Can the BB Practice Facility Be Built in 12 Months ?

[zgoru]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

I don't do construction, so I don't know why people think that union labor will take longer than non-union labor, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason were that you have to pay union people extra for weekends and holidays (not to mention overtime), and so the contractor won't do work 7 days a week.

*No, I don't know if this is the right amount, but it's definitely a lot less than in the U.S.

Union/Non-Union, anyone working over 40 hours gets paid OT in NJ. Regarding Holiday pay, union labor usually gets double time. So you don't work Holidays. Don't understand the union/non-union labor productivity discussion either. In NJ you're going to be paying union labor rates on any public project and the productivity is more a function of the company doing the job rather than the work force being employed.

 

[RUskoolie]

Originally posted by JoeRU0304:
Knight Light and skoolie, I mean this very respectfully- if you truly think that strictly 'market rate' determines what people's jobs are worth, I think you both have the antiquated mindset.

"you have little to offer your employers"

...well, "lucky" for me my employers and the clients/ families I serve couldn't think you were more wrong.


Joe P.

If anything is antiquated it is thinking Unions are still a good thing in 2015. That is why Unions have completely bankrupted municipalities, cities, soon states and plenty of companies, because they force someone to be paid more than they are worth and then install insane retirement packages on top of that. It's why many ITT think the price of construction will be so much more, because you have to pay Union workers more than you would a non-Union employee who can do the job just as well.

I realize that opinion will be very unpopular with people who reside in such a blue state but there is a lot of truth to it.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by RUskoolie:

Originally posted by JoeRU0304:
Knight Light and skoolie, I mean this very respectfully- if you truly think that strictly 'market rate' determines what people's jobs are worth, I think you both have the antiquated mindset.

"you have little to offer your employers"

...well, "lucky" for me my employers and the clients/ families I serve couldn't think you were more wrong.


Joe P.

If anything is antiquated it is thinking Unions are still a good thing in 2015. That is why Unions have completely bankrupted municipalities, cities, soon states and plenty of companies, because they force someone to be paid more than they are worth and then install insane retirement packages on top of that. It's why many ITT think the price of construction will be so much more, because you have to pay Union workers more than you would a non-Union employee who can do the job just as well.

I realize that opinion will be very unpopular with people who reside in such a blue state but there is a lot of truth to it.

Public unions are a different animal, simply because government is always going to be held to higher standards than private entities as far as mistreating workers. And of course because the threat of bankrupting the company is not there (ultimately that in fact does bring the private unions to the table).

But generally companies that went bankrupt because of unions, are companies that are in major decline to begin with. They made deals when they were strong that have cost them. But to say the union put them out of business is nonsense. Does anyone ever blame lenders for putting a company out of business because they expect them to stick to the original terms of the deal they made? Then why blame unions for the same?

Unions do increase the cost - but the main reason things cost so much here is that their is alot of demand for land and limited supply, so automatically, the price of doing business goes up (even if you are running an IT company with no real overhead, you still have to pay rent for your apartment). Its why urban grocery stores have such a hard time, union or not, for example.

Even in non-union Georgia I would guess that construction in Atlanta costs more than construction in Athens.




This post was edited on 4/7 12:37 PM by derleider

 

[JoeRU0304]

Skoolie, again, because I generally support unions doesn't mean I can't see a need for healthy reform/ adjustment. We're already seeing that with teachers (kicking in more for medical benefits, tenure and pension is being reformed). I'm a proponent of balance and not of overgeneralization. At my private sector job (Barnabas Healthcare) my position is not unionized but I was more than fine with it because I think Barnabas has treated me/ the profession well and relatively fairly. They have a sound system of checks and balances and each department is valued for what they do. Thing is, I think it's foolish to believe that unions only overinflate value while the private sector isn't capable of artificially devaluing worth.


Joe P.

This post was edited on 4/7 12:37 PM by JoeRU0304

 

[RUJMM78]

Some of the poorest states in the country per capita income are in the South such as Mississippi,Alabama and Louisiana ,all non union states.

 

[RUskoolie]

Fair point

 

[BeKnighted]

People who point to the free market and say it will work fine to protect people in the absence of unions don't really understand labor markets very well. The key point, of course, is bargaining power, and unions give that to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.

Anyway, so far the only explanation for why a non-union job would take longer than a union job appears to be that the contractor wouldn't work on holidays to avoid paying double-time. Since nobody would work on Christmas (or probably New Year's Day), we're talking about adding about 10 days to the schedule if that's the only reason.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
People who point to the free market and say it will work fine to protect people in the absence of unions don't really understand labor markets very well. The key point, of course, is bargaining power, and unions give that to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.

Anyway, so far the only explanation for why a non-union job would take longer than a union job appears to be that the contractor wouldn't work on holidays to avoid paying double-time. Since nobody would work on Christmas (or probably New Year's Day), we're talking about adding about 10 days to the schedule if that's the only reason.

I think the bigger thing in NJ is probably all of the lead up (competing, environmental reviews, etc). And of course the corruption. That is a MUCH bigger issue as far as timeliness and cost than unions in my opinion.

 

[RUnumber1]

Guess none of you have heard about the "Free Market" and the economics of Supply and Demand.

