Update on Maintenance Increase

^^sorry meant to say "on top of 2 increases in '09"

Can it be right? Avg employee makes 100,000 plus tips???

I asked someone else this. Her opinion was that say each employee makes around 50K as their gross salary, that probably means it costs 100K for each partic b/c of health ins. Im not sure if she is right.

Did you compare your apt's maint to other buildings near you? It may be your building is still cheap relative to others. Use this site to do some digging before you say something.

bj's bldg's maintenance never goes up

should be a good source of information, as always

Big headwind being an owner. Captive revenue source, desire to increase values by providing good services, no other incentives to cut costs = rising maintenance far faster than inflation.

"desire to increase values by providing good services, no other incentives to cut costs = rising maintenance far faster than inflation."

This makes no sense. You don't enhance value by increasing maintenance. If maintenance is higher than comparable units, then resale value decreases. It is necessary to balance amenities with maintenance levels. No one in a building benefits from higher maintenance in and of itself--including board members.

Does anyone know where to find average maintenance costs where buildings are categorized by prewar/postwar, number of units in building, doorman, doorman + additional lobby staff (elevator person, concierge), roof deck, storage? I've seen that maintenance now runs closer to $2/sq ft even for large buildings with just a doorman...thoughts?

where does it say in there we have rising maintenance all by itself? I hope you don't deny that maintenance is rising a lot faster than inflation, property-tax related or not. The point is that Boards are not cost effective in pursuing increased services or modernization projects.

Six staff members is probably 1 super, 1 handyman/porter for trash, 3 doormen each on 8-hr. shifts, and a swing/backup/weekend doorman.

So you're paying $6000 per unit, or $500/unit per month, for labor costs of keeping your building maintained, your trash taken out, and having 24-hr. security. Doesn't sound outrageous to me.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

has there been an instance where owners (condo and co-op) have simply replaced union staff with their demands with non-union employees?

my old co-op would hold its meetings in the lobby since that place seemed standard.. funny how all the doormen, porters, and sup (all union) happen to be 'hanging out' in the lobby at the time..

coincidence to make sure they get their benefits and OT?? yet they're rarely in the lobby at other times..

Perhaps they wanted to hear owners' concerns and suggestions, so as to provide better service, and so they listened in on meetings. And perhaps they were busy doing all the jobs they were hired for, so did not hang out in the lobby the rest of the time. Hard-working guildsmen.

No amenities = 24 hour doorman?? I

As a Board memeber of 440 unit post war high rise in midtown east, I can tell you that the challenges and increases are a real issue. Board members pay them too.
The biggest issue is the high property tax increses for 3 years running.
Next issue is that the union employees got an increase in the new contract. They do not average 100k in salary but their medical, retirement and vacations are fully funded so the total expense is about that.
Also, the union requires that you maintain the same number of positions so even adding things to increase productivity do not usually reduce expense.

Is there a precedent of canceling the union contract all together and going with non-union staff?

All NYC buildings are unionized. Other union workers will rarely even cross a picket line if the building workers are on strike.

I don't understand why people opt to live in buildings whose staffs they resent, whose boards they distrust and whose fees they find unnecessarily high at best or criminal at worst. And if those who feel this way are not outliers in the building, then band with the multitudes of other disgruntled shareholders and vote in new board members. Frankly, much of this sounds kind of coo-coo.

"Boards are not cost effective in pursuing increased services or modernization projects."

Says who? All boards? Certainly not. Mine, for example, is made up of talented people who bring a breadth of experience to running the building: a seasoned civil attorney, an engineer, an accountant, a business development professional, and someone who works in securities. They have put in place a thoughtful multi-year plan for servicing the coop's debt with an eye toward positioning us well for a variety of possible market conditions when it comes time to refinance. They have intelligently handled some expensive but necessary and difficult capital projects in ways that do not overly impact the reserve fund and reflect a thorough exploration of all available options. They save money where they can (more efficient lighting now saves over $10K per year, for example). There is nothing special about my building and the board is far more similar to others in the neighborhood than it is different. So sweeping generalizations like "boards are inefficient" and statements too often posted on here suggesting a board must be taking "kick backs" are frankly rather silly.

