40% of NYC Construction Workers Unemployed

shocking... I didn't know it was that bad...

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100421/REAL_ESTATE/100429963/1066

Thanks unions!

"Thanks unions!"

Bullshit.

More like "Thanks Wall Street!"

nycmatt, once again, you talk of what you know nothing about.

The Building Congress has noted that there would be additional building without the union scam rules (like different schedules for different crews). The additional cost was estimated at 15-20%

They finally got the union to agree to relax this, and those specific projects are getting built.
But only SOME buildings get this approval!

Imagine that... "YES, WE AGREE THESE ARE DUMB WORK RULES. WE'LL FIX THAT FOR 10% OF PROJECTS"

sorry, matt, once again, you're wrong.

Thanks Unions!

So unions are to balme for the lack of work? Don't you think other factors are to balme, like, oh I don't know, no developer wanting to add additional residential and commercial space to an already saturated market? GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. Construction is down throughout the entire country, even in places with no unions. Have you been totally ignoring the housing start date from the Commerce Dept. for the last 2 years?

One would think labor costs would be significantly reduced with all the competition for construction jobs, carpenter jobs, painting jobs, and etc, but it isn't so. Even unskilled, uneducated, handymen are asking $60 - $80 per hour with a minimum of 3 hours for jobs. I would never have guessed 40% of construction workers are out of work.

alpie i agree with you. (oh the horrors).

swe, plenty of union construction occurred for many years. now you want to say that construction isn't occurring because of unions? how about financing? lack of short to medium term demand?

oh, don't bother with your bullet point rebuttal. i could write it myself. but i find it interesting that regardless of what your views are on real estate (new york follows, RE here still has huge room to fail), you can change them if unions are involved.

jesus go elsewhere SOMEWHERE with your Beck/Hannity/teabagging scripted garbage

If the construction slump was just the result of union demands, then non-union projects would not be effected and in fact would be in greater demand. SO how come I've read story after story about how Mexican and other immigrant workers who came here to work on construction jobs are unemployed, stranded without a "safety net" or means to get home."

1onewon, it's kind of like the banks. except not. those who retained their jobs at the banks now make MORE.

wage deflation generally is the last thing to occur. first you have layoffs, then losses due to buyouts/attrition (attrition continues during the process, then reduction in benefits/possible furloughs depending on the industry (obviously the unions avoid this process), then wage deflation.

btw, wage deflation among the masses? a really, really bad sign for our economy. be careful of what you wish for.

oh, i forgot the first phase. lack of hiring.

"GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS."

Wait, did New Jersey's "THE MARKET IS NOT DOWN 20%! SHOW ME JUST ONE EXAMPLE" Alpo really just write that about anyone other than himself?

"If the construction slump was just the result of union demands, then non-union projects would not be effected and in fact would be in greater demand."

That makes absolutely no sense. The builders can't choose "non-union projects".

> jesus go elsewhere SOMEWHERE with your Beck/Hannity/teabagging scripted garbage

ubutt, nice to see you don't let facts, logic, common sense, or intelligent argument get in the way of any of your postings

"swe, plenty of union construction occurred for many years"

Uh, plenty of folks bought houses at crazy prices, too in the boom. Did that mean the prices weren't crazy? OF COURSE NOT.

> oh, don't bother with your bullet point rebuttal. i could write it myself.

Why? We don't need bad logic for both sides...

> but i find it interesting that regardless of what your views are on real estate (new york follows,
> RE here still has huge room to fail), you can change them if unions are involved.

Now you're grasping at straws. The existence of a union means priced DIDN'T crater?
That makes absolutely no sense... much like the rest of your post.

swe, right. sure. whatever YOU say.

your post is totally at odds with your general position about nyc real estate. that nyc real estate was poised to crater. i'd seriously doubt that the union's pushed it that way, although if you want to argue that it is entirely at odds with your earlier posts.

keep up the partisan work.

btw, wtf is up with those stupid bullet points? lord you're irritating.

