Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)(crainsnewyork.com)
crainsnewyork.com
Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160515/REAL_ESTATE/160519910/dan-mooneys-skypicker-crane-could-save-millions-in-construction-costs-heres-why-its-gathering-dust-in-a-warehouse-in-astoria
310 comments
True, but remember this is New York City.
In the original article, when the crane was first used on jobs and word got around about it being less expensive and required fewer operator man hours, his job sites were picketed by unions. There were anonymous calls to 311 reporting violations but when the inspectors got there, they didn't find anything wrong.
In my mind, I'm skeptical and it could have been the cranes or it could have been union influence.
In the original article, when the crane was first used on jobs and word got around about it being less expensive and required fewer operator man hours, his job sites were picketed by unions. There were anonymous calls to 311 reporting violations but when the inspectors got there, they didn't find anything wrong.
In my mind, I'm skeptical and it could have been the cranes or it could have been union influence.
It's the unions.
On my way to work, I pass by a giant inflatable rat inflated by a gas motor that's hauled around by a truck. It's rather annoying when its tail gets loose and covers the sidewalk, as can happen on windy days when it's not tied down appropriately. It's probably 10 or 12 feet tall, at least, and the tail is maybe 12 feet long or longer. (3 feet is about one meter for those in metric land).
It's parked there because one of the buildings under construction here didn't use the right amount of union labor, so there's always a rat present. Walk around and you'll see this same rat in different places; they've got a number of them. They've also got some rather impressive pigs and fat cats.
This is the city that couldn't get rid of two operators per train on the L, even though technically they could more or less get by with zero (the trains mostly drive themselves on that line; the operator, to my understanding, just has to keep acknowledging that the train should proceed).
Why?
The unions protested and won, citing hitherto unknown safety reasons that should be plaguing cities like Madrid, Barcelona, London, Paris, Washington D.C., etc. due to their lack of two people. Doubly so for those lines (including the AirTrain to JFK in NYC) that do not have operators at all...
On my way to work, I pass by a giant inflatable rat inflated by a gas motor that's hauled around by a truck. It's rather annoying when its tail gets loose and covers the sidewalk, as can happen on windy days when it's not tied down appropriately. It's probably 10 or 12 feet tall, at least, and the tail is maybe 12 feet long or longer. (3 feet is about one meter for those in metric land).
It's parked there because one of the buildings under construction here didn't use the right amount of union labor, so there's always a rat present. Walk around and you'll see this same rat in different places; they've got a number of them. They've also got some rather impressive pigs and fat cats.
This is the city that couldn't get rid of two operators per train on the L, even though technically they could more or less get by with zero (the trains mostly drive themselves on that line; the operator, to my understanding, just has to keep acknowledging that the train should proceed).
Why?
The unions protested and won, citing hitherto unknown safety reasons that should be plaguing cities like Madrid, Barcelona, London, Paris, Washington D.C., etc. due to their lack of two people. Doubly so for those lines (including the AirTrain to JFK in NYC) that do not have operators at all...
Though it's possible that you're correct on this specific issue, you've offered absolutely no support for your argument.
Consider the possibility that the strong streak of instinctive union bashing that you see in typical professional class culture in the U.S. is very much the creation of decades of aggressive PR effort by those who consider unions threatening.
Consider the possibility that the strong streak of instinctive union bashing that you see in typical professional class culture in the U.S. is very much the creation of decades of aggressive PR effort by those who consider unions threatening.
I live in NY and have lived here my entire life. I am very pro union but not pro NYC construction unions. If you have ever been on a job site, there are arcane rules that pad their pockets. Want to plug in a computer in a finished room? Sorry you are going to need an electrician for that. If you do it anyway they will bill you for the electrician coming over anyway.
Need to get in the building? Well the elevator operator that gets paid $40 hr is off for an hour for lunch. He sits on a cooler and eats and drinks all day and occasionally there is an elevator operator apprentice with him. These are elevators that are not construction elevators, but ones that work just fine automatically once the construction guys are out.
The teamster guys sit at the loading dock on lawn chairs also getting paid huge rates for doing absolutely nothing. They will not help you unload anything. They sit there hanging out.
Sounds like a racket? Well it is. And for a really long time it was a racket with the Mafia enforcing using union labor. If you didn't go union they would hurt you or somehow sabotage you, and conversely the union would walk off the job if you didn't take care of the Mafia.
Now the modern racket is with very low level politicians and regulatory boards. The only way you get in these unions too is by knowing someone.
These people make a bad name for unions, and drive costs way up for anything in NYC area.
Need to get in the building? Well the elevator operator that gets paid $40 hr is off for an hour for lunch. He sits on a cooler and eats and drinks all day and occasionally there is an elevator operator apprentice with him. These are elevators that are not construction elevators, but ones that work just fine automatically once the construction guys are out.
The teamster guys sit at the loading dock on lawn chairs also getting paid huge rates for doing absolutely nothing. They will not help you unload anything. They sit there hanging out.
Sounds like a racket? Well it is. And for a really long time it was a racket with the Mafia enforcing using union labor. If you didn't go union they would hurt you or somehow sabotage you, and conversely the union would walk off the job if you didn't take care of the Mafia.
Now the modern racket is with very low level politicians and regulatory boards. The only way you get in these unions too is by knowing someone.
These people make a bad name for unions, and drive costs way up for anything in NYC area.
The same goes for a Hollywood movie set. I worked on a film in the late 1990s as the film runner and and God forbid that I went into the truck to get an extension cord (I wasn't a "qualified" gaffer.) "Hey can you grab me a [light] gel from that box right next to your foot?" "No sorry, I am part of Camera, I can't touch that, the gaffers have to do that."
And this set was in Texas..
I got paid $200 per day to literally sit on set, take the film canister from the loader, walk it out to the gate (this set was in rural Texas on a ranch,) hand it to a driver for him to take it to the airport, grab the dailies from him and walk that back to the director's trailer.
Best two months of my life (got to meet Spielberg on set and got to work with an Oscar nominated cinematographer.)
Still my point is that union rules add significant costs and generally border on absurd.
And this set was in Texas..
I got paid $200 per day to literally sit on set, take the film canister from the loader, walk it out to the gate (this set was in rural Texas on a ranch,) hand it to a driver for him to take it to the airport, grab the dailies from him and walk that back to the director's trailer.
Best two months of my life (got to meet Spielberg on set and got to work with an Oscar nominated cinematographer.)
Still my point is that union rules add significant costs and generally border on absurd.
Let me correct that slightly: some unions have rules that add significant cost. It's unfair to blame the entire concept of unions for a small number of dysfunctional unions.
Wrong. This is completely normal in America, and it's entirely fair to blame all unions for it. The catch is, it's an American phenomenon; it doesn't apply to unions in other, better-run countries like Germany.
> This is completely normal in America
Oh yes I forgot. Other countries don't have the concept of unions /s.
My point is that the concept of a union isn't bad. Specific implementations of the concept of a union might be bad.
Oh yes I forgot. Other countries don't have the concept of unions /s.
My point is that the concept of a union isn't bad. Specific implementations of the concept of a union might be bad.
I live in America. I work in NYC. The unions here are a significant problem.
Unions in NYC are a protection racket. They don't do crap for worker safety or fair workplace rules. They are a front for legal extortion and add complexity and cost to nearly everything they touch.
Story time: Going in and out of telecommunications buildings there were scales by the doors to the rooms with equipment. If a bag, device, or piece of equipment weighed over 35 pounds, you needed to have a union member carry that piece of gear for you into the facility.
Forget the nature of the equipment, the fact that the equipment might have wheels in a case. The NEED for a worker wasn't something that could be discussed. The rule was: if it was over 35#, you needed to make sure that a union worker carried it in.
Troubleshooting a problem with a circuit and it's 12:00? Lunchtime! If you're a union worker, you just drop the phone where it is and walk away to go have lunch. Everything stops because the union rules specify that no work can be done during specified break times.
Please note that unions once served a vital and important purpose in this country: they protected workers against horrific abuses by management. The problem is that those abuses are now largely confined to industries where there has never been a solid union presence OR they've gone overseas to escape the unions.
In the meantime, unions here have hurt worker mobility, frustrated workplaces, and generally made everything worse for all parties by sheer incompetence.
Remember when Twinkies disappeared from the markets? Unions. Remember when US Airways nearly ran itself into the ground? Unions.
Unions need to adapt or die. My personal experience with unions is that they have hurt my career (when I was represented by a union) more than they've protected me.
And NYC is a special case of all of the above stupidity.
Unions in NYC are a protection racket. They don't do crap for worker safety or fair workplace rules. They are a front for legal extortion and add complexity and cost to nearly everything they touch.
Story time: Going in and out of telecommunications buildings there were scales by the doors to the rooms with equipment. If a bag, device, or piece of equipment weighed over 35 pounds, you needed to have a union member carry that piece of gear for you into the facility.
Forget the nature of the equipment, the fact that the equipment might have wheels in a case. The NEED for a worker wasn't something that could be discussed. The rule was: if it was over 35#, you needed to make sure that a union worker carried it in.