Some posters act as if a gun were placed to their heads and they were forced to buy and continue to live in dreadful coops. Take some damn responsibility for your decisions and choices and life. Move, suck it up, put together a slate for the board to change things since if things are truly so bad there must be legions of shareholders who feel the same way. But whining like an over-tired child serves no purpose whatsoever.

I think this thread emphasizes the need to find a building and a board with which you are in sync philosophically. There are (true) no-frills buildings for people who want no-frills maintenance. My labor cost per month is about $35, and I can't imagine paying $500 per month for a doorman, handyman, and super. Then again, in a small co-op, you can expect to spend at least 10-20 hours per year on building-related minutiae, which I know some would have no patience for.

All of this said, the OP's maintenance still seems cheap to me. I think technologic said the maintenance is just under $1,000 for a one bedroom? Maybe that's on the expensive side for the East Village, but here in Chelsea I can't think of many/any doorman buildings where one beds run less than $1,000 per month in maintenance.

I'd be much more concerned with the reserves apparently going from $2mm to a half mil. Was there an explanation for that? Is there a major project going on?

"Also, the union requires that you maintain the same number of positions so even adding things to increase productivity do not usually reduce expense."

Got to love those unions. Thank god we have someone to stand in the way of progress!

I hardly think I have been "whining like an over-tired child." This is a big issue for me and many other people city-wide (as evidenced by this post). Im sure all the bears on here will at least agree with me on that point, i.e., that it is something making owning seem less affordable these days.

For a EV nonluxury nondoorman building, the maintenance IS high. To clarify, we do NOT have a doorman; though admittedly sometimes whichever staff member is on duty hangs out in front. No porters. We did have a major project last year, which I guess was where a lot of the reserve went.

Ill be curious to see if the board says anything about maintenance. We'll see.

"The biggest issue is the high property tax increses for 3 years running.
Next issue is that the union employees got an increase in the new contract. They do not average 100k in salary but their medical, retirement and vacations are fully funded so the total expense is about that.
Also, the union requires that you maintain the same number of positions so even adding things to increase productivity do not usually reduce expense."

Well said, sma10022.

"bj's bldg's maintenance never goes up
should be a good source of information, as always"

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Wbottom, why so bitter?

technologic: my comments are not directed at you personally. There have been any number of threads on this general topic where others have consistently run on about kick backs and ineptitude of their boards while at the same time citing no specifics and posting statements suggesting they have taken no time over the years to involve themselves in the building or even showing up at the annual meetings and making an effort to understand the financial statements handed out annually. In your case, if the board doesn't mention the maintenance at the meeting (I would find that very unusual since it typically toward the top of the list of what shareholders most want to discuss), then you should bring it up and ask questions. The answers should flow easily and clearly and demonstrate a solid understanding of finance and the building's balance sheet. If not, then time to maybe inject some new members into the composition of the board.

While my building is very well run IMO, I am still shocked every year by how few shareholders make the time to attend the annual meeting. Those very same people go berserk if there is ANY maintenance increase or capital expense that requires an assessment (rare in my building but it does happen) and the board members are stuck in halls and elevators giving the same answers over and over to people who couldn't bother to attend the meeting but who grouse for days after notices of any of these things are slipped under doors after the meeting. And its always the same people who attend and the same ones who skip it from what I see.

that clarification is very interesting -- if you don't have a doorman, and you don't have porters, what are the six staff people for? One super, one handyman, and ...?

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Pretty much what kylewest said. Our building benefits from a highly competent board and outstanding performance on behalf of all shareholders, literally over a period of decades. The part about the uninvolved malcontents rings true as well. The story in maintenance the last 3-ish years has pretty much been property tax, property tax and property tax, with a bit of union labor on the side. Boards are just the messengers on these items, but I guess some people just need someone to blame.

not at all bitter, bj, quite entertained--

seems your comments below do in fact allege both "flat" cc/monthlies, as well as a maintenance hasnt "gone up at all"--apologies that i didnt quote you exactly--pretty damned closed tho

also odd that you pay both maintenance (as in coop) and cc/monthlies (as in condo)--is your building one od thise confusing condops?? hahahahaha

"Our maintenance actually went down for a year before we brought them back up to original levels (which aren't much higher to begin with). In other words, they haven't gone up at all since I moved in. Rents in the neighborhood, unfortunately, have. It happens."