"The builders can't choose "non-union projects"."

WRONG! Better luck next time. Thaanks for playing Tea Party Jeopardy. You lose!

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/17/cg_unionprotest_2010_04_23_bk.html

i'm not in topic, so how much more does a union construction worker cost? where are those extra costs going (health care, pensions, above mkt wage)???

Depends on the worker.

But what the non-union crowd is trying to do is blame the construction slowdown on the fact that not everyone is on board with the idea of paying illegal aliens $50 per day to construct our buildings.

in the carpenter's case: "$10-$18 an hour, without benefits. (...) The union rate for the same work is $42 an hour, plus benefits"

wow it's a huge difference if the quality of the labor it's the same, and it's a legal wage.

"He insisted the issue is not about union versus non-union labor." LMAO!

“The goal here is to demonstrate what we feel are exploitative working conditions — whether the owners or contractors change their mind, that’s up to them,” he said.

how many people in NYC earn "$10-$18 an hour, without benefits."? i know that tons of nannies do, but don't know how many in other sectors.

Yeah.

I know I want someone who's worth only a babysitter's wage to be constructing the buildings we live and work in.

matt, that makes zero sense. there are only a few new projects to be staffed, and they can be staffed from people who have recently finished projects i'm sure.

What makes zero sense?

Wanting skilled laborers to construct our buildings?

Matt, installing drywall requires higher skill than being a nanny?

http://www.mygreathome.com/fix-it_guide/drywall.htm

i'm not so sure.

So your cherry picking the easiest part of construction? What about electric? Plumbing? HVAC? Concrete? Elevators?

Presi, go and read the article.

How can anyone say this is because of unions? And why should anyone criticize unions? Unions represent their members, no one else. They have no obligation to do anything but maximize their own members' economics and they use all legal tools at their disposal. What is the alternative of unions? Big business having all the power, or do you prefer big government providing for all?

> What is the alternative of unions?

a non-union contractor like in the article? did you read it?

> do you prefer big government providing for all?

doesn't the gov provide when companies fail thanks in great part to their unions? GM, Chrysler... do you know the PBGC? soon enough will need a bailout... unions don't promote meritocracy but seniority. they create giant liabilities with total disregard of what's affordable for those paying in the future. is that sustainable?

They create giant liabilities for whom? For the businesses? Maybe the businesses aren't reflecting the true costs because they see, hear and speak no evil about their true costs. Every American has the right to work hard and get the most out of their work. Unions help their members do that, facing large businesses and their shareholders on the other side of the table. Is the argument that we should feel sorry for big businesses?

> They create giant liabilities for whom?

When they are unaffordable, the company goes belly up and the PBGC picks up part of the pension liab. Not a good deal really for the workers covered anyway as it's not indexed by inflation nor cover health care. If the PBGC needs a bailout, then it's a liability for the taxpayers. There's also a cost to those that could have been hired down the road by that company that was bankrupt.

But creating unemployment is not unusual with unions, raising labor costs way above what the biz can bear is unsustainable, but even if it's sustainable for a while the company hires less people. So it's great if you belong to the group, not good if you are outside as they rise and willing to work for less.

About big biz, sure, when the country was controlled by monopolies (till the 30s) and there was a single main employer in most cities, then sure, workers needed bargaining power. What you see now is right-to-work states growing while union states shrinking.

> it's a liability for the taxpayers.

remember, that most of those taxpayers and most of young customers do not have those benefits. So for me part of the question is why, for example, a young guy with a job with no benefits nor pension has to pay extra money for the benefits/pensions of people that made the car and of people that made cars in that company a generation ago... the young guy chances are get more value with a right-to-work company like Honda or Toyota.

From my handy microeconomics book: "A labor union acts in the labor market like a monopolist in the product market. The union seeks to restrict competion and, as a result, raises the price at which laber is traded."

