Do Union Demands Stymie Affordable Housing?
A right-wing think tank has issued a big report that, according to the Sun, says affordable housing construction would be sped up by the use of nonunion labor. The Manhattan Institute is—not surprisingly—arguing that soaring construction costs are slowing development, and a big part of that slowdown is caused by unions that demand a prevailing…
A right-wing think tank has issued a big report that, according to the Sun, says affordable housing construction would be sped up by the use of nonunion labor. The Manhattan Institute is—not surprisingly—arguing that soaring construction costs are slowing development, and a big part of that slowdown is caused by unions that demand a prevailing wage for their workers. Also not surprisingly, not everyone agrees with the report’s findings. “This is a valid area of investigation, but I would not support this recommendation,” says Richard Anderson, the president of the New York Building Congress. And Louis Colletti, president of the Building Trades Employers’ Association, said the recommendation was “absurd” and the use of nonunion labor results in “substandard housing in terms of quality and safety.” Of course, some affordable housing developers in Brooklyn, like the Fifth Avenue Committee, acknowledge that it’s very difficult for them to use union labor because of its higher costs, and the rapidly rising Toren is basically a textbook example of how quickly you can build when you leave unions behind. (The skyscraper has 42 affordable units.) Where do you stand on the issue?
Report Urges Nonunion Labor Use [NY Sun]
Photo by arecee.
Gee it is funny how there are not many union workers commenting here, Guess they are working.
11:08 – (I am 10:14) just because you eliminate municipal unions, doesnt mean you can’t have civil service laws that would eliminate this problem – besides what do you think happens now? The Muni unions support a candidate, canvas for him, raise money for em, man phone banks for em, etc, etc, etc, and then when elected all those workers who weren’t in the Union to begin with are the 1st ones hired onto the municipal workforce.
It is simple – many Unions (and corporations) are corrupt, inexcusably inefficient and/or ineffective – but in the private sector the power of the marketplace will either fix these inefficiencies or force the company and union to fold due to domestic or international competition with better labor relations (on both sides)
BUT in a municipal setting there is no ‘marketplace’ to act as a check – the only check is POLITICS – which the Unions (and its members) have a large say in as well – thereby giving them effectively “2 bites at the apple”.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Forget the Sun article – read the original report
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/rdr_04.htm
Union labor costs are just one aspect of the lack of affordable housing.
I would also like to point out that while the Manhattan Institute is certainly conservative in some areas, it isn’t in others. The point of the MI member was simple: many people, liberals included, believe market forces are the most efficient method of resource distribution. Marxists in general do not believe that market forces are efficient, and that the state should manage resource distribution.
Also, Rosemary Scanlon, the author of the research paper in question, is actually fairly liberal.
Yes, I am active member of the Manhattan Institute and I even provided Rosemary with some construction cost data.
I encourage everyone to read the original paper, and I hope Brownstoner links to it in this story. It really is quite interesting.
“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.
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.