"Sorry you don't buy that my ccs and taxes have stayed flat, but they have. I'm pretty sure they'll go up in the long term, but your assertions are a bit off."

please explain how not are not completely full of sh!t---and no shrinkage...no shrinky dinky

hahahahahaha

Yeah Wbottom, not bitter at all, right? Maintenance and common charges are interchangeable terms as far as I know. You're the first person to imply there's a difference, but I live in a condo, so use whatever term is right (hahahaha, right?). Everything I typed up there is 100% accurate - you don't buy it, but I couldn't care less; it's the truth. Long-term, of course I expect those costs to increase, but if you're going to complain that I'm just reporting what's going on in my building on a real estate board, you should probably just yank that giant stick out of your Wbottom instead of trying to be a tough guy on an anonymous internet message board (this is where I would hahahaha).

tough guy?? because ive held you accountable to your own words?? you know, the part about how you don't see cc/taxes and/or maintenances as having gone up generally, and not at all for your apt, as quoted in contrast with your comments here. and then your frequent use of "shrinkage"...your word. now your concern with my ass. bitter?? me?? not quite...amused, for a brief moment...with you....hahahaha

whatever...clearly all buildings are experienceing ongoing significant tax and fuel cost increases at a minumum. these and other increasing expenses have caused most buildings to increase monthlies, in some cases by amounts shocking to owners of apts. any building that has kept it's monthlies flat over the last several years would be highly exceptional, and would have to have used reserves, or cut amenities, or engaged other forms of cost cutting. many coops have been able to refi underlying mtges of recent. in genl this has offset only a small portion of other increasing costs to those buildings.

these increases in maintenance certainly don't help stabilize prices, and may well prove to be another of the may straws piling onto the camel's back

"tough guy?? because ive held you accountable to your own words??"

Held me accountable? If you had any proof whatsoever that what I said about my building's finances was false, then maybe, but I haven't seen you put forth any. Just sounds like you're craving a little schadenfreude, is all.

"you know, the part about how you don't see cc/taxes and/or maintenances as having gone up generally, and not at all for your apt, as quoted in contrast with your comments here."

Yeah, I have NEVER said I don't see maintenance as having gone up generally. From the couple anecdotes floating around here, it sounds like some buildings have been hit. You seem to want that to apply to mine as well. It hasn't so far.

"and then your frequent use of "shrinkage"...your word"

Sorry, where have I used that word? Think you've got me confused with someone else.

"clearly all buildings are experienceing ongoing significant tax and fuel cost increases at a minumum."

Clearly all? At least you're not generalizing or anything. This is a pretty tough subject from which to draw definitive conclusions since beyond some anecdotal "data" we don't really know much, and yet you're just going ahead and doing so.

"these increases in maintenance certainly don't help stabilize prices, and may well prove to be another of the may straws piling onto the camel's back"

Maybe, but it's one of the straws that's least worrisome when you consider everything else. And these costs do get at least partially passed down as rental increases. As a potential buyer or seller, I'd be much more concerned with interest rates, unemployment, and the general economy.

Ali - someone is in the building "on call" (for lack of a better term) 24/7. So technically, if it was the middle of the night and something went wrong, someone is there.

coops can have stable maintenance, even when taxes go up. changes in staff can cause this.

my old coop have the "great" super leave for chelsea. he didn't do anything except have contractors on speed dial. by him departing and getting a super can actually do something, the building saved over $50K in heating alone. a doorman was removed because of incompetence and a new one was hired for a lower rate. with 2 of those things happening within a 2 yr period, the building saved enough money year over year to not have to increase maintenance.

ab_11218,

There was a comment that most/all NYC buildings are unionized. How did on earth were you able to fire union workers?

bugelrex, because it's a complete myth that union workers can't be fired for incompetence.

it was a painful process, but the union in the building is some crappy one that came completely unprepared to the mediations.

the biggest saving, though, was the moron super leaving. whoever lives in chelsea and seeing their maintenance going through the roof and have a new super.... good luck. it only gets worse from here on. in 6 yrs at the old coop our maintenance went up every 2 yrs or so by a larger % then anticipated. once he left, 2 yrs ago, the maintenance has remained the same, even with the brick work done.

Six employees for a 100 unit building where there isn't a doorman strikes me as questionable.

OP you said part of this staffing arrangement is to have someone "on call" 24 hours a day, but isn't that why buildings have a live-in super?