 

[dollarbill]

This is a parking garage with a complicated floor. It's hard to believe this takes more than a year to build. $$$$

 

[mikefla]

Originally posted by RUskoolie:

Originally posted by JoeRU0304:
I think Der absolutely nails it. I'm a social worker and work both union and non-union jobs (full-time job is union) and am fortunate enough to get treated well at both places, but I firmly believe that if it wasn't for unions, I'd probably have to work 100 hours a week and get paid in Chuck E Cheese tokens.


Joe P.

I mean this very respectfully: If it weren't for Unions you would get paid what the market dictates your skill is worth. If you think it is worth Chuck E Cheese tokens then you need to develop better skills and be very thankful an antiquated Union artificially inflates your worth.

wow....the right wing view of the world(no thanks)...........please tell me you are NOT a Rutgers grad

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by RUnumber1:
Guess none of you have heard about the "Free Market" and the economics of Supply and Demand.

I think its appropriate that you put "Free Market" in quotes, because that more or less describes how it exists in reality.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by RUnumber1:
Guess none of you have heard about the "Free Market" and the economics of Supply and Demand.

As der points out, it is absolutely important to keep in mind that "Free Market" is a theoretical construct that has never actually existed in the world...ever.

It is a great tool for learning about macro economics ...but trying to apply "Free Market" theory to practical policy is the equivalent to use quantum physics or string theory to design the new Rutgers Parking Garage.

 

[50 yd line RR]

I don't understand this board, op asks if the basketball facility can be built in a year and the union bashing begins.
Why are there so many anti union posters on this board? I always thought New Jersey was a blue collar state.
In a time when the wage disparity between the CEO's and their workers is greater than any other industrialized country
in the world. Out sourcing of jobs,insourcing of jobs,displacement of workers.Labor in this country is taking a beating. The only mechanism workers have to ensure any standard of living is collective bargaining.
Unions provide a living wage to their members. They have health care coverage and most provide some sort of retirement package. Most promote continuing education for their members and strive for a safe work environment.
If necessary, Unions can provide an unlimited pool of qualified workers. Drawing from thousands of members from throughout the country.
Back to the op's question can the ball facility be built in a year? without a doubt, Union Labor is an asset not a liability.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by 50 yd line RR:
I don't understand this board, op asks if the basketball facility can be built in a year and the union bashing begins.
Why are there so many anti union posters on this board? I always thought New Jersey was a blue collar state.
In a time when the wage disparity between the CEO's and their workers is greater than any other industrialized country
in the world. Out sourcing of jobs,insourcing of jobs,displacement of workers.Labor in this country is taking a beating. The only mechanism workers have to ensure any standard of living is collective bargaining.
Unions provide a living wage to their members. They have health care coverage and most provide some sort of retirement package. Most promote continuing education for their members and strive for a safe work environment.
If necessary, Unions can provide an unlimited pool of qualified workers. Drawing from thousands of members from throughout the country.
Back to the op's question can the ball facility be built in a year? without a doubt, Union Labor is an asset not a liability.

Unions provide a "living wage" to their employees by inflating the general price level for the rest of us.

There would be no middle class without Unions, cause everything costs so much....ummmmmm, why does everything cost so much?

As for why do construction projects take longer when unions are involved...it's clear nobody who has commented has ever been on a union job site.

Take for example, you are a union insulator (which I happen to come from a family of them). You go to work today (after getting paid for your ride to work, as length of commuting time is negotiated into the insulator's contract) your foreman might say to you, "today, you need to insulate 200 feet of pipe." Say you're good at your job and you finish that 200 feet by 1pm (after taking an hour lunch in which you have 3 or 4 beers).

Guess what you tell your foreman? Ok, boss, I'm done with my 200 feet. See you tomorrow.

Things like OSHA, job site safety, O/T and the "weekend" are all by products of unionized labor. We should tip our hats to them for that. However, all of those things are currently protected by any number of federal and state agencies. Suggesting that we need to continue to have unions to protect those things or that they should be permitted to exist forever as a thank you, is lunacy.

My wife's cousin runs a non-union shop in NJ. He routinely gets work in Federal Buildings in New York. He has to pay prevailing union wage in order to complete those jobs. He does architectural moldings and high end finish work. A installer who does a kitchen in Short HIlls on Monday and gets $28 bucks an hour, can go to the Federal court house in Queens on Tuesday and be paid $78 an hour. Who pays for the inflated wage? The Easter Bunny?

 

[zgoru]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

As for why do construction projects take longer when unions are involved...it's clear nobody who has commented has ever been on a union job site.

Take for example, you are a union insulator (which I happen to come from a family of them). You go to work today (after getting paid for your ride to work, as length of commuting time is negotiated into the insulator's contract) your foreman might say to you, "today, you need to insulate 200 feet of pipe." Say you're good at your job and you finish that 200 feet by 1pm (after taking an hour lunch in which you have 3 or 4 beers).

Guess what you tell your foreman? Ok, boss, I'm done with my 200 feet. See you tomorrow.

I've worked for union contractors in NJ for about 30 years and have to say finishing up and going home at 1 would never be tolerated. But I've never been on a jobsite in the City where insulators were employed, so I can't say you're wrong.