Troubleshooting a problem with a circuit and it's 12:00? Lunchtime! If you're a union worker, you just drop the phone where it is and walk away to go have lunch. Everything stops because the union rules specify that no work can be done during specified break times.
Please note that unions once served a vital and important purpose in this country: they protected workers against horrific abuses by management. The problem is that those abuses are now largely confined to industries where there has never been a solid union presence OR they've gone overseas to escape the unions.
In the meantime, unions here have hurt worker mobility, frustrated workplaces, and generally made everything worse for all parties by sheer incompetence.
Remember when Twinkies disappeared from the markets? Unions. Remember when US Airways nearly ran itself into the ground? Unions.
Unions need to adapt or die. My personal experience with unions is that they have hurt my career (when I was represented by a union) more than they've protected me.
And NYC is a special case of all of the above stupidity.
> Remember when Twinkies disappeared from the markets? Unions.
That is total unmitigated bullshit.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/business/dealbook/how-the...
That is total unmitigated bullshit.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/business/dealbook/how-the...
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Let me tell you something you might be unfamiliar with: companies that cannot manage their affairs properly will end up in bankruptcy. They will owe more to those who provide it with goods and services than they can collect. This happens when companies cannot (or will not) adjust their operations to accommodate changes in market conditions or regulatory environments.
The cost structure of Hostess made them uncompetitive. And unions are a big part of the reason why they could no longer compete effectively.
You're free to disagree with my analysis but you're not entitled to your own facts. A company that goes bankrupt several times is prima facie evidence of poor management. And by poor management, I mean management that could not or would not deal with a major cost of their operations: labor.
If Hostess hadn't gone into bankruptcy, we wouldn't be having the argument at all. Private equity would have never swooped in to buy up the distressed assets, free itself of the onerous union contracts and poorly negotiated supplier agreements to rise from the ashes.
I can still buy Twinkies and I have private equity firms to thank for it. Not unions.
QED.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/whos-to...
http://fortune.com/2012/07/26/hostess-is-bankrupt-again/
Let me tell you something you might be unfamiliar with: companies that cannot manage their affairs properly will end up in bankruptcy. They will owe more to those who provide it with goods and services than they can collect. This happens when companies cannot (or will not) adjust their operations to accommodate changes in market conditions or regulatory environments.
The cost structure of Hostess made them uncompetitive. And unions are a big part of the reason why they could no longer compete effectively.
You're free to disagree with my analysis but you're not entitled to your own facts. A company that goes bankrupt several times is prima facie evidence of poor management. And by poor management, I mean management that could not or would not deal with a major cost of their operations: labor.
If Hostess hadn't gone into bankruptcy, we wouldn't be having the argument at all. Private equity would have never swooped in to buy up the distressed assets, free itself of the onerous union contracts and poorly negotiated supplier agreements to rise from the ashes.
I can still buy Twinkies and I have private equity firms to thank for it. Not unions.
QED.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/whos-to...
http://fortune.com/2012/07/26/hostess-is-bankrupt-again/
So when it's labor's fault it's labor's fault. Also when it's bad management then it's labor's fault. And when it goes bankrupt it's because labor is greedy and wants too much money. And later when management siphons hundreds of millions of dollars out of the company that's not because they are greedy and want too much money.
Makes sense to me.
Makes sense to me.
The first part of the 2nd Ave subway line to 96th St in NYC was completed a couple of months ago. The cost of the extension was prohibitively expensive because of unions. Europe is able to build subways with much less cost per mile than NYC.
> The cost of the extension was prohibitively expensive because of unions. Europe is able to build subways with much less cost per mile than NYC
You mean the same Europe that has incredibly powerful public sector unions?
Maybe a thing they don't have is a political system run by a group of mindless plutocratic politicians that shout "free markets" as the solution to social problems while practicing crony capitalism. They also don't have the Cuomo family.
You mean the same Europe that has incredibly powerful public sector unions?
Maybe a thing they don't have is a political system run by a group of mindless plutocratic politicians that shout "free markets" as the solution to social problems while practicing crony capitalism. They also don't have the Cuomo family.
Yes, the same Europe. I don't know about the French, but the unions in Germany and Scandinavia are quite a bit more pro-business than their American counterparts.
Hong Kong and Singapore build infrastructure for quite cheap. And there they don't need to shout about `free markets': the government mostly allows them already.
I'm totally with you on the crony-capitalism bashing.
Hong Kong and Singapore build infrastructure for quite cheap. And there they don't need to shout about `free markets': the government mostly allows them already.
I'm totally with you on the crony-capitalism bashing.
> Yes, the same Europe. I don't know about the French, but the unions in Germany and Scandinavia are quite a bit more pro-business than their American counterparts.
Why wouldn't German unions be pro-business when labor is represented at board level with full voting rights? German corporations do not consider themselves "job creators" or see workers as resources to be exploited, unlike their American counterparts.
Why wouldn't German unions be pro-business when labor is represented at board level with full voting rights? German corporations do not consider themselves "job creators" or see workers as resources to be exploited, unlike their American counterparts.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
The mobs are not affiliated with New York unions anymore. Yes--for a time it was a big embarrassment.
There are some arcane rules. The nepotism in getting into these unions has been greatly reduced.
(This guys crane looks like it needs more development time. On any big job site, you get to know your Crance Operator. They are lifting huge loads right over you heads. They take their jobs seriously. If this guys crane is better; it will eventually see job sites. Maybe--if it's safe. Yes--unions are slow to move, but for good reason on many cases. People get killed. I don't know all the ins-outs of this guy's crane. I would rather have a trained Crane Operator operating loads over my head. That just might change, but regulatory agencies/unions are not going to run to one guy's contraption.)
Back to union membership. The test is very important. The union test is not usually a hard test, but you need to get every question right. Usually, the other 1/2 of getting into the union is the oral exam. On those boards are union delegates, contractors(many whom would run to non-union labor if feasible.), and in many unions, members of the community. They are trying to make getting into a union fair.
There are many unions in NYC. There are many unions in SF. Both are union towns. I have not crossed picket lines because maids/painters were on strike. I have drove to San Francisco and drove right home. Those old unions do pay their members a very fair wage.
Such a wage that brings a blue collar worker into the middle class.
There's police unions all the way to Window Washer unions.
The average owner/contractor/city would love to get rid of unions. They hate paying those wages.
They would happily hire minimum wage workers.
I have worked a few blue collar jobs that didn't gave unions. It's basically comes down to minimum wage, or a bit above, and at the end of the week; you wonder why you even show up.
It all seems crazy until you're in a union.
There's a reason most developers are very rich. They like to pay the least amount they can legally get away with.
Tech is still relatively new. Wait until the barriers to enter become easier than they are today. Watch what happens to those generous pay packages.
There are some arcane rules. The nepotism in getting into these unions has been greatly reduced.
(This guys crane looks like it needs more development time. On any big job site, you get to know your Crance Operator. They are lifting huge loads right over you heads. They take their jobs seriously. If this guys crane is better; it will eventually see job sites. Maybe--if it's safe. Yes--unions are slow to move, but for good reason on many cases. People get killed. I don't know all the ins-outs of this guy's crane. I would rather have a trained Crane Operator operating loads over my head. That just might change, but regulatory agencies/unions are not going to run to one guy's contraption.)
Back to union membership. The test is very important. The union test is not usually a hard test, but you need to get every question right. Usually, the other 1/2 of getting into the union is the oral exam. On those boards are union delegates, contractors(many whom would run to non-union labor if feasible.), and in many unions, members of the community. They are trying to make getting into a union fair.
There are many unions in NYC. There are many unions in SF. Both are union towns. I have not crossed picket lines because maids/painters were on strike. I have drove to San Francisco and drove right home. Those old unions do pay their members a very fair wage.
Such a wage that brings a blue collar worker into the middle class.
There's police unions all the way to Window Washer unions.
The average owner/contractor/city would love to get rid of unions. They hate paying those wages.
They would happily hire minimum wage workers.
I have worked a few blue collar jobs that didn't gave unions. It's basically comes down to minimum wage, or a bit above, and at the end of the week; you wonder why you even show up.
It all seems crazy until you're in a union.
There's a reason most developers are very rich. They like to pay the least amount they can legally get away with.
Tech is still relatively new. Wait until the barriers to enter become easier than they are today. Watch what happens to those generous pay packages.
I think we all agree that unions are good for the people in them, but how do workers who aren't lucky enough to be in a union feel about being shut out of those jobs?
> you have ever been on a job site, there are arcane rules that pad their pockets. Want to plug in a computer in a finished room? Sorry you are going to need an electrician for that. If you do it anyway they will bill you for the electrician coming over anyway.
If you've ever worked in construction you'd know these "arcane" rules are there because someone died before they existed. Construction is one of the most dangerous professions around. Unions are the only thing standing between companies trying to cut costs and shorten builders life expediencies.
If you've ever worked in construction you'd know these "arcane" rules are there because someone died before they existed. Construction is one of the most dangerous professions around. Unions are the only thing standing between companies trying to cut costs and shorten builders life expediencies.