All that unions do is raise unemployment and reduce market efficiency.

"When they are unaffordable, the company goes belly up ". So you are expressing concern for the companies with their CFOs, controllers and and treasury departments, their insurance groups who hire actuaries, their internal and external lawyers who can read contracts and litigate for the benefit of their companies, and their marketing professionals who can figure out the maximum price that customers will pay for products.

"So it's great if you belong to the group, not good if you are outside as they rise and willing to work for less." So the issue is that the unions are not letting new people in?

"About big biz, sure, when the country was controlled by monopolies (till the 30s) and there was a single main employer in most cities, then sure, workers needed bargaining power. " Whether they need or don't need bargaining power isn't the issue. Just as the CEO plays hardball or gets a chummy board to maximize his pay, on down the line, and the athletes and talent hire attorneys and agents to negotiate the best for them, workers shouldn't be restricted from doing whatever they need to do legally to maximize the value they receive in return for their work. Unless you want the government to dictate?

"What you see now is right-to-work states growing while union states shrinking." Well there you go, a market at work, the other side is flexing it's muscle. I guess they don't need your support after all, right?

What you see now is right-to-work states growing while union states shrinking.

"All that unions do is raise unemployment and reduce market efficiency."

No, all that unions do is maximize the benefit their members receive for the labor they provide. Unions are only beholden to their members. Why do you want unions to provide benefit to others outside of the union? Do you want companies to give their products away free?

> "The builders can't choose "non-union projects"."
> WRONG! Better luck next time. Thaanks for playing Tea Party Jeopardy. You lose!
> http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/17/cg_unionprotest_2010_04_23_bk.html

OMG, YOU MORON!

If a builder has unionized employees, HE CAN'T CHOOSE NON-UNION PROJECTS. BECAUSE ALL HIS PROJECTS ARE UNION. YOU MORON, THE BUILDER IS EITHER UNION OR NOT! HE DOESN'T "CHOOSE". UNIONIZATION IS NOT AN EMPLOYER CHOICE, YOU RETARD!

oh my fing lord alpo, why are you such a moron?

> swe, right. sure. whatever YOU say.

ok, pee wee herman.

> your post is totally at odds with your general position about nyc real estate. that nyc real estate > was poised to crater.

Then you have a lack of comprehension and understanding of the market. Thats NOT at odds with what I said.

I said for quite some time the cost of building was way too high in NYC, and I said this BEFORE the crash, and its part of why we HAD the crash.

Jesus, why are you trying so hard!?!!?

> i'd seriously doubt that the union's pushed it that way

No, pushing up costs has nothing to do with the state of an employer. No way. never. No how.

> although if you want to argue that it is entirely at odds with your earlier posts.

Only if you completely misunderstand logic.

> keep up the partisan work.

Now you're REALLY reaching.

> btw, wtf is up with those stupid bullet points? lord you're irritating.

Methinks you just need to stop taking yourself too seriously.

"All that unions do is raise unemployment and reduce market efficiency."

> No, all that unions do is maximize the benefit their members receive for the labor they provide.

Which does EXACTLY what you are saying it doesn't.

Your "supporting" point doesn't actually support your rebuttal.

> Why do you want unions to provide benefit to others outside of the union?

As long as you admit they HURT folks outside the union... I'm with you.

> Do you want companies to give their products away free?

If a company owned the politicians like unions did AND "negotiated" with the people they bought, the country would go beserk (just look at Goldman). And, hell, Goldman didn't have 1/100th the power of the unions in NYS.

I'm all fine with folks holding out for what's best for them, but when unions control WHO THEY NEGOTIATE WITH because companies are restricted from campaigning but unions aren't, then you have legalized corruption.

If unions want to play in the free market, cool. Then stop having the government create their jobs for them....

AND STOP TRYING TO GET RID OF EMPLOYEE CHOICE!