I said in an earlier post, it's really a function of the contractor/project management rather than the labor force. If working half a day is tolerated by the management running the job, well shame on them. And unless it's a T&M job, it's the contractor that will be absorbing that inefficiency, not the owner of the project.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by 50 yd line RR:
I don't understand this board, op asks if the basketball facility can be built in a year and the union bashing begins.
Why are there so many anti union posters on this board? I always thought New Jersey was a blue collar state.
In a time when the wage disparity between the CEO's and their workers is greater than any other industrialized country
in the world. Out sourcing of jobs,insourcing of jobs,displacement of workers.Labor in this country is taking a beating. The only mechanism workers have to ensure any standard of living is collective bargaining.
Unions provide a living wage to their members. They have health care coverage and most provide some sort of retirement package. Most promote continuing education for their members and strive for a safe work environment.
If necessary, Unions can provide an unlimited pool of qualified workers. Drawing from thousands of members from throughout the country.
Back to the op's question can the ball facility be built in a year? without a doubt, Union Labor is an asset not a liability.

Unions provide a "living wage" to their employees by inflating the general price level for the rest of us.

There would be no middle class without Unions, cause everything costs so much....ummmmmm, why does everything cost so much?

As for why do construction projects take longer when unions are involved...it's clear nobody who has commented has ever been on a union job site.

Take for example, you are a union insulator (which I happen to come from a family of them). You go to work today (after getting paid for your ride to work, as length of commuting time is negotiated into the insulator's contract) your foreman might say to you, "today, you need to insulate 200 feet of pipe." Say you're good at your job and you finish that 200 feet by 1pm (after taking an hour lunch in which you have 3 or 4 beers).

Guess what you tell your foreman? Ok, boss, I'm done with my 200 feet. See you tomorrow.

Things like OSHA, job site safety, O/T and the "weekend" are all by products of unionized labor. We should tip our hats to them for that. However, all of those things are currently protected by any number of federal and state agencies. Suggesting that we need to continue to have unions to protect those things or that they should be permitted to exist forever as a thank you, is lunacy.

My wife's cousin runs a non-union shop in NJ. He routinely gets work in Federal Buildings in New York. He has to pay prevailing union wage in order to complete those jobs. He does architectural moldings and high end finish work. A installer who does a kitchen in Short HIlls on Monday and gets $28 bucks an hour, can go to the Federal court house in Queens on Tuesday and be paid $78 an hour. Who pays for the inflated wage? The Easter Bunny?

Aren't you in grad school now?

The key to understanding unions, IMHO, is to realize that someone has to agree to it on the other side.

Owners/shareholders collectively bargain via corporations. Labor collectively bargains via unions. They are two sides of the same coin. There is no law that says private companies HAVE to agree to the demands of unions. It is up to each private company (which is a collections of owners) to decide whether they want to agree to each union demand.

And by the way, I say all the above as a finance director of a company with four manufacturing sites (in the US), 2 of which are unionized and 2 of which are not.

All that being said, my feelings on "public sector" unions are not as generous as they are with private unions. IMHO, the problem with public sector unions is that it isn't an "arms length" negotiation. A local municipality can't simply decide to close up shop and/or move somewhere else. Not to mention politicians themselves often rely on union support to get elected, which means they are theoretically working with the unions and are not in a position to negotiate against them.

 

[derleider]

Yes its lunacy to assume that people who's main business is profit would, without a counterbalance, simply decide to treat employees well out of the goodness of their heart, and would never seek to rollback workplace protections, and other regulations. Never.

Also - like I said - the main reason things are expensive here is that land is scarce. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to by a block of housing in heavily union Detroit for the cost of a McMansion in NJ.

And like I said - public unions are not the same as private unions. They should be treated differently in these discussions.

Yep - we pay for it. Just like we pay for the CEOs yacht, I'm assuming you want to roll those back a notch too.


This post was edited on 4/8 9:02 AM by derleider

 

[JoeRU0304]

Great point. The mentality that private enterprise fully knows best and will be fair and altruistic to its employees without checks and balances is what lead to labor reform laws in the first place. When the NJ school superintendent salary cap came about I remember many being in favor of it and thinking it was ridiculous that a superintendent can make $175k in a year. Many anti-public school pundits used this as cannon fodder...until some of the salaries of charter and private school directors started coming out (one charter school director was making north of $315k per year)...I guess that's the 'market rate'?...


Joe P.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I never said that "private enterprise knows best."

I said that unions create artificial wage pressures. Any micro-economist will tell you that floors or ceilings are inefficient.

And if the CEO of "XYZ" has a mega yacht and that bothers you, you have the ability to 1) become an activist shareholder and displace that person 2) boycott his or her firm 3) not work there.

If it is state law that union labor must build the new Honors College on campus, exactly what can anyone do about that? Do you think that unionized labor, both faculty and non-faculty, has any impact on tuition and fees? Does public and private unionized labor have anything to do with NJ's overall higher cost of living?

Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized? Why should a person unloading trucks at a UPS sorting depot be unionized? Why should construction laborers be unionized? It takes a special skill set to pick up scrap lumber, dig trenches, sweep up nails and hump materials around a job site? Why should PSE&G have 7 guys staring in a hole in a ground, 5 of them acting as "safety officers" and supervisors?