I would encourage you to work with your coop board to better understand the staffing structure as this might be an area you can encourage your board to pursue some savings

Setting aside the staffing arrangement coops across the city are seeing substantial increases. NY Times in the article below reports 11% being the average citywide. Biggest cost driver this year is increased RE Taxes which you can't do anything about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/realestate/26cov1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Maintenance%20increase%20coop&st=cse

The thought of having to pay for the building staff's pensions is enough to make one question the wisdom of buying in NYC. It's a huge disincentive to owning, IMO.

Coop owners' jobs aren't nearly as secure as the union EEs, and the majority of coop owners do not get any private pensions. To be on the hook for someone else's medical and pension as long as you own? What a rip-off...

Agree with drujan. It sounds harsh, but I'm just not willing to sign up to indefinitely pay someone's union wages, healthcare, and retirement when my own private sector employment is less secure and my own benefits are less and being cut.

That said, in planning a large-scale renovation/addition to my apartment, I have to keep in mind that the appeal and the value will always be restricted by it being a walk-up in a no amenity building. Will people who can afford to spend $1mm+ on an apartment be content with no doorman, no elevator, no one to receive packages, having to arrange their own repairs, having to spend a couple of hours per month dealing with resident e-mails about building minutiae, having to "pitch in" and get bids from contractors for building repairs, and having to live by the "dos and don'ts" of an amateur board of directors. (And I'm part of that "amateur" board - we do the best we can and are very diligent, but do not have any specialized knowledge nor the size/scale to afford to bring in professionals.)

It works for me, but I can see how others might prefer to pay $500+/month not to deal with any of this.

"The thought of having to pay for the building staff's pensions is enough to make one question the wisdom of buying in NYC. It's a huge disincentive to owning, IMO."

Huh? Why don't these same "concerns" apply to any service arrangement you might enter into?

And if you rent you're paying the building staff's pensions anyway--you're just doing it through an intermediary. Assuming the cost is ~the same, do you just hate union employees so much that you need to add extra layers of intermediation between your checkbook and theirs?

lad--if you think being a doorman is a way better job than your own, have you thought about becoming one?

There's a huge difference of paying through an intermediary v. not.

If I'm a renter and I decided the value of union labor is not worth the cost, or if I became unable to afford the cost, I could just move for a very minimal cost. As an owner, I'm a captive revenue source. There are enormous expenses involved in moving.

E.g., I lived in a full-service building before I bought. If rent went up by $300 per month due to union labor costs (widening the gap between full-service buildings and walkups), I'd definitely move. But if I bought in that building and then maintenance went up by $300 per month, would I going to spend $50-75k+ in transaction costs to avoid this $300/month fee, while (likely) selling my apartment for less because the increased maintenance turns off buyers? No way. I'd have to suck it up. The unions unfortunately know that.

Not saying a doorman's job is better, just that it's more secure and comes with better benefits. The cost to maintain those is higher than the normal cost of living increases, so over time, I am likely to be paying an increasingly greater percentage of my income to fund someone else's. That's not something I'm willing to sign up for long-term.

As for the other service arrangements I have, they are at-will, don't involve medical or pension obligations, and I can terminate them at any time if performance does not meet expectations or if the cost becomes too great. I don't enter into any agreements otherwise.

Carefully considering all costs of owning is a must. That includes property taxes (higher in municipalities with heavy public pensions burden), and of course such analysis should include building staff costs, especially if they are impossible to cut.

Owners have no choice but to pay up for union wages and pensions. Rents on the other hand can be both above as well as BELOW the owners costs, depending on the local market, average incomes, and economy.

P.S. Hey Jordyn, are you in the union or working in a "public" job perhaps? Not sure where the vitriol is coming from, unless union bennies is a sacred cow for you.

As kylewest and others have said, nobody's forcing us to live the way we do. Find out who's negotiating the labor contracts and complain to them.

I've lived in buildings where I needed three locks instead of one, couldn't trust the super with the keys, etc. Part of the give-and-take with this stuff is our not having a bunch of itinerant staff with no benefits or job protection. When I don't want to pay the freight anymore I'll sell and move.

kylewest: on his co-op.. "when it comes time to refinance."

...meaning your board most likely took out an adjusting interest or 10 year ballon.. yeh smart Board there..

