Union vs. Non-Union Doormen

Do you want to have a giant inflatable rat parked outside your building?

Oh, and you won't have to worry about how hard it will be to switch from union to non union doormen. You will be too busy dealing with building code and safety violations that will appear out of nowhere the second you dump the union doormen. You get what I'm saying?

Service Quality?

What you don't like their morning greeting? or they were not quick enough to open the door? a non-union doorman will kiss your ass better?

are you kidding?

If you can't afford a doorman open the door yourself.

sounds like gangsters......

that's how we destroyed the real unions decades ago and let the gangsters become unions, so that we could demonize socialism.....

we had union doormen in midtown and have non-union doormen on the UWS. Both staffs are great.

The non-union building is always giving the staff some sort of bonus or another, so I'm not sure that there's that much of a cost difference -- if anything, I think it's the marginal cost of the non-union workers being forced to deal with their own health care costs vs. that being largely provided for the union workers.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

our union "super" (in quotes because he is more of a package receiver) has been in the building for several decades. he is set to retire in 2013. well actually 2013 is the first year where we can let him go without incurring a significant union-negotiated penalty. he costs us around $75,000 per year all-in. of this, $50,000 is salary and the rest is for union related benefits, pension etc. we've heard the all-in cost of a non-union equivalent will be around 60% of that so we are expecting significant savings starting in 2013.

Just remember, maklo, you get what you pay for.

The union doorman and the non-union doorman are of equal quality, with one exception. Some buildings staff their buildings with security and call them doormen. And buildings that go non-union often pay the same as they are not after lower hourly costs but rather work place flexibility. They have to match the benefits or their employees will unionize.

It's not necessarily a matter of "quality" as it might be of commitment. Union employees tend to be more permanent, and take their jobs more seriously, than non-union staff who all to often tend to be more transient and less committed to their jobs.

It's not necessarily a matter of "quality" as it might be of commitment. Union employees tend to be more permanent

--
No that would be more of a function of a guaranteed life time job, and that tends to attract those people who are least motivated to do well.

WHy is there so much animosity toward unionized supers on SE? Whatever happened to that idiot who wanted to dump their super who lives ina 3 bedroom apt. because he has no family and does not need such a large space? If you don't want to give your super an apt., then don't. Hire regular maintenace workers. That is what we had when I lived in Co-op Village. They just got paid hourly and did not get an apt.

We were talking doormen. And a building has but one super-intendant. You either pay too much or not enough.
If you have a good super, it's only one salary, it he/she is that good, pay a little extra. It's a rounding error and well worth it.