 

[RU4Real]

I don't know about you, but as I've gotten older and more career-weary I find myself being a tad envious of people who get paid to stand on the side of the road and stare at a hole in the ground.

 

[JoeRU0304]

Hudson, it's not personally directed at you (hell, I've been told that I'm basically worthless to my employers and owe whatever I make to my union because of said worthlessness by some here, even though I have worked 2 jobs since I was 19, earned my Master's and various state licenses and certifications, and currently work in both sectors). My main point was value can easily be underestimated just as much as it can be inflated.


Joe P.

This post was edited on 4/8 2:58 PM by JoeRU0304

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
I never said that "private enterprise knows best."

I said that unions create artificial wage pressures. Any micro-economist will tell you that floors or ceilings are inefficient.

And if the CEO of "XYZ" has a mega yacht and that bothers you, you have the ability to 1) become an activist shareholder and displace that person 2) boycott his or her firm 3) not work there.

If it is state law that union labor must build the new Honors College on campus, exactly what can anyone do about that? Do you think that unionized labor, both faculty and non-faculty, has any impact on tuition and fees? Does public and private unionized labor have anything to do with NJ's overall higher cost of living?

Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized? Why should a person unloading trucks at a UPS sorting depot be unionized? Why should construction laborers be unionized? It takes a special skill set to pick up scrap lumber, dig trenches, sweep up nails and hump materials around a job site? Why should PSE&G have 7 guys staring in a hole in a ground, 5 of them acting as "safety officers" and supervisors?

I think its funny you use the term "artificial."

The create wage pressures...sure...because a collective bargaining unit clearly has better negotiating power than each individual. Just like corporations don't have each individual shareholder negotiate pay for each employee (or their respective share to the employee). Shareholders are advantaged by having professional managers negotiate for their benefit collectively.

I would actually go the opposite route and say that "right to work" states are the ones create artificial downward pressure for wages, because they put restrictions on what two private entities (companies and labor unions) are allowed to agree to. To me, artificial means some outside force. Unions negotiating on behalf of their members is not an outside force. Government laws are an outside force.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

NT.

This post was edited on 4/8 5:34 PM by Scarlet Pride

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
I never said that "private enterprise knows best."

I said that unions create artificial wage pressures. Any micro-economist will tell you that floors or ceilings are inefficient.

And if the CEO of "XYZ" has a mega yacht and that bothers you, you have the ability to 1) become an activist shareholder and displace that person 2) boycott his or her firm 3) not work there.

If it is state law that union labor must build the new Honors College on campus, exactly what can anyone do about that? Do you think that unionized labor, both faculty and non-faculty, has any impact on tuition and fees? Does public and private unionized labor have anything to do with NJ's overall higher cost of living?

Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized? Why should a person unloading trucks at a UPS sorting depot be unionized? Why should construction laborers be unionized? It takes a special skill set to pick up scrap lumber, dig trenches, sweep up nails and hump materials around a job site? Why should PSE&G have 7 guys staring in a hole in a ground, 5 of them acting as "safety officers" and supervisors?

I think its funny you use the term "artificial."

The create wage pressures...sure...because a collective bargaining unit clearly has better negotiating power than each individual. Just like corporations don't have each individual shareholder negotiate pay for each employee (or their respective share to the employee). Shareholders are advantaged by having professional managers negotiate for their benefit collectively.

I would actually go the opposite route and say that "right to work" states are the ones create artificial downward pressure for wages, because they put restrictions on what two private entities (companies and labor unions) are allowed to agree to. To me, artificial means some outside force. Unions negotiating on behalf of their members is not an outside force. Government laws are an outside force.

What does me being in grad school have to do with the price of a blow job in Bangkok?

Let's try this another way.

The prevailing unionized wage for a finish carpenter in NYC is $78 per hour, plus benefits. I have a family member who employees a team of non-union installers. They are thrilled shitless to install very intricate kitchens, mouldings and woodworking for $28 an hour, plus benefits and O/T when eligible, in a private residence anywhere in the tri-state area. The same guys are willing to make the same wage in private jobs in NYC. The same EXACT crew must be paid $78 per hour, per man, to perform the same exact level of work in a Federal Courthouse in Queens. That isn't the very definition of "Artificial?" The same human being is perfectly satisfied with a wage that pays him close to $80,000 a year, plus benefits (putting him firmly in the top quartile in the country), but because of union pressure, must be paid 3x that amount because of the building he is standing in? Who bears that additional cost?

Who bears the cost of a high school graduate making in the mid $30s per hour to take tolls on the Turnpike?

 

[NotInRHouse]

The unfortunate reality is that without unions a lot, not all, employers would take tremendous advantage of their employees in terms of not just wage but workplace safety and treatment.

What unions were never for is what is happening in Linden right now where a cop drove head on into a truck on a highway after posting pictures of the shots he took online, killing two, with no release of his DUI results. If that was anyone else in the private sector you'd have know their blood alcohol content in hours.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
The unfortunate reality is that without unions a lot, not all, employers would take tremendous advantage of their employees in terms of not just wage but workplace safety and treatment.