"They have intelligently handled some expensive but necessary and difficult capital projects in ways that do not overly impact the reserve fund"

...soo they took on more debt...smart.

"Some posters act as if a gun were placed to their heads"

..who said anything about guns..that specific poster asked of cases where buildings were non-union..

$100k cost PER union building staff, with wage increases to follow is insane.

I think unions in their modern incarnation are pretty lame generally, I just don't understand why the fact you happen to be paying for someone's pension is material to the rent vs. buy decision. I'm always particularly amused when people bemoan how great union jobs by folks who generally make way more money overall and would never for a moment consider taking any of those jobs.

I also agree that one of the advantages to renting versus owning is that you have more flexibility as a renter. This applies equally to factors such as property taxes and underwater mortgages as it does to labor costs. I just don't understand why your doorman's pension would be the overriding consideration here.

Lastly, while it's true that the cost of labor isn't as directly related to the price of renting as it is to owning, in general the increased cost should eventually be passed along to the renter. The increasing expense of your doorman shouldn't be part of your buy versus rent decision, it should be part of your doorman versus no doorman decision.

"$100k cost PER union building staff, with wage increases to follow is insane."

Huh? What's the fully loaded cost per employee at your company?

not a doorman issue, a union issue..

porters, maintenance, elevator guy, super...

all union, expect owners to pay family healthcare and retirement/pensions...

i remember an article somewhere where Board took on non-union staff and put savings in reserve.. couple years back can't recall...

"not a doorman issue, a union issue.."

No it's not. The exact same union represents doormen in condos/coops and rental buildings.

"all union, expect owners to pay family healthcare and retirement/pensions..."

And I bet you don't care whether your employer provides any of those features? My employer provides me with family healthcare and a generous 401(k) match. I agree that defined benefit pensions can be problematic, but why shouldn't a doorman get the same sort of benefits that the rest of us take for granted?

For what it's worth, according to the NYT quoting building owners during the negotiations last year, the average fully loaded cost of building employees was $68K:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/nyregion/21strike.html?pagewanted=2

Hol4, in defense of boards, self-liquidating loans are not always easy to come by and can be quite expensive. My small building is moving to one this month. We called at least 20 banks, and all of ONE bank was willing to give us a self-liquidating loan. At an interest rate of 7%. Maximum loan period of 15 years. Closing fees of about $25k. Honestly, I could put the money on a credit card for cheaper. (And, in fact, brought up the idea of assessing everyone, but that went over like a lead balloon.) Other than being small, there is nothing bad or difficult about our building -- all sold, all owner-occupied, healthy reserves, no major repairs, no assessments, etc. There just isn't a big market for co-op loans, especially smaller ones.

Because of the 15-year amortization (v. 30 amortization on the balloon loans), it took a lot of arm twisting within the building to get the board/shareholders to agree to the 10% maintenance increase necessary to pull this off v. just getting another 5, 7, or 10 year balloon loan in the low for 5-6%. Everyone figures they'll be gone by the time the loan matures and the new shareholders can deal with the constant refinancing costs (a huge burden on small buildings), the risk of higher interest rates, etc. A few long-term shareholders, who said twenty years ago that they'd be gone in ten years, finally agreed to bite the bullet.

Is this a smart move for us? I think so, but only time will tell. Our maintenance is going to be "high" for the next 15 years, or until interest rates rise enough that equivalent co-ops start refinancing their balloon debt at a higher interest rate. In any case, I and others in the building view the self-liquidating, fixed rate loan as the "safe" option and will at least sleep easy that one cost won't change and has an end in site.

"why the fact you happen to be paying for someone's pension is material to the rent vs. buy decision?"

...because union pensions cannot be cut.

Buying vs. renting decision is hugely impacted by costs analysis, in particular which costs are fixed vs. which can be cut if needed.

"..because union pensions cannot be cut.

Buying vs. renting decision is hugely impacted by costs analysis, in particular which costs are fixed vs. which can be cut if needed."

