough with the grades then you can get a loan.

Unions are the new, new mafia. They should be burned.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:04 AM

10:14 Yes, by all means let's get rid of the municipal unions. Then every November, after every election, whoever wins can shitcan all the workers that aren't a member of his party and replace them with with his idiot brother-in-law and other party hacks.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:08 AM

johnife- agreed!

manhattan institute also says :"They look at market-oriented solutions to public policy issues rather than just saying the government needs to hand out a bunch of money to solve things.

sounds like a political agenda to me. You would think 8 years of doing it their way would make any other normal, intelligent human being think, gee....maybe I need to rethink a few things. 8 years of proving strict conservatism doesn't work and still the typical response is 10:22's "socialist "humanitarian" s-bag." All that shows is 10:22 is totally ignorant of labor history and how unions came about.

Don't know about the rest of you but I think its damn scary when someone thinks "humanitarian" is an insult.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:12 AM

10:28. And corporations and non-union companies try to get as much work out of their employees for as little pay as possible. Of course unions try to get the most money for the least work. Any employee with an ounce of intelligence does the same thing. You haven't figured this out yet?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:15 AM

"10:28. And corporations and non-union companies try to get as much work out of their employees for as little pay as possible. Of course unions try to get the most money for the least work. Any employee with an ounce of intelligence does the same thing. You haven't figured this out yet?"

The difference is the private sector is forced to compete for the best workers, pay competive wages and attract talent. Unions use lobby and pay-off money (Forceably taken in the form of "Dues")to make the system work for them and extort concessions out of anyone unlucky enough to be at their mercy.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:28 AM

Ahahaha, the private sector is -not- forced to compete for better qualified people.

They use illegal immigrant labor that's basically free. Why do you think so much new construction is so shoddy and barely fit for human habitation? Why do you think so many quality businesses ___go out of business___? Because they pay their quality employees a good wage, and their competitors use free illegal immigrant labor, so they're able to low ball contracts. And hence, lower quality.

Yours, and the Manhattan Institute's, idea of private sector solutions will not only provide poorer quality products but will put those who provide high quality out of business. Isn't that the same criticism you make towards unions and the government? The difference here is that we've actually seen the reality here: non-union labor is of poor quality and puts quality labor out of business by using illegal immigrants and other unqualified workers.

We know where your agenda is: cashing in big time while everybody else suffers. It's exactly how the past 8 years have been with Bush. You guys have lost all credibility for a looooooong time.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:47 AM

"The unions bankrupted the steel, auto, rail & airline industries each at one point. They are largely the problem with the MTA, Amtrak & the post office productivity/profitability issues."

Oh yeah - it was the unions. Mismanagement, greed, competition from foreign suppliers, and from new emerging technologies had nothing to do with it. Yeah.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:49 AM

a lot of assumptions on everyone's part- some of us actually have a work ethic, and do a good job. there are employers who still care about their employees too.

Yet why is it that the private sector is "forced" to compete for the best workers. All that tells me is that the private sector would not pay for good workers or talent unless it is made to do so. Unions came about as a result of employer abuse of workers. Employers know that there are far more people wanting work than there are jobs, so they have their pick. that usually means lower wages for desperate job seekers, and poorer conditions.

No one seems to understand that you can't build a successful business with an unhappy workforce and workers will suffer if employers are suffering. As long as the whole process is adversarial, not cooperative- and in truth both sides can take blame- nothing will improve or change. That's not communism or socialism or capitalism. It's plain common sense.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:54 AM

11:28 So you consider collective bargaining extortion? Jesse, Jesse Helms, is that you? I though for sure you'd wind up in hell, but instead here you are a poster on Brownstoner. Oh well, same difference...

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:54 AM

I hate the corrupt unions, with their featherbeading, phantom jobs, etc - remember the scenes in the Sopranos?

As if the rat is anything but intimidation.

its outragous that these criminals are allowed to rule the roost.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:54 AM

Housing sure costs a lot of money!

Is that because we slosh enormous amounts of money into it, and expect (nay demand) that housing and land speculation provide rates of return and profit growth comparable with those that can be found in equity markets or commodities?

And that wages, except for people at the high end of the labor market who can successfully corral a growing share of equity in and profits from the firms they work for, are stagnant at best and declining sharply at worst?

Or is it because labor costs, one politically vulnerable component (alongside spiking prices for materials, financing, and land, which are positive and politically inviolable) of construction costs, are set at a level where skilled people can make a good living?