What unions were never for is what is happening in Linden right now where a cop drove head on into a truck on a highway after posting pictures of the shots he took online, killing two, with no release of his DUI results. If that was anyone else in the private sector you'd have know their blood alcohol content in hours.

The conversation is not about workplace safety anymore. Those standards exist through various channels now--both state and federal.

 

[NotInRHouse]

They got there because of unions. Without unions, they could go away. There are plenty of politicians who would take money to work to repeal OSHA and the minimum wage and various other protections.

To me unions have to be monitored used for the right purposes not just legislated away.

 

[ru66]

NJ unions and those who hire them will be instrumental in getting basketball facility built--we should thank them--I'm now more confident than ever that Barchi's plans are real

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
I never said that "private enterprise knows best."

I said that unions create artificial wage pressures. Any micro-economist will tell you that floors or ceilings are inefficient.

And if the CEO of "XYZ" has a mega yacht and that bothers you, you have the ability to 1) become an activist shareholder and displace that person 2) boycott his or her firm 3) not work there.

If it is state law that union labor must build the new Honors College on campus, exactly what can anyone do about that? Do you think that unionized labor, both faculty and non-faculty, has any impact on tuition and fees? Does public and private unionized labor have anything to do with NJ's overall higher cost of living?

Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized? Why should a person unloading trucks at a UPS sorting depot be unionized? Why should construction laborers be unionized? It takes a special skill set to pick up scrap lumber, dig trenches, sweep up nails and hump materials around a job site? Why should PSE&G have 7 guys staring in a hole in a ground, 5 of them acting as "safety officers" and supervisors?

I think its funny you use the term "artificial."

The create wage pressures...sure...because a collective bargaining unit clearly has better negotiating power than each individual. Just like corporations don't have each individual shareholder negotiate pay for each employee (or their respective share to the employee). Shareholders are advantaged by having professional managers negotiate for their benefit collectively.

I would actually go the opposite route and say that "right to work" states are the ones create artificial downward pressure for wages, because they put restrictions on what two private entities (companies and labor unions) are allowed to agree to. To me, artificial means some outside force. Unions negotiating on behalf of their members is not an outside force. Government laws are an outside force.

Yeah, "artificial" was pretty funny. People who don't understand how transaction costs affect the market don't really understand economics. That lovely supply/demand graph you see in Econ 101 is based on a market where neither buyers nor sellers have market power; when you give one side market power and the other side can't counter, the market becomes much less efficient.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
I never said that "private enterprise knows best."

I said that unions create artificial wage pressures. Any micro-economist will tell you that floors or ceilings are inefficient.

And if the CEO of "XYZ" has a mega yacht and that bothers you, you have the ability to 1) become an activist shareholder and displace that person 2) boycott his or her firm 3) not work there.

If it is state law that union labor must build the new Honors College on campus, exactly what can anyone do about that? Do you think that unionized labor, both faculty and non-faculty, has any impact on tuition and fees? Does public and private unionized labor have anything to do with NJ's overall higher cost of living?

Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized? Why should a person unloading trucks at a UPS sorting depot be unionized? Why should construction laborers be unionized? It takes a special skill set to pick up scrap lumber, dig trenches, sweep up nails and hump materials around a job site? Why should PSE&G have 7 guys staring in a hole in a ground, 5 of them acting as "safety officers" and supervisors?

I think its funny you use the term "artificial."

The create wage pressures...sure...because a collective bargaining unit clearly has better negotiating power than each individual. Just like corporations don't have each individual shareholder negotiate pay for each employee (or their respective share to the employee). Shareholders are advantaged by having professional managers negotiate for their benefit collectively.

I would actually go the opposite route and say that "right to work" states are the ones create artificial downward pressure for wages, because they put restrictions on what two private entities (companies and labor unions) are allowed to agree to. To me, artificial means some outside force. Unions negotiating on behalf of their members is not an outside force. Government laws are an outside force.

Yeah, "artificial" was pretty funny. People who don't understand how transaction costs affect the market don't really understand economics. That lovely supply/demand graph you see in Econ 101 is based on a market where neither buyers nor sellers have market power; when you give one side market power and the other side can't counter, the market becomes much less efficient.

And people who don't understand internal agency costs and economic social costs don't really understand economics or rational choice theory.

Go impress your friends at the bar.

This post was edited on 4/9 7:11 PM by ruhudsonfan

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
I never said that "private enterprise knows best."

I said that unions create artificial wage pressures. Any micro-economist will tell you that floors or ceilings are inefficient.

And if the CEO of "XYZ" has a mega yacht and that bothers you, you have the ability to 1) become an activist shareholder and displace that person 2) boycott his or her firm 3) not work there.

If it is state law that union labor must build the new Honors College on campus, exactly what can anyone do about that? Do you think that unionized labor, both faculty and non-faculty, has any impact on tuition and fees? Does public and private unionized labor have anything to do with NJ's overall higher cost of living?

Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized? Why should a person unloading trucks at a UPS sorting depot be unionized? Why should construction laborers be unionized? It takes a special skill set to pick up scrap lumber, dig trenches, sweep up nails and hump materials around a job site? Why should PSE&G have 7 guys staring in a hole in a ground, 5 of them acting as "safety officers" and supervisors?