As a renter you can't cut the cost, either. The building employs the doorman, not you. The only way you can effect your costs is by moving. The same is true for an owner. As pointed out above, it's blindingly obvious that renters have more flexibility than owners and can move more easily, but there is nothing special about union pensions that make them different from any of the other fixed costs that owners face.

for a 100 unit building with no doorman, you should have 3 employees (1 live-in super and 2 porters) and a super from a nearby buliding acting as back-up upon vaction/sickness of your super or temp super for that period

jordyn....wow you're trying to equate a doorman position which doesn't require a COLLEGE DEGREE, let alone any technical or formal training with positions where people are still straddled with school debt to advance themselves?

"jordyn....wow you're trying to equate a doorman position which doesn't require a COLLEGE DEGREE, let alone any technical or formal training with positions where people are still straddled with school debt to advance themselves?"

Yes, I'm saying that having health care and some prospect of retiring is a reasonable thing for any employee in a long-term job to want. And the reason that doormen get these things is because they have negotiated with people that own buildings who have found that their labor, even with these costs, provides at least as much benefit as it costs. Funny how that works, huh?

According to that Times article, the average building staff person apparently makes $20 an hour. How much of a premium is your COLLEGE DEGREE worth over that? Double? Sure, $80K a year seems like a perfectly reasonable average salary for someone with a COLLEGE DEGREE in New York. We can even call it $100K if we assume that the costs of benefits doesn't scale with salary so that doormen deserver $20 per hour + benefit package X, which costs $67K total, and people with COLLEGE DEGREES deserve $100K + benefit package X, which costs $134K total.

As for whether you're straddled with debt, that's your choice and shouldn't factor into how much your labor is worth. If getting a COLLEGE DEGREE doesn't pay for itself (and there are tons of jobs which require a COLLEGE DEGREE where it does not), it's (financially) stupid to take on significant debt to fund it.

...when you eat at your favorite restaurant do you ask to see the waiter's boss and question why he doesn't' pay said waiter's pension and subsidize his health benefits??

..or were you glad the meal cost you $85 instead of $300 had the manager done what you've asked?

that $20 an hour is merely based on salary.. i love how you left that part out..

which building do you work in, disguising yourself as an owner

"..or were you glad the meal cost you $85 instead of $300 had the manager done what you've asked?"

If I went to a restaurant that charged $300 instead of $85 because it paid its employees' health care and gave them retirement benefits, I certainly wouldn't complain about it if the prices were printed on the menu that I ordered off of. If I wanted cheaper food, I'd go to a different restaurant. If all of the restaurants with waiters charged $300 for food and I didn't want to pay for it, I'd go to McDonalds or make my own food.

FWIW, as I understand things some (generally very expensive) restaurants that want to attract better quality staff do in fact provide benefit packages for their wait staff. Next time you get a crappy waiter at your $85 restaurant you'll know why.

"that $20 an hour is merely based on salary.. i love how you left that part out.."

Apparently having a COLLEGE DEGREE does not help with reading comprehension. You see that $67K figure? That's the fully loaded average per employee, according to building owners.

"If all of the restaurants with waiters charged $300 for food and I didn't want to pay for it, I'd go to McDonalds or make my own food."

.. every wonder why McD's is cheap? maybe because they don't expect its customers to fully fund each employee's benefits and pensions??

..so you'd exploit said "value" from its laborers once you hit a certain price threshold.. hypocrite much?

I don't think you understand my argument. I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable for doormen to want these benefits--health care, vacation and a retirement plan don't seem at all like outrageous perks--and if, through the process of negotiation with building owners they have secured these benefits and their $20 per hour pay then I have nothing to begrudge them. Apparently you think they are somehow stealing this money from you or otherwise don't deserve it; yet you're so dependent on their services that you're unwilling to do without. That seems like a pretty small-minded approach, especially since you've not provided any rationale as to why something like a COLLEGE DEGREE should justify a huge disparity in compensation (keeping in mind that I've already agreed that a two times multiplier for your extra four years of education seems reasonable).

The fact everyone in the world doesn't get paid fairly isn't particularly my problem, and it's virtually impossible to I'd say you're a hypocrite if you don't treat your own employees the way you'd like to be treated, not if you consume the goods or services of any company that happens to treat its employees less than perfectly. But feel free to put a gold star on your "Gotcha!" wall if it makes you feel better.

hippo crit.. you exploit McD's workers.

which building are you a porter of?

hol4, your argument seems to be:

1) I am a porter at some building;
2) Building staff do not have COLLEGE DEGREES; and
3) People without COLLEGE DEGREES are fundamentally lacking to the point that they do not deserve health care or retirement plans.