"Somebody died once" is not a valid reason for everyone thereafter to have to pay $80 (an hour of electrician's time) to plug in their computer to the outlet that comes as part of their trade show booth... or the same to have someone come vacuum their 10 sq ft piece of carpet before the show opens. Both of these are things someone could easily do on their own, but aren't allowed to because someone died once.
I'm curious, are you from the American northeast?
FWIW, I agree with the guy you're replying to. But that's being from Boston, and also hearing about NJ/NY projects in the news.
FWIW, I agree with the guy you're replying to. But that's being from Boston, and also hearing about NJ/NY projects in the news.
Comment offers examples (that many people in New York on his site have experienced) and you fire back with some nonsense about some kind of PR campaign? Consider the possibility that people have had awful personal experiences dealing with unions (we hired a part time guy to help out cleaning our office and the office management threatened to shut down our building access because we didn't use approved union labor) that have colored their opinions on them instead of just dismissing them as "instinctive union bashing"
Youre doing exactly what you accused the comment you're responding to of, just on the other side of the coin: instinctively defending unions
Youre doing exactly what you accused the comment you're responding to of, just on the other side of the coin: instinctively defending unions
In the face of a direct quote from the agency that inspected the crane and deemed it unsafe, the comment cited some unrelated union anecdotes as the reason why this specific guy's crane was considered problematic.
That's about as dispositive as me mentioning a bunch of optimistic inventors of construction equipment who had no regard for the safety of workers and killed people.
Despite that I said he might well be right. He just hasn't cited anything that shows it. I'm a business owner in New York City too, stories are cheap.
The reflexive statement that unions are what's getting in the way of fearless capitalist innovators is, in fact, a well financed argument that is harming our society and increasing inequality and political unrest.
That's about as dispositive as me mentioning a bunch of optimistic inventors of construction equipment who had no regard for the safety of workers and killed people.
Despite that I said he might well be right. He just hasn't cited anything that shows it. I'm a business owner in New York City too, stories are cheap.
The reflexive statement that unions are what's getting in the way of fearless capitalist innovators is, in fact, a well financed argument that is harming our society and increasing inequality and political unrest.
OK, so the comment compares to Paris, Madrid and Barcelona. Consider that in France and Spain, there are labor unions which make even the US' strongest, most ruthless and overbearing unions look like weaklings.
If labor unions are the source of problems, Paris, Madrid and Barcelona would have the same problems but orders of magnitude worse. Yet the comment claims -- and note I'm not passing judgment on whether this is factual or not -- that Paris, Madrid and Barcelona do not have these problems.
And it most certainly is true that labor unions in the US have been targeted by ubiquitous, well-funded, vicious attack propaganda from those who feel that people pooling a resource to wield greater power and reap greater returns than they could individually is the highest, noblest and holiest human endeavor when the resource in question is capital, but is the very worst and lowest sort of corrupt vile leeching parasitism when the resource in question is labor.
If labor unions are the source of problems, Paris, Madrid and Barcelona would have the same problems but orders of magnitude worse. Yet the comment claims -- and note I'm not passing judgment on whether this is factual or not -- that Paris, Madrid and Barcelona do not have these problems.
And it most certainly is true that labor unions in the US have been targeted by ubiquitous, well-funded, vicious attack propaganda from those who feel that people pooling a resource to wield greater power and reap greater returns than they could individually is the highest, noblest and holiest human endeavor when the resource in question is capital, but is the very worst and lowest sort of corrupt vile leeching parasitism when the resource in question is labor.
I think it's just a lot more nuanced than that.
Unions have done amazing things to increase worker pay and benefits up from horribly inadequate levels, and to increase safety standards. But they've also don't some pretty bad anti-competitive, rent-seeking, protectionist things as well. Getting rid of them certainly isn't the answer, but letting them do bad things is unacceptable as well.
No one is saying "everything that unions do is bad and they should go away". But it's equally naive to suggest that unions never do bad things at all.
Unions have done amazing things to increase worker pay and benefits up from horribly inadequate levels, and to increase safety standards. But they've also don't some pretty bad anti-competitive, rent-seeking, protectionist things as well. Getting rid of them certainly isn't the answer, but letting them do bad things is unacceptable as well.
No one is saying "everything that unions do is bad and they should go away". But it's equally naive to suggest that unions never do bad things at all.
No one is saying "everything that unions do is bad and they should go away". But it's equally naive to suggest that unions never do bad things at all.
So why is it that we get something like a thousand "look at this CORRUPT OVERPAID LAZY RENT-SEEKING UNION" stories for every "this union did something kind of OK, I guess" story?
So why is it that we get something like a thousand "look at this CORRUPT OVERPAID LAZY RENT-SEEKING UNION" stories for every "this union did something kind of OK, I guess" story?
Consider that unions are great in theory and in many circumstances have proven themselves corrupt to the core in practice.
Consider that [investors|police|politicians|priests|religions|banks|unions|wives|airport taxis|pets|corporations|executives] are great in theory and in many circumstances have proven themselves corrupt to the core in practice.
What's your point? We complain about corruption in all those other things as well, and no one suggests it's "professional elitism" to do so.
I just have to ask about the corrupt pets... So?
I think everyone knows which pets I'm talking about.
It's the turtles. You can't trust anything that lives that long and never speaks.
The fat cats.
I mentally swapped "corporations" out for "unions" in your sentence and it reads just as well.
I consider it a credit to the anti-union propagandists that we're all so quick to discard one of the very few tools we laborers have to better our lot in life.
I consider it a credit to the anti-union propagandists that we're all so quick to discard one of the very few tools we laborers have to better our lot in life.
Criticizing is not discarding. I will happily criticize both unions and corporations, and I don't think we should get rid of either concept.
No parent comment criticizing unions does it without the implication that they shouldn't exist. This is most easily seen by the total absence of any mention of a specific union, thus direction the objections towards the concept itself rather than any specific version of it.
All unions, as a general concept, tend toward corruption. Just like corporations do. The concept itself is flawed. But flawed does not mean it shouldn't exist.
Unions are a way of concentrating the power of labor.
All power corrupts. The observation proves nothing about unions specifically. If you take away power from unions it just goes and does its corrupting somewhere else.
All power corrupts. The observation proves nothing about unions specifically. If you take away power from unions it just goes and does its corrupting somewhere else.
s/unions/humans/g
A few unions engage in poor practices and you are happy to tar them all with the same brush.
The problem is not the unions.
A few unions engage in poor practices and you are happy to tar them all with the same brush.
The problem is not the unions.
Saying "the problem is not the unions" is as wide-brush as saying they are the problem; unions have some good causes but the core of their existence is to keep employees employed, sometimes that means important jobs that should exist and sometimes its a cancer that stops a business from profiting or stopping the creation of new ones or the advance of technology (think taxi drivers vs self-driving cars)
[deleted]
I don't know how to tell you this but there's no such thing as a car that can drive itself.
Oh my, I'm afraid they exist[0], and there are already NYC unions trying to ban them: http://readwrite.com/2017/01/17/new-york-ban-self-driving-tl...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHbMt6WDhQ8
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHbMt6WDhQ8
Waymo is still developing the technology, they can only go 5000 miles on average without the need for human intervention. They're getting close, but they don't exist yet.
Maybe some day they'll even be able to drive 5000 different miles instead of driving the same 5 miles 1000 times.
You keep believing that, meanwhile in reality: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/7/11383392/self-driving-truck...
I don't know how to tell you this, but go to Japan and be proven spectacularly wrong. Or... go to SFO and see the air train that's driverless too?
Here's an example from my world: IT technicians were kicked out of their office building when the electrical contractors saw them crimping cat 5 for a network closet. That's how bonkers unions are.
At Equinix, and other datacenters, you can't plug in certain electrical equipment without a Union worker. Often times this can be done significantly cheaper by an independent electrician (or an intern with a little bit of courage).
I've been an Equinix customer (50 racks for 4 years.) I'm OK with Equinix having to plug in my PDUs for me. That wiring is their responsibility. All I care about is how much it costs, and I really don't care about that either because I only pay it once. That makes the cost about zero relative to what I pay for space and power.
So, the reason I should care if their worker is union or not is... ?
So, the reason I should care if their worker is union or not is... ?
That's nothing. Try setting up a booth at a union staffed convention center. You can pay for electricity, but there is a separate fee for "plugging in" your device. It must be done by a licensed union electrician.
No, I don't mean some special equipment with some wiring involved.
I mean if you plug in your phone charger with a union electrician, he will still come out, unplug, replug it in, then charge you $65. Gotta round up to the nearest hour of course.
No, I don't mean some special equipment with some wiring involved.
I mean if you plug in your phone charger with a union electrician, he will still come out, unplug, replug it in, then charge you $65. Gotta round up to the nearest hour of course.
I've also set up booths at several union-staffed convention centers. In all cases I got a power strip that I could plug stuff into myself. Yes, the fees for everything sucked. The fees at non-union convention centers suck a little less, but they still suck. I'm not sure what you point is?
That's because you or whoever setup your contract prepaid for the electrical plug in. A union electrician came and plugged in that power strip before you got there and added the $65 to your overall bill.
>Though it's possible that you're correct on this specific issue, you've offered absolutely no support for your argument.
The comment provided specific examples of where unions have resulted in inefficiency.