I think its funny you use the term "artificial."

The create wage pressures...sure...because a collective bargaining unit clearly has better negotiating power than each individual. Just like corporations don't have each individual shareholder negotiate pay for each employee (or their respective share to the employee). Shareholders are advantaged by having professional managers negotiate for their benefit collectively.

I would actually go the opposite route and say that "right to work" states are the ones create artificial downward pressure for wages, because they put restrictions on what two private entities (companies and labor unions) are allowed to agree to. To me, artificial means some outside force. Unions negotiating on behalf of their members is not an outside force. Government laws are an outside force.

Yeah, "artificial" was pretty funny. People who don't understand how transaction costs affect the market don't really understand economics. That lovely supply/demand graph you see in Econ 101 is based on a market where neither buyers nor sellers have market power; when you give one side market power and the other side can't counter, the market becomes much less efficient.

And people who don't understand internal agency costs and economic social costs don't really understand economics or rational choice theory.

Go impress your friends at the bar.

This post was edited on 4/9 7:11 PM by ruhudsonfan

I don't need to impress anyone. But when someone says "Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized?" it seems pretty clear that either that person doesn't understand economics or just thinks that people should be paid as little as possible for their work.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
I never said that "private enterprise knows best."

I said that unions create artificial wage pressures. Any micro-economist will tell you that floors or ceilings are inefficient.

And if the CEO of "XYZ" has a mega yacht and that bothers you, you have the ability to 1) become an activist shareholder and displace that person 2) boycott his or her firm 3) not work there.

If it is state law that union labor must build the new Honors College on campus, exactly what can anyone do about that? Do you think that unionized labor, both faculty and non-faculty, has any impact on tuition and fees? Does public and private unionized labor have anything to do with NJ's overall higher cost of living?

Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized? Why should a person unloading trucks at a UPS sorting depot be unionized? Why should construction laborers be unionized? It takes a special skill set to pick up scrap lumber, dig trenches, sweep up nails and hump materials around a job site? Why should PSE&G have 7 guys staring in a hole in a ground, 5 of them acting as "safety officers" and supervisors?

I think its funny you use the term "artificial."

The create wage pressures...sure...because a collective bargaining unit clearly has better negotiating power than each individual. Just like corporations don't have each individual shareholder negotiate pay for each employee (or their respective share to the employee). Shareholders are advantaged by having professional managers negotiate for their benefit collectively.

I would actually go the opposite route and say that "right to work" states are the ones create artificial downward pressure for wages, because they put restrictions on what two private entities (companies and labor unions) are allowed to agree to. To me, artificial means some outside force. Unions negotiating on behalf of their members is not an outside force. Government laws are an outside force.

Yeah, "artificial" was pretty funny. People who don't understand how transaction costs affect the market don't really understand economics. That lovely supply/demand graph you see in Econ 101 is based on a market where neither buyers nor sellers have market power; when you give one side market power and the other side can't counter, the market becomes much less efficient.

And people who don't understand internal agency costs and economic social costs don't really understand economics or rational choice theory.

Go impress your friends at the bar.

This post was edited on 4/9 7:11 PM by ruhudsonfan

I don't need to impress anyone. But when someone says "Why should a UPS truck driver be unionized?" it seems pretty clear that either that person doesn't understand economics or just thinks that people should be paid as little as possible for their work.

Your contention that I don't understand economics doesn't answer the question. Why should a person who has invested very little in their skill development (a truck driver at UPS only needs a HS diploma and a CDL) be paid north of $25 bucks an hour plus benefits? All in, that is a $65,000+ a year job. Do you think that job would be filled at $17 an hour? plus a contribution to someone's health care? That $8 bucks an hour is a cost that is borne by someone, no? Who bears them? Do those costs contribute to the overall expensive lifestyle that these unionized jobs are hoping to mitigate? My original point in the thread is that unions are from a bygone era and create artificial--yes, ARTIFICIAL--wage pressures.

Despite never met a Strawman he wouldn't use NIRH's contentions, things like OSHA and other workplace safety regulations wouldn't disappear absent organized labor. They are baked into the cake now. Would there be pressure to roll them back? Sure. But those pressures currently exist and usually get nowhere. Nobody is calling for a construction industry like Qatars (to borrow the example used above). We've seen bargaining power of organized labor reduced to basically zero anyway. The idea that they are holding employers feet to the fire over workplace safety issues is silly talk.

And study after study after study has shown that people want to be compensated in more than just salary or hourly wage. Take the grocery industry as an example. Wegmans and Whole Foods both routinely find themselves on Top Companies to Work For lists. Neither are unions shops (Wegmans' distribution is, but not the store employees). Both pay well, but not industry leading. Both have the lowest turnover. Both have profit sharing. Both have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to training and internal development. Both promote extensively from within. WF rewards with stock options. Both create wealth and opportunity for high performers, that is worth infinitely more than the buck an hour less they pay a starting cashier than Shop Rite (union shop). Employees are flocking to the firms that give them opportunity to outperform, be compensated for that, be trained and developed.