And, as an exemplar of the superiority of COLLEGE DEGREES, you write like a teenager and fail basic tests of reading comprehension. Assuming that you actually believe all of the above, you'd be exhibit number one of why your argument is faulty.

..yet you'd exploit said people without COLLEGE DEGREES by using their services (McD's) once a price threshold is met...

..why would you take such advantage of such laborers? why do you think doormen and porters are above McD's workers?

is it simple aesthetic of uniform or were you unhappy with your Xmas tips?

The simple truth is that almost all mid- and large-sized private sector employers used to pay in full for both family health insurance and defined-benefit pensions. The extreme complacency of private-sector employees allowed pensions to be replaced (beginning around 1980) with defined-contribution plans (approved by Congress with the intention of providing supplemental retirement savings, not a substitute for pensions but icing on the pensions) ... and the same complacency allowed employers to chip away and chip away at health plans, adding co-payments and deductibles and the like, or eliminating them altogether (often forcing health costs onto taxpayers instead).

So it's amusing to hear private-sector employers whining that somebody else shouldn't have something that they once would have had ... "it's not fair!" Very negative. Very three-year-old, no? And very good at the big chase to the bottom. What a reversal from the positive, "can-do" attitude that defined the US for 200 years.

The simple truth is that not everyone believes fully-paid family health insurance or defined-benefit plans are a good thing.

Since hol4 is making an argument I've already addressed, I'll move on.

lad--do you mean "not a good thing for everyone else" or "not a good thing for me?" Essentially everyone I know would prefer to have a full-paid family health plan and almost everyone would prefer a defined-benefit plan. So these are perfectly reasonable things for employees to try and negotiate for.

I agree that the current health insurance model is pretty broken for society at large, but the only reasonable alternatives aren't politically viable. alanhart--I do think it's an oversimplification to say that private sector employees were complacent in letting employers chip away at health care benefits; the fact is that health care costs are increasing so rapidly that the economics just don't work the same as they did decades ago.

As for defined benefit vs. defined contribution, there's no inherent reason why one should be superior to the other, but companies and government seem totally unable to actually plan for these obligations so switching to defined contribution plans at least minimizes the risk that they'll make employers insolvent.

How about this argument: I know about only 1 (one) doorman who was finally fired after he put a cot in the lobby and slept, mildly drunk, through his shifts for months. It took 4 months to fire him, what with the union and all. How about that for job security.
So here goes: pretty much iron-clad job security, plus benefits, plus pension, plus striking rights, all coming from people some of whom lost their jobs and most of whom don't have any of this perks. All of this for unskilled workers, sometimes with terrible attitudes.

Like I said before, if you think the job is so awesome, you should look into becoming a doorman. If you try to become a doorman and are unfairly impeded from becoming one, come back and you'll have a reasonable argument about how life is unfair.

(I agree that the big downside with unions is the relative lack of ability to assess/fire/pay people based on merit.)

commoner.. drunk on the job??

i call a Board meeting to provide this doorman with his own unit of residence within the building, with subsidized maintenance..

our Super lives in a deuplex unit.. wonder why Mgmt couldn't give him a studio or 1 bed.. single young dude no kids, wife/husbdand

(I agree that the big downside with unions is the relative lack of ability to assess/fire/pay people based on merit.)

No kidding! Isn't that the root of all evil?

That assumes that there's ever a general relationship between merit and assessing/firing/paying people -- an assumption that I don't buy into. At all.

Hey boss, love your tie!

That's kind of sad. You should work for better organizations/bosses.

Actually, I work for a terrific organization AND boss. I'm just saying that it's not my impression, at businesses in general, that true merit really dictates career paths. Emotion rules. And then people assign the false notion of "merit" to their decisions.

As in "heck of a job, Brownie."

Well, that particular boss was an idiot. :-)

I think that these things are generally somewhat correlated with merit, when looked at in broad swaths. I totally agree that there's a lot of bad decisions along the way so there will always be tons of counterexamples, but if there were really no correlation employees would become sufficiently unproductive that someone would figure out how to get it right (attracting all of the high quality employees in the process) and dominate all of their competitors.