The comment provided specific examples of where unions have resulted in inefficiency.
> Consider the possibility that the strong streak of instinctive union bashing that you see in typical professional class culture in the U.S. is very much the creation of decades of aggressive PR effort by those who consider unions threatening.
This is a perfect example of the genetic fallacy. How or why a person came to hold a view tells us nothing about the truth of the view. Even if it did, possibility shouldn't be taken as (or a as defeater for) plausibility. It's possible that unknown to you, your parents are aliens and you were hatched on another planet. It's plausible that you're a human and so are your parents. Similarly, even if it's possible we're all duped by aggressive PR, until I see a very compelling plausibility argument my current experience of observing unreasonable union interference grounds my belief that unions often engage in crude, counterproductive behavior.
This is a perfect example of the genetic fallacy. How or why a person came to hold a view tells us nothing about the truth of the view. Even if it did, possibility shouldn't be taken as (or a as defeater for) plausibility. It's possible that unknown to you, your parents are aliens and you were hatched on another planet. It's plausible that you're a human and so are your parents. Similarly, even if it's possible we're all duped by aggressive PR, until I see a very compelling plausibility argument my current experience of observing unreasonable union interference grounds my belief that unions often engage in crude, counterproductive behavior.
> unreasonable union interference grounds my belief that unions often engage in crude, counterproductive behavior.
They definitely do.
It's like what attorneys do with their clients. They try to sweep their clients' faults under the run and play to their strengths. "Unions are great! They empower and protect the common workers against greedy selfish corporations seeking to exploit them!"
Yet a lot of people on HN are business owners, and they see the other side of the coin - that unions are not always cooperative and sometimes can have a parasitic relationship with the business that borderlines and indeed passes the "unreasonable" threshold.
They definitely do.
It's like what attorneys do with their clients. They try to sweep their clients' faults under the run and play to their strengths. "Unions are great! They empower and protect the common workers against greedy selfish corporations seeking to exploit them!"
Yet a lot of people on HN are business owners, and they see the other side of the coin - that unions are not always cooperative and sometimes can have a parasitic relationship with the business that borderlines and indeed passes the "unreasonable" threshold.
Here's what Scabby The Rat looks like, for those who are unfamiliar: http://www.bigskyballoons.com/ratpack.html
Thank you! It's late where I live, English is not my native language and I was certain I was misreading all the nouns... but I wasn't! Amazing stuff.
[deleted]
this is not confined to NYC or cities.
My cousins have run a successful commercial roofing business in a Mid Western state for decades. It is common that on any public building they work on to have an OSHA inspector come out on day if not each day, to have a local sheriff be called, and even once INS. All because this family owned business is non union and has always been. the sad part, this is a business which has never had more than two dozen employees.
It isn't just them. If non union electricians are on site for isolating air conditioning systems if not building main power they too are subject to the same.
The joke is, that for much of the state they know every OSHA inspector and even the inspectors joke about it. Still they have to stop work and dance the dance. and this is only for the legal means to intimidate.
unions aren't just about protecting employees, they are big money for both those who run them and the politicians they support.
My cousins have run a successful commercial roofing business in a Mid Western state for decades. It is common that on any public building they work on to have an OSHA inspector come out on day if not each day, to have a local sheriff be called, and even once INS. All because this family owned business is non union and has always been. the sad part, this is a business which has never had more than two dozen employees.
It isn't just them. If non union electricians are on site for isolating air conditioning systems if not building main power they too are subject to the same.
The joke is, that for much of the state they know every OSHA inspector and even the inspectors joke about it. Still they have to stop work and dance the dance. and this is only for the legal means to intimidate.
unions aren't just about protecting employees, they are big money for both those who run them and the politicians they support.
Seems like someone could do the same thing to the union jobs.
[deleted]
But in this case the union's job is specifically to make your cousins' life more difficult. If you don't want pressure from the unions... unionize your shop.
It's pretty fantastic in these hyper sensitive times that unions get away with calling poor working people rats!
"Competition Is for Losers".
"If you want to create and capture lasting value, look to build a monopoly, writes Peter Thiel"
But when unions do it, that's bad.
Try to convince someone to intervene in abuse of monopoly by Microsoft, and you'll hear arguments that any kind of intervention would be worse that just leaving them to do what they will. Some more efficient competitor will take care of the problem for you eventually.
But when unions do it, that's bad.
"If you want to create and capture lasting value, look to build a monopoly, writes Peter Thiel"
But when unions do it, that's bad.
Try to convince someone to intervene in abuse of monopoly by Microsoft, and you'll hear arguments that any kind of intervention would be worse that just leaving them to do what they will. Some more efficient competitor will take care of the problem for you eventually.
But when unions do it, that's bad.
Monopolies are great for the people who run them, that is who Thiel is addressing. No one said they are good for consumers.
Pics/article on the inflatable rat: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/giant-inflatable-un...
Here's a fun story about union influence in NYC (with a little twist I hope you'll indulge[1]):
In 2005, I moved into a 19th-floor apartment in lower Manhattan. My girlfriend and I spent about 12 hours at IKEA getting everything needed to furnish the place. By the time we finished taking (2!) taxies back from Jersey with all my stuff, it was about midnight on a Friday night. It took another hour or so to schlep everything up in the elevator - everything, that is, except for a sofa, which we'd tied to the roof of one of the taxis and which was now the last thing between us and sleep.
We were just about to load it into the elevator for the last run of the night, but _not so fast!_, said the doorman: that's the passenger elevator, and you aren't allowed to use it for furniture.
We pointed out that the sofa, at about 80-100 lbs, weighed quite a bit less than the full elevator cars-worth of stuff we'd already brought up, but he was undeterred. He could lose his job, he explained, because the building's contract with the labor union prohibited use of the passenger elevator for "furniture".
OK, I said, not really understanding what that had to do with unions, where's the freight elevator?
It's locked, he said, because you aren't allowed to use it.
Why not?
Because the building maintenance union regs say nobody who isn't in the union can touch that elevator, and require the use of union labor to move anything in or out via that elevator. (At something like $160/hr, iirc.)
And since it was a Friday, the sofa would have to sit in the building lobby until 10am on Monday, at which point we could get in touch with the labor union to get the Appropriately Licensed and Bonded Personnel to load the sofa into the freight elevator. (Assuming the members of the sanitation engineers' union hadn't already decided it was trash and carted it away -- and yes, he did warn us about this.)
Counting PATH train and taxi rides etc, we're now about 14 hours into the furnishing-my-apartment project. We haven't eaten in about 10 hours, it's the middle of the night, and I am beyond frustrated at this point.
I don't want to get arrested though and the guy is clearly not going to give in, so I'm not really sure what to do. I half jokingly ask the guy: well, what about the stairs? Do the union regs prohibit the stairs too?
He laughs. No, do whatever you want in the stairs, he says.
I look at my gf. She looks at me. _Well? You want to?_, she says. Remember: 19 floors. I think: I can't believe we're going to do this.
But we do. ~40 flights of stairs later, we both look like we just climbed out of a lake, and are breathing like horses. And though I'd already had a pretty strong suspicion in this direction, at this point I was certain: I had to marry this girl.
I still don't think much of unions, but 11 years and 2 kids later, I'm grateful every day that I ended up with such a strong and capable partner. <3
[1](Sorry for the autobiography but I thought folks might appreciate the story. And it really is on-topic... sortof.)
In 2005, I moved into a 19th-floor apartment in lower Manhattan. My girlfriend and I spent about 12 hours at IKEA getting everything needed to furnish the place. By the time we finished taking (2!) taxies back from Jersey with all my stuff, it was about midnight on a Friday night. It took another hour or so to schlep everything up in the elevator - everything, that is, except for a sofa, which we'd tied to the roof of one of the taxis and which was now the last thing between us and sleep.
We were just about to load it into the elevator for the last run of the night, but _not so fast!_, said the doorman: that's the passenger elevator, and you aren't allowed to use it for furniture.
We pointed out that the sofa, at about 80-100 lbs, weighed quite a bit less than the full elevator cars-worth of stuff we'd already brought up, but he was undeterred. He could lose his job, he explained, because the building's contract with the labor union prohibited use of the passenger elevator for "furniture".
OK, I said, not really understanding what that had to do with unions, where's the freight elevator?
It's locked, he said, because you aren't allowed to use it.
Why not?
Because the building maintenance union regs say nobody who isn't in the union can touch that elevator, and require the use of union labor to move anything in or out via that elevator. (At something like $160/hr, iirc.)
And since it was a Friday, the sofa would have to sit in the building lobby until 10am on Monday, at which point we could get in touch with the labor union to get the Appropriately Licensed and Bonded Personnel to load the sofa into the freight elevator. (Assuming the members of the sanitation engineers' union hadn't already decided it was trash and carted it away -- and yes, he did warn us about this.)
Counting PATH train and taxi rides etc, we're now about 14 hours into the furnishing-my-apartment project. We haven't eaten in about 10 hours, it's the middle of the night, and I am beyond frustrated at this point.
I don't want to get arrested though and the guy is clearly not going to give in, so I'm not really sure what to do. I half jokingly ask the guy: well, what about the stairs? Do the union regs prohibit the stairs too?