The Manhattan Institute is pretty open about its agenda, but let's not lose sight of that agenda: that labor is a threat to capital, and that if we gave more rewards to the successful they would be kindly inclined to help us out, honest and true for realz.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:56 AM

12:16 "What do I think happens now?" You obviously have no idea how the Civil Service works. NYC municipal unions CANNOT hire whoever they want. In order to get any entry level, and the vast majority of the other jobs, you must take a test, or fill out a questionnaire backed by supporting documents. The people who are allowed into the pool of applicants are the ones who score the highest on the test.
And who brought us the Civil Service system? The unions. And who makes sure the city follows the civil service rules for disciplinary actions, promotions and firings? Those same unions. It was a response to the political patronage system that was used to appoint almost all "public" servants from corrupt mayoral administrations dating back to Tammany Hall and earlier.
To give you an example, until the early part of the 20th century, the only way to become a NYC policeman, or be promoted to a higher rank was to a pay a bribe to the local political boss. Today, anyone who wants to be a police officer takes the same standardized test to qualify. It's much the same for most other entry level jobs.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 12:38 PM

Any sympathy I used to have for unions was shouted down by a bunch of meatheads at the Atlantic Yards hearing. Jobs over quality of life! Money for me and wrecking balls for you! Drop dead, lunkheads.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 12:39 PM

12.33, they're standing outside with an inflatable rat or telling their boss right now, "nope can't lift that hammer, union rules, you need worker X to do that" and downing tools.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 12:44 PM

Newsouthsloper: Can you provide links about the secret ballots please? I participated in a vote on whether or not to accept a union and it was a secret ballot. There were reps from the company and the union observing, but an attorney from the NLRB collected and counted the ballots. You had to sign in to show you voted, but the ballots were completely anonymous.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 1:43 PM

fsrq - Give me one concrete example of a civil service profession where its mostly staffed by "friends of" and "relatives of." (And staff jobs for City Council members aren't civil service jobs.)
Believing urban legends must be nice actually

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 2:33 PM

1:43 -- Your are right that most decisions to unionize still occur the way you describe -- via an NLRB overseen secret ballot.

I think the bill he was talking about would have limited unionization _only_ to secret votes, as there are other methods by which workers can organize (e.g., gathering signature cards to force recognition of the union). My understanding is that this method was popular in the early years of unions when managment would unleash thugs on the organizers, kind of died away during the middle of the century, and has regained popularity in light of union complaints about either no or untimely enforcement by NLRB of rules regulating management efforts to defeat union drives. I think that card gathering is a very expensive decision for a union to pursue, so unions usually only use it occasionally.

Management-side advocates (like the Chamber of Commerce) complain that signature cards essentially allow stealth unionization (thus preventing them from lobbying its workers against the union) and allows unscrupulous unionizers to intimidate workers. Union-side people claim that no such intimidation occurs regularly and that there are sufficient criminal prosecutions to effectively deter adopting such strategies, and that management obviously has the wherewithal to explain why working under its current policies is a good thing.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 2:41 PM

2:41 Thanks for the explanation.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 2:56 PM

From the Manhattan Institute report:

"One contractor who builds primarily for-sale housing in the affordable range uses only union labor because he believes that the savings realized from more efficient and professional execution justify union labor’s higher wages. Several of our interview subjects stated that New York’s union labor force is appreciably more efficient than union labor elsewhere. They say it is also more efficient than local nonunion labor, although, as one contractor related, nonunion contractors who have built projects in Harlem and upper Manhattan “have honed” their high-rise construction skills in the process."

So, I guess the report isn't as unilaterally anti-union as many of the posters would like to believe.

Also, to those of you arguing that you are competing in the market place and making all that money because you are so hardworking and qualified, remember this. Visas for people like you are restricted by the federal government, while illegal immigration of lower-skilled workers is rampant. So, you aren't really competing; you just think you are.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 3:03 PM

Why pick on MTA unions particularly the TWU? I will let you in on something I was in Transit as a manager, never worked a day on a line and always worked in a clean office with as many breaks as I chose. Swear to God. But I also dealt with many union people and got to know many. The rules that they have to undergo stretch the imagination. Think about sitting in a booth in a station where you might not get a relief for 8 hours and with just a bucket as a receptacle. And that's a clean job. Sometimes they don't get relieved for lunch or dinner or breakfast. If they leave and have no relief they get written up and end up being docked pay. A booth employee at the top or say after 20 years makes about 15/hr. There are many dirty, disgusting jobs where you can't have regular meal and bathroom breaks, where you have to be close to fainting in order to book off sick. You dear public try eating something when your hands are filthier than if you dipped them in shit and you're not allowed to wash them. Men and women who work the road--the conductors and the engineers, the signal tower workers get paid tops around 22-23/hr. Not a bad wage , but imagine yourself standing for hours on end, particularly conductors, with people coming up to you asking things through your little window and then spitting in your face when they don't like the answer? Try that for 23 an hour, 8 - 10 hrs a day, 5 days a week for 30 years. And back in the old old days in less technological times the pay was horrid, the air unbreathable and so on, no a/c, no heat.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 4:43 PM