"But creating unemployment is not unusual with unions, raising labor costs way above what the biz can bear is unsustainable, but even if it's sustainable for a while the company hires less people. So it's great if you belong to the group, not good if you are outside as they rise and willing to work for less."

bingo.

"No, all that unions do is maximize the benefit their members receive for the labor they provide."

I have no problem with unions and monopolies for that matter as long as they don't use government power to mandate their interests. Unfortunately it's not the case. Both monopolies and unions are heavily involved in lobbying, and try to legislate their "rights". What I'm trying to point out is that unions and monopolies are 2 sides of the same coin. To be consistent, you should either support or be against both.

"Matt, installing drywall requires higher skill than being a nanny?"

Um, yes.

All that's required of being a "nanny" in this city is that you're over 16 with a pulse. It's also helpful if you're illegal, can't speak English, and prefer to eat at Popeye's.

If you eat at KFC instead, you can be in the union.

"I have no problem with unions and monopolies for that matter as long as they don't use government power to mandate their interests."

Bingo. THe majority of union workers are government employees. And that doesn't count the union jobs effectively MANDATED by government, like the legislature demanding minimum wage levels that just "happen" to be at union levels for development projects, or Spitzer mandating that all home healthcare aides become part of... get this... the TEACHER's UNION!

And the politicians that the unions buy (because someone that is legal) are the ones who "negotiate" with them.

Or how about the EFCA (a lie in a name if I ever heard one) that REMOVES free choice from the union process? Sadly, obama wrote it, but cool that it hasn't passed.

"Both monopolies and unions are heavily involved in lobbying, and try to legislate their "rights". What I'm trying to point out is that unions and monopolies are 2 sides of the same coin. To be consistent, you should either support or be against both."

Difference is the monopoly part is illegal. And while union members can find other employers, the employers are mandated by law to deal with the union.

Our schools are a mess. Few to blame other than the unions and the politicians they bought.

lol Matt, check out the link on how to install drywall, you don't even need to be 16, nor being verbal at all. just follow the pictures :-)

"but cool that it hasn't passed."

how didn't it pass? it's great that it didn't imho.

it never came up for a vote. I guess once obama got into office, he realized he'd get hammered for it.

Or, he knew all along he'd never do it, he just wanted the socialist votes.

wow, its better than I thought!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html

"A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers. The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions. "

Oh, too bad... democracy wins!

"several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic. "

well, no sh*t...

I thought coersion was American!

"But creating unemployment is not unusual with unions, raising labor costs way above what the biz can bear is unsustainable, but even if it's sustainable for a while the company hires less people."

Fine then. Let's get rid of unions so that businesses can pay their workers less, as in $7.25 an hour with no benefits. Because that is what will happen.

Did anyone ever stop to think that perhaps EXECUTIVE salaries are unsustainable? Is the $100 million salary of the CEO of United Health Care sustainable?

alpo, you putz. You think if there is no union, pay goes to $7.25 an hour?

Well, for the unskilled labor only WORTH $7.25 an hour, SURE. Why should we pay the paperboy more?

But the successful industries (the non-union ones) have no problem paying good money for good employees. See what a computer programmer makes in this town (and I'm picking a commodity skill).

The problem with the unions is that they raise wages and do so while causing LESS worker skill and LESS productivity.

The unions want to pay the paperboy $50/hour, but limit him to one paper delivered per hour.

btw, the reduction of unions would likely RAISE wages on non-union employees!

"AND STOP TRYING TO GET RID OF EMPLOYEE CHOICE!"

Wow, you really are an ignoramus. EFCA does not abolish secret ballots. This is according to the ultra conservative Wall St. Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751316400391295.html

btw, alpo, you still haven't owned up to your "builders can choose to be non-union" bs... what's up with that?

"alpo, you putz. You think if there is no union, pay goes to $7.25 an hour?"