He laughs. No, do whatever you want in the stairs, he says.
I look at my gf. She looks at me. _Well? You want to?_, she says. Remember: 19 floors. I think: I can't believe we're going to do this.
But we do. ~40 flights of stairs later, we both look like we just climbed out of a lake, and are breathing like horses. And though I'd already had a pretty strong suspicion in this direction, at this point I was certain: I had to marry this girl.
I still don't think much of unions, but 11 years and 2 kids later, I'm grateful every day that I ended up with such a strong and capable partner. <3
[1](Sorry for the autobiography but I thought folks might appreciate the story. And it really is on-topic... sortof.)
Next time carry it up one flight of stairs and put it in the lift out of sight of the doorman.
LOL this.
I remember a long time ago there was a team that needed some very expensive hardware from sun (think several 100k).
The manager of the group could NOT get approval for the equipment. It was a massive technicality as another department was supposed to buy setup and "run" the equipment and they refused for a number of reasons.
The manager in question figured out that he could sign a PO up to $7000. A large number of PO's later the server was to be delivered.
This, to say the least, was going to be a bigger problem. Though a space had been secured for it (in a server room no less) getting it into the building was going to be an issue.
They ended up bringing it in on a weekend, only to find the freight elevator locked, and the rack it came in unable to fit in the normal elevator for people.
The manager, his team, the sun sales man and the delivery driver took the whole thing to bits in the lobby. There were parts EVERYWHERE and a rather bemused security guard who was baffled as to why this was happening this way.
It all turned out fine in the end, the manager wasn't fired (promoted in fact), the salesman got his commission, and the team got the equipment they needed.
If I were a betting man that driver was a union guy and ended up with time and 1/2 for the insanity on a saturday!
I remember a long time ago there was a team that needed some very expensive hardware from sun (think several 100k).
The manager of the group could NOT get approval for the equipment. It was a massive technicality as another department was supposed to buy setup and "run" the equipment and they refused for a number of reasons.
The manager in question figured out that he could sign a PO up to $7000. A large number of PO's later the server was to be delivered.
This, to say the least, was going to be a bigger problem. Though a space had been secured for it (in a server room no less) getting it into the building was going to be an issue.
They ended up bringing it in on a weekend, only to find the freight elevator locked, and the rack it came in unable to fit in the normal elevator for people.
The manager, his team, the sun sales man and the delivery driver took the whole thing to bits in the lobby. There were parts EVERYWHERE and a rather bemused security guard who was baffled as to why this was happening this way.
It all turned out fine in the end, the manager wasn't fired (promoted in fact), the salesman got his commission, and the team got the equipment they needed.
If I were a betting man that driver was a union guy and ended up with time and 1/2 for the insanity on a saturday!
I tried this on my first trip to 60 Hudson (a "famous" carrier hotel in Manhattan). We needed to remove a Cisco 2600 router. It's smaller than a pizza box. It fits in a backpack. I carried it under my arm.
As I step out of the elevator and into the lobby, the front desk person goes "you can't remove that equipment".
No worries, I anticipated this and have all the relevant removal paperwork. He is uninterested.
"you can't remove equipment using the passenger elevators"
But, I am in the lobby. The door is less than 20 steps. I already rode the elevator down.
"you must use the freight elevator. that is the law."
OK, I'll go back upstairs and use the freight elevator. Where is it?
"you can't operate it. you need an elevator operator"
OK, where should I wait for them? can you call one for me?
At this point, let me tell you it is Easter weekend.
"they do not work weekends, and it is a holiday weekend. they are $160/hr, minimum 4 hours, and it is double time on the weekend, plus time and a half for holidays"
OK, I'll just put it back. This piece of equipment is barely worth $400. Then I proceeded to go up the elevator, back to the datacenter, go inside, put the router in my backpack, and go back out.
And at the lobby was one of NYC finest, with one of the security people, who kindly asked me what was in my backpack. Then asked to search it. Do you have a warrant?
"I don't need a warrant. I'll just take you down to the precinct and open it there. You sure you don't have any weed in there, Mr. California?"
I went back up, put the router in the cage, went back downstairs, and used every ounce in my body not to flip the building security and his cop buddy the bird, akimbo style.
As I step out of the elevator and into the lobby, the front desk person goes "you can't remove that equipment".
No worries, I anticipated this and have all the relevant removal paperwork. He is uninterested.
"you can't remove equipment using the passenger elevators"
But, I am in the lobby. The door is less than 20 steps. I already rode the elevator down.
"you must use the freight elevator. that is the law."
OK, I'll go back upstairs and use the freight elevator. Where is it?
"you can't operate it. you need an elevator operator"
OK, where should I wait for them? can you call one for me?
At this point, let me tell you it is Easter weekend.
"they do not work weekends, and it is a holiday weekend. they are $160/hr, minimum 4 hours, and it is double time on the weekend, plus time and a half for holidays"
OK, I'll just put it back. This piece of equipment is barely worth $400. Then I proceeded to go up the elevator, back to the datacenter, go inside, put the router in my backpack, and go back out.
And at the lobby was one of NYC finest, with one of the security people, who kindly asked me what was in my backpack. Then asked to search it. Do you have a warrant?
"I don't need a warrant. I'll just take you down to the precinct and open it there. You sure you don't have any weed in there, Mr. California?"
I went back up, put the router in the cage, went back downstairs, and used every ounce in my body not to flip the building security and his cop buddy the bird, akimbo style.
Man, every time I get annoyed by something in Chicago, New York steps in to make me feel better.
What does the guy at the front care anyways? Do the union guys pass him a $50 every time they cajole somebody in to using the freight elevator for something stupid?
I probably would have just waited till the cop left, went to the nearest shipping store, bought a box, put 5 bucks in postage on it, and addressed it to myself. Now they can't open it without exigent circumstances or a warrant.
I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice or anything, but it's probably the next best thing to giving them the finger.
What does the guy at the front care anyways? Do the union guys pass him a $50 every time they cajole somebody in to using the freight elevator for something stupid?
I probably would have just waited till the cop left, went to the nearest shipping store, bought a box, put 5 bucks in postage on it, and addressed it to myself. Now they can't open it without exigent circumstances or a warrant.
I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice or anything, but it's probably the next best thing to giving them the finger.
Or ask the doorman when he's taking a break and if he'd like you to celebrate his birthday that just happens to be today! with a nice gift.
Give the doorman the $50 he was trying to hit you up for and get on with your life. Welcome to New York.
[deleted]
This reminded me of my time in NYC :)
Why are they now sitting dormant instead of being used elsewhere?
An important piece of the story which was missing. Thanks for linking and summarizing.
The base does look a bit iffy.[1] Only a few of the bolt holes have bolts in them.
[1] https://youtu.be/5_PjCwMEdSY?t=80
[1] https://youtu.be/5_PjCwMEdSY?t=80
Given that multiple inspectors examined the machines personally and decided it was OK, I'm skeptical of this assessment.
This is sort of like how when the waterless urinal was first commercialized, the plumbers union blocked it from getting approved in the general building code. Eventually a compromised was reached that involves requiring a plumber to draw an water line (unutilized) to every water-less install.
Unions for skilled, high-pay jobs in highly regulated industries really extract a lot of questionable value from society.
Unions for skilled, high-pay jobs in highly regulated industries really extract a lot of questionable value from society.
waterless ones are patented and without a water line you'd be locked in to higher priced products and/or have to spend a lot of extra money to run a new water line after the walls go up. Generally the situation with waterless ones is people endlessly social signal their green superiority about them, then the incredible stench makes them install real urinals. Even if only 5% or so install real urinals the net cost is still lower.
Its kind of like an electrician demanding a ground line be run to every outlet while someone who knows nothing about electricity demanding that ground wire almost never carries current therefore is a waste of money.
Perhaps a better analogy is its like adding another fiber optic strand, before or during the project the marginal cost is extremely cheap, after the project is complete its unimaginably expensive to add another strand after the dirt has gone back in the ditch.
Its kind of like an electrician demanding a ground line be run to every outlet while someone who knows nothing about electricity demanding that ground wire almost never carries current therefore is a waste of money.
Perhaps a better analogy is its like adding another fiber optic strand, before or during the project the marginal cost is extremely cheap, after the project is complete its unimaginably expensive to add another strand after the dirt has gone back in the ditch.
I think it's very important to be able to let people make these decisions. It's inefficient to add a water line if it's never going to be used. You might believe I'm going to use it, but I might know I'm not going to use it. Maybe you're right, but I am the one paying the bill to tear off finishings to run water lines in the walls.
Kiiiinnnnda. People make bad decisions, and the only architecture that matters is the one that lets you change. It's like the dig-once fiber policy for roadways, and is all part of the "don't build to peak value" idea; it's also like a usual problem with user interface design: if you only ever built user tools to do what you imagined, users (or later owners / tenants) are limited to your imagination.
I go to a gym in an office building; there are showers. Do you think the floor was built with anyone thinking: "Oh, one day there might be showers here!"? I worked at a company with a (big) 3d printer - we had to rinse part afterwards, and kinda managed to wedge the rinser into the (extra extra large) handicapped stall in the men's bathroom. Don't just build to what YOU can imagine, give people rope to make more things.