So we've come full circle. Why should the 16 year old kid at Shop Rite bagging my groceries be unionized? And who bears the cost for his ARTIFICIALLY higher wage vs the 16 year old kid with the same exact skill set at Wegmans (I would successfully argue that the Wegmans employee actually has a superior skill set)?

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
Your contention that I don't understand economics doesn't answer the question. Why should a person who has invested very little in their skill development (a truck driver at UPS only needs a HS diploma and a CDL) be paid north of $25 bucks an hour plus benefits? All in, that is a $65,000+ a year job. Do you think that job would be filled at $17 an hour? plus a contribution to someone's health care? That $8 bucks an hour is a cost that is borne by someone, no? Who bears them? Do those costs contribute to the overall expensive lifestyle that these unionized jobs are hoping to mitigate? My original point in the thread is that unions are from a bygone era and create artificial--yes, ARTIFICIAL--wage pressures.


Despite never met a Strawman he wouldn't use NIRH's contentions, things like OSHA and other workplace safety regulations wouldn't disappear absent organized labor. They are baked into the cake now. Would there be pressure to roll them back? Sure. But those pressures currently exist and usually get nowhere. Nobody is calling for a construction industry like Qatars (to borrow the example used above). We've seen bargaining power of organized labor reduced to basically zero anyway. The idea that they are holding employers feet to the fire over workplace safety issues is silly talk.

And study after study after study has shown that people want to be compensated in more than just salary or hourly wage. Take the grocery industry as an example. Wegmans and Whole Foods both routinely find themselves on Top Companies to Work For lists. Neither are unions shops (Wegmans' distribution is, but not the store employees). Both pay well, but not industry leading. Both have the lowest turnover. Both have profit sharing. Both have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to training and internal development. Both promote extensively from within. WF rewards with stock options. Both create wealth and opportunity for high performers, that is worth infinitely more than the buck an hour less they pay a starting cashier than Shop Rite (union shop). Employees are flocking to the firms that give them opportunity to outperform, be compensated for that, be trained and developed.

So we've come full circle. Why should the 16 year old kid at Shop Rite bagging my groceries be unionized? And who bears the cost for his ARTIFICIALLY higher wage vs the 16 year old kid with the same exact skill set at Wegmans (I would successfully argue that the Wegmans employee actually has a superior skill set)?

You could ask the same question about the people who provide capital - why should they get anything more than a minimal return on it? From an economics perspective, capital is not inherently superior to labor, and is not inherently entitled to a bigger share of the revenue produced by an economic enterprise than labor. In a modern economy, where we're not all yeoman farmers or blacksmiths, capital has a huge advantage over labor in the absence of unions because it is allowed to create large enterprises that have some level of market power; unions address that imbalance.

Also, it's inaccurate to suggest that the $8 differential you posit is a loss in terms of economic welfare. In a lot of cases, it's largely a transfer payment from capital to labor, but in practice low-end employees spend more of the money they receive than the shareholders do, so there are multiplier effects on the rest of the economy - more clothing, cars and iPhones purchased, etc. (As a footnote, I'm not sure why I should think it's terrible to pay someone $65,000 a year.)

Also, while I'd like to believe that various workplace protections like OSHA and workers' comp are safe, recent history suggests otherwise. Particularly for jobs involving physical labor, unions offer a layer of protection that the law does not always provide.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

What does me being in grad school have to do with the price of a blow job in Bangkok?

Because you are making arguments that rely on impossible theoretical scenarios.

Again, there is no "free market" in the world, nor has there ever been one. That stuff is theory.

Unions creating "artificial" upward wage pressure was a sure sign you were making a very biased argument from a learned POV. Unions are no more artificial than LLCs, S Corps, etc...

I went to Rutgers Business School too. I also got my MBA (at Temple, FWIW). I know the theories you are regurgitating. And don't get me wrong...they are useful concepts from an academic POV, but they are not practical.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

What does me being in grad school have to do with the price of a blow job in Bangkok?

Because you are making arguments that rely on impossible theoretical scenarios.

Again, there is no "free market" in the world, nor has there ever been one. That stuff is theory.

Unions creating "artificial" upward wage pressure was a sure sign you were making a very biased argument from a learned POV. Unions are no more artificial than LLCs, S Corps, etc...

I went to Rutgers Business School too. I also got my MBA (at Temple, FWIW). I know the theories you are regurgitating. And don't get me wrong...they are useful concepts from an academic POV, but they are not practical.

I haven't used the word "market" once. And I haven't "regurgitated" a theory. And if you think there are a lot of anti union profs running around RBS, you've clearly never stepped foot in the place.

I've run businesses--inside and outside union shops. I could count on one FINGER an employee from the union shop that I would have hired after that experience. All the union shop employees added to the value chain was a constant, incessant level of complaining, lethargy and overall "I don't give a shit and there is nothing you can do about it" attitude. And the cost of their ARTIFICIALLY inflated wage was passed on to the customer.

Bringing us back full circle AGAIN. Why should a guy dunking french fries in a union shop hotel, be paid 19 bucks an hour?

 

[T2Kplus10]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
They got there because of unions. Without unions, they could go away. There are plenty of politicians who would take money to work to repeal OSHA and the minimum wage and various other protections.

To me unions have to be monitored used for the right purposes not just legislated away.