@ hol4: I have no idea who you are and have never seen your posts on here before, but based on the one responding to my post, I surmise you tend to shoot from the hip without a lot of reflection or thought and as a result get things wrong a lot. I'm not sure what types of mortgages you think coops take out, but they tend not to be 30 year fixed interest because there is no reason for a coop to aim to pay off its mortgage--ever. Pay it down? Yes, possibly and that is exactly what we are doing. But a coop isn't just a big homeowner. There are different considerations.

You say that because I say "They have intelligently handled some expensive but necessary and difficult capital projects in ways that do not overly impact the reserve fund" that means they took on "more debt...smart." No. We opted against that. Wisely. Your assumptions are foolish.

"$100k cost PER union building staff, with wage increases to follow is insane." To break down your living expenses in this way is stupid. I ask, what does it cost to rent? to own? the advantages to me of owning versus renting in my financial situation and life priorities? I no more parse the minutia of how my maintenance is divied up in terms of who gets what union benefits than i go berserk when some of my taxes are spent on a weapons system that I think is flawed or a new set of tires for Air Force One.

All this silliness. If owning makes sense for you own. If it doesn't, don't. Whining is pointless. For me, owning makes complete sense. First, it costs me about the same as renting a comparable apartment in my neighborhood but the rental wouldn't be renovated and configured to my exact likes. Second, my goal is not to die with the most money I can--my aim is to live with a conservative financial plan and acknowledge that if I am responsibly handling my expenses and future financial health, then if I end up[ spending more on owning a nicer apartment than I could rent, driving a better car than the cheapest available, and indulging in exotic vacations that is a wonderful way to enjoy living. Certainly better than buying a place and then stomping my feet because my doormen get 10 sick days a year or whatever it is that is making you sound like a lunatic.

ME today: "and then your frequent use of "shrinkage"...your word"

BJ today: "Sorry, where have I used that word? Think you've got me confused with someone else."

BJ in prior posts:

"Steve, I gave you about as simple a case as can be given. And how are the figures out of context when I provided the figures and the context? Like I said, major shrinkage."

"Steve, you're obviously never bashful about posting and naysaying others, but the facts are plain - when you're forced to answer a question from which you can't hide behind your pat little formulas, you develop some major shrinkage."

BJ, above is where you used that word. Have you confused yourself with someone else??

Perhaps yours is such an evolving point of view that it's "tough" (another one of your words) to keep track of things.

Or maybe, more likely rather, youre just hysterical most of the time.

hahahahaha

Wbottom, thanks, I had forgotten about that fun exchange with Steve - sorry I don't keep track of every single one of my posts like you seem to do. Regardless, I don't get your seemingly never-ending animosity towards me. You just come off like a jackass and a johnny-come-lately to this board, with not much to contribute so far. That's too bad.

I also enjoy how 2 = "frequent" and that an evolving point of view is a bad thing (as opposed to what, a stubborn and obtuse one? That's hilarious).

> there is no reason for a coop to aim to pay off its mortgage--ever

Why is that? Because an owner does not get credit for future lower maintenance in a sale price?

kylewest: "I'm not sure what types of mortgages you think coops take out, but they tend not to be 30 year fixed interest"

hey pal, don't get your feathers all ruffled because your co-op didn't qualify for a 30 year self-liquidating..

yes, they DO exist for co-ops UNDER 6% (ie one im considering bidding on)..

not my fault you seem to think all co-op loans have to be a 10 yr refi with balloon at end of every term.. ouch.

seems your Board didn't do its due diligence or your not part of the kickaback squad shhhh.

"there is no reason for a coop to aim to pay off its mortgage--ever"

Wow.. banks must loooovee you, making interest off interest. i have a couple bridges.

bj,

so many "fun" exchanges with so many...and then...shrinkage...it's not you...promise

so much for a snark free 2011

Wbottom's just going through the potty-training phase of his Streeteasy account. He'll get over it soon - I have faith.

hey bj--now's the time to launch the crap where you pontificate about insult and snarking on se--

shrinkage...it's wasnt about you...promise

wait....who are you arguing with now?...how are you supposed to remember all the hysterical arguments youve launched??....it's their fault...again

Wbottom, I really don't get where your aggression towards me comes from. If I offended you anywhere, my apologies, but just seems like you're out to goad me into this crap. I don't like the insults and snark on here, but when someone repeatedly goes after you for no discernible reason, I won't completely back down either. So what gives?