Running unused water lines [while it's cheap to do so] sounds like a good plan.
On the other hand, future proofing, and enough rope to hang yourself.
I go to a gym in an office building; there are showers. Do you think the floor was built with anyone thinking: "Oh, one day there might be showers here!"? I worked at a company with a (big) 3d printer - we had to rinse part afterwards, and kinda managed to wedge the rinser into the (extra extra large) handicapped stall in the men's bathroom. Don't just build to what YOU can imagine, give people rope to make more things.
Running unused water lines [while it's cheap to do so] sounds like a good plan.
On the other hand, future proofing, and enough rope to hang yourself.
> Kiiiinnnnda. People make bad decisions
You can't outlaw bad decisions - but it seems that some people will never get tired of trying...
You can't outlaw bad decisions - but it seems that some people will never get tired of trying...
Construction codes are all about outlawing bad decisions.
Of course, those are "bad" decisions that save a few penny from the builders, and stay hidden until they surprise the building owner with a huge unpredictable cost. No water lines to urinals fits that descriptions nicely.
Of course, those are "bad" decisions that save a few penny from the builders, and stay hidden until they surprise the building owner with a huge unpredictable cost. No water lines to urinals fits that descriptions nicely.
As they say:
Built to code == the worst construction that is legal> Of course, those are "bad" decisions that save a few penny from the builders, and stay hidden until they surprise the building owner with a huge unpredictable cost.
Another case in point: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UG0H720160102
Another case in point: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UG0H720160102
In an optimal world, those would be the only kinds of decisions we would outlaw.
You can outlaw bad decisions. That's the whole point of laws.
I thought law is about forbidding harmful decisions, not bad ones? (At least in theory) Most of the stupid things you do to yourself, without affecting others are not regulated.
Bad decisions are bad because they are harmful. And most stupid things you do to yourself do affect others, and they are regulated according to the significance of the damage, not merely predicated on its existence.
I specifically qualified with not affecting others, because otherwise that would be a different discussion. Yet...
Yet we still find some reason to regulate just about everything, because people are pretty creative about finding ways to pass the consequences of their bad decisions onto other people.
I don't know real estate developers to be any sort of exception, do you?
I don't know real estate developers to be any sort of exception, do you?
I can actually see this effect in my flat. I live in a fairly old building; it's been renovated and I really like it, but the location of the power plugs is the same as when it was constructed (except for one room in my flat). This means each socket is located at the entry of the respective room - the result being that I have extension cords all over the place. I especially find this interesting since this means the pattern of power consumption by "normal people" must have shifted drastically in the last 60-100 years.
On another note, the obvious parallels to software engineering tasks seem very interesting. This shows that ideas like YAGNI very much depend on a cost-benefit-calculation that's very dependend on variables like scale and the anticipated cost of changes.
On another note, the obvious parallels to software engineering tasks seem very interesting. This shows that ideas like YAGNI very much depend on a cost-benefit-calculation that's very dependend on variables like scale and the anticipated cost of changes.
I think this is a business decision.
Some building developers will reap the reward if it was a good decision, others will suffer the consequence.
Some building developers will reap the reward if it was a good decision, others will suffer the consequence.
Dig-once policy for roadways makes sense because the roadway is a public good, and digging multiple times would cause problems for the public, and would cost more for the public, so the _public_ is well within its rights to require this policy.
Requiring a water line in a building is not the same thing. It's a private building, and the people who own it are well within their rights to decide to risk later disruption and cost if they need water lines. Legislating away that right is insanity and just make-work that costs the building owner money up-front for something they've decided they don't need.
Requiring a water line in a building is not the same thing. It's a private building, and the people who own it are well within their rights to decide to risk later disruption and cost if they need water lines. Legislating away that right is insanity and just make-work that costs the building owner money up-front for something they've decided they don't need.
The problem is that cities don't want buildings torn down every 10 years because it's cheaper for the buyer to just rebuild from the ground up than to fight what essentially amounts to a heap of technical debt. Well-constructed buildings can last centuries: future-proofing is a pretty big deal.
Why would a city care? That's just more permitting money and local jobs.
You're replying to a story about a guy who wants to replace tower cranes because two of them fell over and killed people in the same year.
That's why the city cares. Every time one goes up or comes down there's a risk involved.
That's why the city cares. Every time one goes up or comes down there's a risk involved.
Are you familiar with the concept of opportunity cost? Effort spend redoing things all the time instead of improving and building new things is not making a city better.
If a city had the narrow concerns of a business then that might make sense.
Because construction sites are ugly and noisy.
We do this in lots of places. For example, it's against building code in most places to build a house without power grid feeds, running water, or septic/sewer access. Sometimes there are exceptions for "tiny houses" but other times not.
You yourself might want to go totally off the grid and/or rustic, but the reality is that you are likely not going to be the last person who ever lives in that house. Maybe you don't pay your taxes and the township ends up owning a lien on your house. They don't want to have to spend fifty grand installing electricity or running water before they can sell the house.
Depending on how big the technical deficit is here, it may not even be cost effective to retrofit after the fact (after all it still needs to meet code). And knocking down a house because the previous owner was a weirdo is terribly wasteful.
You yourself might want to go totally off the grid and/or rustic, but the reality is that you are likely not going to be the last person who ever lives in that house. Maybe you don't pay your taxes and the township ends up owning a lien on your house. They don't want to have to spend fifty grand installing electricity or running water before they can sell the house.
Depending on how big the technical deficit is here, it may not even be cost effective to retrofit after the fact (after all it still needs to meet code). And knocking down a house because the previous owner was a weirdo is terribly wasteful.
I suppose I didn't make it explicit, but my point is that these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come.
Costly in the original example would be that waterless urinals are installed for the life of the building.
Stifling in your example would be because much land will never be used because it's infeasible to bring power, water, and septic. Someone could have a home, but nothing will happen instead due to the regulation.
Just to meet your last point: - Is today's weirdo tomorrow's visionary? - Is a weirdo not allowed to create what he wants if he's not hurting anyone?
Costly in the original example would be that waterless urinals are installed for the life of the building.
Stifling in your example would be because much land will never be used because it's infeasible to bring power, water, and septic. Someone could have a home, but nothing will happen instead due to the regulation.
Just to meet your last point: - Is today's weirdo tomorrow's visionary? - Is a weirdo not allowed to create what he wants if he's not hurting anyone?
> these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come.
You could say the same thing about much of the building code.
A lot of code is there to ensure that the floor doesn't collapse if you fill the tub up with water, have a room full of people jumping up and down, or buy a piano. There's more on ensuring the roof doesn't collapse if there's lot of snow on it, and making sure the house is solid enough to safely sustain reasonably high winds or an earthquake.
If there are no earthquakes, wind or snow storms, you never buy a piano or have a party and only ever use the shower, is the effort put in satisfying these codes wasted?
You could say the same thing about much of the building code.
A lot of code is there to ensure that the floor doesn't collapse if you fill the tub up with water, have a room full of people jumping up and down, or buy a piano. There's more on ensuring the roof doesn't collapse if there's lot of snow on it, and making sure the house is solid enough to safely sustain reasonably high winds or an earthquake.
If there are no earthquakes, wind or snow storms, you never buy a piano or have a party and only ever use the shower, is the effort put in satisfying these codes wasted?
I think it's important to consider the difference between "possible benefit" and "avoiding injury/death".
When it comes to safety--because we understandably put such a large value on human life--small risks are something we consider.
I believe all of your examples fall into the safety category. Even worse about your examples is that the situations are unsafe and misleading. I think our regulations surrounding the safety issues that you listed are reasonable.
(Additionally, building codes do consider expected usage and alters allowances. No one expects a piano in an attic and the floor load per square foot requirements reflect that.)
When it comes to safety--because we understandably put such a large value on human life--small risks are something we consider.
I believe all of your examples fall into the safety category. Even worse about your examples is that the situations are unsafe and misleading. I think our regulations surrounding the safety issues that you listed are reasonable.
(Additionally, building codes do consider expected usage and alters allowances. No one expects a piano in an attic and the floor load per square foot requirements reflect that.)
There aren't that many building regulations in the middle of the countryside.
Building busted stuff in the middle of NYC hurts everyone, because there's limited space.
Visionaries can build where other people don't want to be, or convince the people around them that what they want to do is a good idea.
Building busted stuff in the middle of NYC hurts everyone, because there's limited space.
Visionaries can build where other people don't want to be, or convince the people around them that what they want to do is a good idea.
You'd be surprised at the prevalence of regulations! ("You have one flush toilet. U.S. regulations require every legally habitable dwelling to have at least one flush toilet connected to an approved sewer or septic system." -- So a composting-toilet-only house seems to be illegal everywhere in the US.)
Someone could buy an incredibly valuable vacant lot and fence it and never use it. As far as I know, that's not illegal but would cause the same problem you've pointed out. I don't think the utility hookup regulations are based on such "waste of space" reasoning.
Someone could buy an incredibly valuable vacant lot and fence it and never use it. As far as I know, that's not illegal but would cause the same problem you've pointed out. I don't think the utility hookup regulations are based on such "waste of space" reasoning.