Stupid comment. Only 9% of the workforce is now unionized. How many work place laws have been repealed?

 

[rutgersal]

Let's get back to the scope of the thread. The practice facility can be built within 12 months but I'll be happy if we can just get a shovel in the ground in 12 months.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
Your contention that I don't understand economics doesn't answer the question. Why should a person who has invested very little in their skill development (a truck driver at UPS only needs a HS diploma and a CDL) be paid north of $25 bucks an hour plus benefits? All in, that is a $65,000+ a year job. Do you think that job would be filled at $17 an hour? plus a contribution to someone's health care? That $8 bucks an hour is a cost that is borne by someone, no? Who bears them? Do those costs contribute to the overall expensive lifestyle that these unionized jobs are hoping to mitigate? My original point in the thread is that unions are from a bygone era and create artificial--yes, ARTIFICIAL--wage pressures.


Despite never met a Strawman he wouldn't use NIRH's contentions, things like OSHA and other workplace safety regulations wouldn't disappear absent organized labor. They are baked into the cake now. Would there be pressure to roll them back? Sure. But those pressures currently exist and usually get nowhere. Nobody is calling for a construction industry like Qatars (to borrow the example used above). We've seen bargaining power of organized labor reduced to basically zero anyway. The idea that they are holding employers feet to the fire over workplace safety issues is silly talk.

And study after study after study has shown that people want to be compensated in more than just salary or hourly wage. Take the grocery industry as an example. Wegmans and Whole Foods both routinely find themselves on Top Companies to Work For lists. Neither are unions shops (Wegmans' distribution is, but not the store employees). Both pay well, but not industry leading. Both have the lowest turnover. Both have profit sharing. Both have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to training and internal development. Both promote extensively from within. WF rewards with stock options. Both create wealth and opportunity for high performers, that is worth infinitely more than the buck an hour less they pay a starting cashier than Shop Rite (union shop). Employees are flocking to the firms that give them opportunity to outperform, be compensated for that, be trained and developed.

So we've come full circle. Why should the 16 year old kid at Shop Rite bagging my groceries be unionized? And who bears the cost for his ARTIFICIALLY higher wage vs the 16 year old kid with the same exact skill set at Wegmans (I would successfully argue that the Wegmans employee actually has a superior skill set)?

You could ask the same question about the people who provide capital - why should they get anything more than a minimal return on it? From an economics perspective, capital is not inherently superior to labor, and is not inherently entitled to a bigger share of the revenue produced by an economic enterprise than labor. In a modern economy, where we're not all yeoman farmers or blacksmiths, capital has a huge advantage over labor in the absence of unions because it is allowed to create large enterprises that have some level of market power; unions address that imbalance.

Also, it's inaccurate to suggest that the $8 differential you posit is a loss in terms of economic welfare. In a lot of cases, it's largely a transfer payment from capital to labor, but in practice low-end employees spend more of the money they receive than the shareholders do, so there are multiplier effects on the rest of the economy - more clothing, cars and iPhones purchased, etc. (As a footnote, I'm not sure why I should think it's terrible to pay someone $65,000 a year.)

Also, while I'd like to believe that various workplace protections like OSHA and workers' comp are safe, recent history suggests otherwise. Particularly for jobs involving physical labor, unions offer a layer of protection that the law does not always provide.

You mean the modern economy in which less than 11% of the workforce is unionized? At firms like Google, Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Facebook and Ebay? oh wait...

I don't think it's "terrible" to pay anyone anything. Whatever you can earn, in a union or non-union environment, is fine with me. I'm putting forth an argument that counters the idea that we NEED unions because EVERYTHING IS SO EXPENSIVE. It seems that one way, maybe not the only way, to address the "problem" is to wonder WHY EVERYTHING IS SO EXPENSIVE?

Is a university education a pathway to the middle class? If you believe the answer is yes, have you ever wondered how much of a single tuition dollar goes into a unionized endeavor? Faculty, staff, construction buildings, campus police, the fuel that powers the physical plant, the truck driver that delivers the food to the student center, the driver who delivers the text books?

I'm not saying that capital is inherently "better." Although, as someone who had to make a payroll every week and whose house was the asset underpinning the loan to do it, I would argue that there is a risk premium that accounts for returns above a "minimum" level.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

I haven't used the word "market" once. And I haven't "regurgitated" a theory. And if you think there are a lot of anti union profs running around RBS, you've clearly never stepped foot in the place.

I've run businesses--inside and outside union shops. I could count on one FINGER an employee from the union shop that I would have hired after that experience. All the union shop employees added to the value chain was a constant, incessant level of complaining, lethargy and overall "I don't give a shit and there is nothing you can do about it" attitude. And the cost of their ARTIFICIALLY inflated wage was passed on to the customer.

Bringing us back full circle AGAIN. Why should a guy dunking french fries in a union shop hotel, be paid 19 bucks an hour?

For the first two comments all I can do it is:

For the last question...if two entities agree to pay a guy dunking French fries $19/hour...why not? The fact is most places will not pay a guy dunking a French fry $19/hour...but maybe some will. And if a union can get a private company to do such a thing, then good for them. There is nothing artificial about two private entities agreeing to a binding contract.