Well, pay is practicaly at $7.25 an hour for non union airline pilots:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301848.html

"Wow, you really are an ignoramus. EFCA does not abolish secret ballots. This is according to the ultra conservative Wall St. Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751316400391295.html "

ALPO, YOU IDIOT! Thats because, as I noted..... THEY JUST REMOVED IT!
The dems couldn't get it through!

Alpo, seriously, do you TRY to be this stupid?

And 67k per year is $7.25 an hour?

Man, you are slow...

seriously, alpo, are you illiterate?

"btw, alpo, you still haven't owned up to your "builders can choose to be non-union" bs... what's up with that?"

alpo...?

Somewhereelse, are you a scab or an Ivory Tower academic?

Why do you oppose people's rights to bargain to get the most money for their value?

I think I answered my first question, you can't be a scab, you must be an Ivory Tower academic, or a 14 year old idealist.

"And 67k per year is $7.25 an hour?"

I get it. You only pay attention to the parts of the article that agree with your extreme views. There is a $16,200 figure staring you right in the face if you had bothered to read the 3rd paragraph. You cannot find any facts that disagree with your opinions. You can't find your ass with both hands unless there is a tea bag sticking out of it.

"Under questioning from the board, Mary Colgan Finnigan, Colgan's vice president for administration, confirmed that Rebecca Shaw, co-pilot of the fatal flight, drew an annual salary of about $16,200."

"lol Matt, check out the link on how to install drywall, you don't even need to be 16, nor being verbal at all. just follow the pictures :-)"

LOL notadmin, check out your local nanny.

You don't even need a brain, nor being communicative, just sit on your ass and watch TV.

"Did anyone ever stop to think that perhaps EXECUTIVE salaries are unsustainable? Is the $100 million salary of the CEO of United Health Care sustainable?"

THANK YOU!!!!!

I just bought drywall at Hoem Depot a few weeks ago. It's super super heavy. It's much harder to install than you think, especially if you have to put it on the ceiling.

40% of construction worked are unemployed or 60% of construction worked are employed?
Maybe the former should really be in a different profession.

The cup is not half full or half empty. The cup is just the wrong size. Until more Americans understand that, unemployment will never go back down to 4 or 5%. The government need to invest in retraining people for new industries like green technology. The unemployed also need to recognize that and take the first step in switching careers.

ok Matt, you convince me on your need to pay $42 + benefits to your drywall guy. I'll take the $10-$18 rate and hire a nanny with the savings. But look right there I employed 2 people instead of 1 :-)

Somewhereelse, are you a scab or an Ivory Tower academic?

> Why do you oppose people's rights to bargain to get the most money for their value?

I don't. You just haven't read, or can't comprehend my posts.

Seriously. Look for the one where I say "Bingo".

"I think I answered my first question, you can't be a scab, you must be an Ivory Tower academic, or a 14 year old idealist."

Your logic is as bad as your comprehension.

"I get it. You only pay attention to the parts of the article that agree with your extreme views. There is a $16,200 figure staring you right in the face if you had bothered to read the 3rd paragraph."

Moron, the $67 figure is from that same article. Which YOU clearly did not read. YOU confused pilots and co-pilots (pilots in training) you moron.

"You cannot find any facts that disagree with your opinions."

You're talking about yourself. The $67k is from the ARTICLE YOU POSTED!

moron.

"You can't find your ass with both hands unless there is a tea bag sticking out of it. "

Really? Coming from alpo "THE MARKET IS NOT DOWN 20% SHOW ME JUST ONE EXAMPLE" moronovich, you haven't found your ass ever.

You are responsible for 97% of the dumbest things ever said on this board.
You can't read and you don't have a brain.

"Under questioning from the board, Mary Colgan Finnigan, Colgan's vice president for administration, confirmed that Rebecca Shaw, co-pilot of the fatal flight, drew an annual salary of about $16,200."

> "btw, alpo, you still haven't owned up to your "builders can choose to be non-union" bs... what's up with
> that?"

> alpo...?

moron....?