In principle, I agree with you but in practice, I so loathe the stink of waterless urinals that on the inside, I'm glad they did that.
In principle, I agree with you, but in practice: Don't use my urinal if you don't like it.
Liberalism goes both ways.
Liberalism goes both ways.
In practice, your urinal is often bundled with things I don't have much choice in, like a university or employer. I'm not going to transfer to a new school because i don't like the urinals.
In principle, I agree with that but in practice; when you've got to go, you've got to go.
I have been nauseated every time I entered a public lavatory where waterless urinals were installed.
I have certainly avoided those lavatories in the future but once I'm nauseated, the damage is done.
I have been nauseated every time I entered a public lavatory where waterless urinals were installed.
I have certainly avoided those lavatories in the future but once I'm nauseated, the damage is done.
Before sanitary sewer regulations, people got cholera and such:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15chol.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15chol.html
Do you think it should be code that toilets have to be installed? You could shit in a box?
Personally this is not tooooo far off that. Ensuring toilets always work.
Personally this is not tooooo far off that. Ensuring toilets always work.
> waterless ones are patented and without a water line you'd be locked in to higher priced products and/or have to spend a lot of extra money to run a new water line after the walls go up.
Urinals have a very long life cycle, and by the time one needs to be replaced, it is likely any patent left would be in Design only, and thus other manufacturers can build and sell them, allowing the market to rebalance the cost.
In other words, "they're patented" is a bogus argument for needing a water line.
There are better arguments which you tried to hit on - what if you want to replace a urinal with a stall or some other fixture, e.g. - but this one alone isn't a good one. There are also plenty of counter arguments for why this kind of thing is a really bad idea in the case of a water line (e.g., a blind water line is going to be a much more ugly problem when renovations do happen if they aren't well enough noted in the designs or if the designs are unavailable, and what happens when a blind water line leaks, bursts or corrodes through inside a wall due to freezing/accidentally drilling or nailing through a pipe/etc.)
Urinals have a very long life cycle, and by the time one needs to be replaced, it is likely any patent left would be in Design only, and thus other manufacturers can build and sell them, allowing the market to rebalance the cost.
In other words, "they're patented" is a bogus argument for needing a water line.
There are better arguments which you tried to hit on - what if you want to replace a urinal with a stall or some other fixture, e.g. - but this one alone isn't a good one. There are also plenty of counter arguments for why this kind of thing is a really bad idea in the case of a water line (e.g., a blind water line is going to be a much more ugly problem when renovations do happen if they aren't well enough noted in the designs or if the designs are unavailable, and what happens when a blind water line leaks, bursts or corrodes through inside a wall due to freezing/accidentally drilling or nailing through a pipe/etc.)
waterless urinals require a cartridge which has to be replaced
What about the flip side of it - someone wants to put in a few waterless urinals someplace where they can't run water line, and the alternative is no urinals at all? You've literally outlawed a portion of the utility of the invention.
Water supply lines are easy, sanitary waste lines are harder and messier. A location that will support a few 2" sanitary waste lines connecting to a 4" will support a 1" supply line.
That's disgusting and unsanitary: no water == no sink.
Ever used an outhouse?
or been to a concert or event venue with portable hand-wash units?
Since when are those things regulated by the same building codes as a permanent building?
Outhouses don't have sinks and are pretty common. A hand sanitizer dispenser would do the job.
A pipe that runs to a waterless urinal doesn't actually waste any water.
The plumbing unions made some dumb arguments about toxic gas coming up from the sewer IIRC. Why does the regulation care about costs anyways?
Well, that's exactly the point. Just as corporations extract questionable value from society on behalf of their owning structure, unions extract questionable value from society on behalf of the workers. They are a similar-in-kind counterweight to corporate power, so it stands to reason they do similar things.
As it turns out in capitalism "extracting questionable value from society and taking it for yourself" is really the currency of power so an organization that doesn't do that is completely toothless and may as well not exist.
As it turns out in capitalism "extracting questionable value from society and taking it for yourself" is really the currency of power so an organization that doesn't do that is completely toothless and may as well not exist.
But where corporate power with labor is scoped to each specific corporation, union power often crosses to many corporations, often even crossing to different industries. Many industries have needlessly suffered and died at the hands of overpowered unions.
Capitalism rarely extracts questionable value from society, and when it does it's normally the result of government interference in an industry in order to advantage one business vs another - creating non-value-based power imbalances like monopolies.
To the contrary, Capitalism has been proven time and again to provide maximum value for society.
Capitalism rarely extracts questionable value from society, and when it does it's normally the result of government interference in an industry in order to advantage one business vs another - creating non-value-based power imbalances like monopolies.
To the contrary, Capitalism has been proven time and again to provide maximum value for society.
>Capitalism rarely extracts questionable value from society, and when it does it's normally the result of government interference in an industry in order to advantage one business vs another - creating non-value-based power imbalances like monopolies.
May I suggest cigarette / smoking advertising?
May I suggest cigarette / smoking advertising?
Wow! Many industries have "suffered and died" at the hands of unions? That is an amazing claim.
SMH at the libertarians who beleive competition magically always maintains itself in a free market.
The dilemma is that those jobs might not be skilled and high-pay without unions.
Part of the reason there's so much make-work in unions today is because as a percentage of the workforce unions have largely been relegated to public works projects and other niches reliant on political support. It's an existential crisis for unions and their middle-class laborers, and so they're going to flex every political muscle they can.
Even though unions dominate in a country like Germany, the number of union workers required for any particular task is significantly less than is typical in the U.S. And that's because there's more union work available for their members. When union work disappears in the U.S., the union members don't just disappear, too.
Part of the reason there's so much make-work in unions today is because as a percentage of the workforce unions have largely been relegated to public works projects and other niches reliant on political support. It's an existential crisis for unions and their middle-class laborers, and so they're going to flex every political muscle they can.
Even though unions dominate in a country like Germany, the number of union workers required for any particular task is significantly less than is typical in the U.S. And that's because there's more union work available for their members. When union work disappears in the U.S., the union members don't just disappear, too.
Has nothing to do with unions. Waterless urinals were not allowed by the NYC Plumbing Code until May 2009 [0]. They became allowed as part of a water conservation plan. NYC has its own building codes because construction practices and urban density and infrastructure (e.g. fire and emergency services) are unique relative to the model building codes.
In terms of building codes, real-estate development interests have significantly more clout than unions. Partially that's because real-estate development is general seen as a net good. Partially it's their money talks several magnitudes louder because it is several magnitudes larger.
The fact that waterless urinals are allowed might be seen as evidence of the disparity.
[0]: http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/50076-22-09_build...
See also: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local_laws/ll41of2012.... for the larger law as of 2012.
In terms of building codes, real-estate development interests have significantly more clout than unions. Partially that's because real-estate development is general seen as a net good. Partially it's their money talks several magnitudes louder because it is several magnitudes larger.
The fact that waterless urinals are allowed might be seen as evidence of the disparity.
[0]: http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/50076-22-09_build...
See also: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local_laws/ll41of2012.... for the larger law as of 2012.
Union acts in it's member's interests: "Terrible, we shouldn't allow this".
Corporation acts in it's own interests: "Well you can't blame them for that".
Corporation acts in it's own interests: "Well you can't blame them for that".
I tend to think that monopolies are bad, whether corporations or unions. Local 14 is trying to be a monopoly.
One of the best arguments I've heard for unions [0] is that a negotiation between workers and companies is usually very lopsided: a company can afford for an employee to quit, but a worker often cannot afford to get fired. A union is powerful enough to negotiate equally with companies. But in the case of Local 14, it seems like the power is actually lopsided in the other direction: Local 14 can afford to boycott one particular construction project, but the building developers can't afford to go without cranes.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta... (see section 2.5)
One of the best arguments I've heard for unions [0] is that a negotiation between workers and companies is usually very lopsided: a company can afford for an employee to quit, but a worker often cannot afford to get fired. A union is powerful enough to negotiate equally with companies. But in the case of Local 14, it seems like the power is actually lopsided in the other direction: Local 14 can afford to boycott one particular construction project, but the building developers can't afford to go without cranes.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta... (see section 2.5)
> For decades, the local has had control over the training of new crane operators—and therefore who can work on a job site.
That's a monopoly practice, right there.
That's a monopoly practice, right there.
The difference is when either the union or a corporation successfully hijacks law enforcement to promote its members' interests over those of the public.
When a corporation does it we blame the government.
When a union does it we blame the union.
It's a double standard. Worse, theoretically rent seeking by unions should be more tolerated than by corporations. We should minimize all forms of rent seeking, but some forms are worse than others. The rent seeking profits of unions are distributed to many more workers than of corporations, notwithstanding the fanciful image we have of the corrupt union boss.
Except for those on the far left, people generally perceive corporations as amoral. But almost all Americans, right and left, not only judge unions by a different standard, they're typically cynical about unions. Even well paid union members are cynical! It's... incredible.
When a union does it we blame the union.
It's a double standard. Worse, theoretically rent seeking by unions should be more tolerated than by corporations. We should minimize all forms of rent seeking, but some forms are worse than others. The rent seeking profits of unions are distributed to many more workers than of corporations, notwithstanding the fanciful image we have of the corrupt union boss.
Except for those on the far left, people generally perceive corporations as amoral. But almost all Americans, right and left, not only judge unions by a different standard, they're typically cynical about unions. Even well paid union members are cynical! It's... incredible.
This is whataboutism. Both are bad, and holding the opinion that rent seeking is bad is logically consistent with condemning both action classes.
One of these organizations produces goods and services. The other is, more often than not, just another parasitic middleman.
Yes, the union members produce the goods and services.
There are plenty of people saying the former when corporations act in their own interests.
And when people advocate for programmers unionizing, I don't see why we'd be any different. There'd be people employed doing X, a programmer would make something to automate X, and "our" union would be trying to save their job.
Just throwing in another reason why programmer unions don't make a lot of sense: licensing.
It makes sense to license electricians, crane operators, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions who do safety-critical work.
Only a very small minority of programmers work on software that could actually hurt someone (at Boeing, Toyota, etc...).
There's no reason to create a legal barrier to entry for programming.
It makes sense to license electricians, crane operators, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions who do safety-critical work.
Only a very small minority of programmers work on software that could actually hurt someone (at Boeing, Toyota, etc...).
There's no reason to create a legal barrier to entry for programming.
There are Medical health records in Postgres, doctor's office software running on windows and linux, Barcode readers at the local pharmacy, safety critical code in a git repo. If you are going to draw a line around safety critical software the dependency graph is much larger than you might think.
I don't disagree about licenses not making sense for programmers, but there's more ways to hurt people than physically. Think of people who lose money to fraud, get their personal details published, or get stuck in some process that costs them time and money just because they ended up in an unexpected state of a large and complicated system.
There is no general licence for a "construction worker". There are specific licences for things like "tower crane operator", "intermediate rigger", "advanced scaffolding erector".
Similarly, there would never be a general licence for "programmer". But some day there probably will be (and indeed probably should be) specific licences for things like "have back-end access to personal medical data", "modify source code of nuclear reactor control software", and "install networking hardware via which credit card details are transmitted".
It's not about creating a barrier to entry for a whole profession. It's about licencing people to work in specific situations where there are specific risks, such as privacy risks, public safety risks, and risk of fraud.
Similarly, there would never be a general licence for "programmer". But some day there probably will be (and indeed probably should be) specific licences for things like "have back-end access to personal medical data", "modify source code of nuclear reactor control software", and "install networking hardware via which credit card details are transmitted".
It's not about creating a barrier to entry for a whole profession. It's about licencing people to work in specific situations where there are specific risks, such as privacy risks, public safety risks, and risk of fraud.
You forgot only about:
- banking
- online shopping
- medical data handling
- other sensitive data handling
- medical devices (pacemakers etc)
- IoT
Why would licensing be a barrier to unionizing? Surely a smaller licensed community is easier to unionize, but the whole idea is getting a lot of (skilled or unskilled) people together to bargain collectively when bargaining individually would be ineffective.
[deleted]
This is like when people talk about the AI. The AI will do this, the AI will do that...
The AI doesn't exist. People will make it. That is when you know what it will do.
If we make the union, we can make plenty of reasons and ways for it to be different. Whether or not those result in a difference, is not very predictable.
Our day jab is literally understanding, predicting, and building complex systems out of ideas. Why would we be unable to make a union with a reasonable - even likely - chance of not developing the same problems these (much) older unions have?
The AI doesn't exist. People will make it. That is when you know what it will do.
If we make the union, we can make plenty of reasons and ways for it to be different. Whether or not those result in a difference, is not very predictable.
Our day jab is literally understanding, predicting, and building complex systems out of ideas. Why would we be unable to make a union with a reasonable - even likely - chance of not developing the same problems these (much) older unions have?
1. Organisation is created with good ideas. 2. Politically motivated or terrible at management and long term view people get to the top of organisation. 3. That organisation now protects the status quo, even though it's in everybody's interest to move on.
Tell me you've never seen this story... I've worked with managers who would absolutely go for hiring more people to continuously do the same stupid task rather than improving the process. If they were protected, it would be a very sad place to work.
Tell me you've never seen this story... I've worked with managers who would absolutely go for hiring more people to continuously do the same stupid task rather than improving the process. If they were protected, it would be a very sad place to work.
> The AI doesn't exist. People will make it.
But it will require much less people to build the AI. And that's the only relevant point when stepping into the investors' shoes.
But it will require much less people to build the AI. And that's the only relevant point when stepping into the investors' shoes.
Call it a 'professional association', like doctors, lawyers, and engineers.
The real problem is wealth concentration. Unions and professional associations are one way for the working class to push back when the society they live in is failing to do so.
It's the wrong tool, not addressing the root cause, has implementation challenges, and will create problems in the future.
But the ship is sinking right now. Since the 1970s.
The real problem is wealth concentration. Unions and professional associations are one way for the working class to push back when the society they live in is failing to do so.
It's the wrong tool, not addressing the root cause, has implementation challenges, and will create problems in the future.
But the ship is sinking right now. Since the 1970s.
Except that there's no direct evidence of union shenanigans, in this case.
Yes, conceivably the DOB could be in backroom cahoots with Local 14-14B, and nixing the crane on stated grounds of structural design concerns -- whilst in reality having other motives. And not only "conceivably"; stuff like this happens in NYC all the time.
But we'd still need to see some actual evidence of such collusion, please; not just speculation (or arguments on the basis of "unions bad!", more or less)
Yes, conceivably the DOB could be in backroom cahoots with Local 14-14B, and nixing the crane on stated grounds of structural design concerns -- whilst in reality having other motives. And not only "conceivably"; stuff like this happens in NYC all the time.
But we'd still need to see some actual evidence of such collusion, please; not just speculation (or arguments on the basis of "unions bad!", more or less)
Who said anything about backroom cahoots? They're openly protesting.
They're openly protesting.
City agencies don't just cave in to protests at the drop of the hat. Especially not NYC agencies.
So again, what I request is simply: evidence, not speculation.
City agencies don't just cave in to protests at the drop of the hat. Especially not NYC agencies.
So again, what I request is simply: evidence, not speculation.
That's the thing about "motives", that you can't never prove or disprove one unless confessed by the "motivator" right?. So the only way to gather "evidence" would be to test the system and see if its actually dangerous or if its all bs.
That's the thing about "motives", that you can't never prove or disprove one unless confessed by the "motivator" right?
So... ya might as well just believe whichever side of the coin you like better, right?
Works for some people, I guess.
So... ya might as well just believe whichever side of the coin you like better, right?
Works for some people, I guess.
(Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument, the only thing you have at your disposal in decision-making is your perception of the character of the two parties. So yes, whichever side you like better.
Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument,
You might want to question the validity of that assumption. Most likely the truth (was) basically knowable in this case, with a modicum of effort.
Just that Crain's apparently didn't want to take even baby steps in the direction of that effort -- i.e. the standard proactive, iterative follow-up that, you know, real journalists do: like contacting the entrepreneurial crane operator before publication to get their response to the DOB's claims about the composition of their rigs; and asking the DOB for their response to his response, etc. Or like, you know, talking to an independent expert or two. That kind of thing.
Instead they just did the usual throw-it-at-the-wall, see-if-it-sticks thing -- and presented it as a "he said, she said" story. Which may not have been all that illuminating or informative -- but at least got people to click on it, and (judging by the response here in this forum), to allow their buttons to be pushed.
You might want to question the validity of that assumption. Most likely the truth (was) basically knowable in this case, with a modicum of effort.
Just that Crain's apparently didn't want to take even baby steps in the direction of that effort -- i.e. the standard proactive, iterative follow-up that, you know, real journalists do: like contacting the entrepreneurial crane operator before publication to get their response to the DOB's claims about the composition of their rigs; and asking the DOB for their response to his response, etc. Or like, you know, talking to an independent expert or two. That kind of thing.
Instead they just did the usual throw-it-at-the-wall, see-if-it-sticks thing -- and presented it as a "he said, she said" story. Which may not have been all that illuminating or informative -- but at least got people to click on it, and (judging by the response here in this forum), to allow their buttons to be pushed.
Ok. What laws do we need to pass and enforce to allow us to collect and share that evidence? Would any such legislation pass?
Most likely there are already processes in place to get down to the truth on matters like these. Slow-moving processes - but processes, nonetheless. You know - formal appeals, FOIA requests, lawsuits, expert testimony - that sort of thing.
But this all makes for poor ad copy, of course. "Bold, Crafty Innovator Thwarted, 'Cause Unions!" -- that's what gets people to click on your article. And share it in venues such as this one.
But this all makes for poor ad copy, of course. "Bold, Crafty Innovator Thwarted, 'Cause Unions!" -- that's what gets people to click on your article. And share it in venues such as this one.
The problem is that all those things cost money, and the "bold, crafty innovator", after putting $1M of his own money into it, can't afford to pay for all that. The city, and the union, have very deep pockets, and have no incentive to do the right thing and pay for it.
Sometimes Goliath stomps David, and we all lose.
Sometimes Goliath stomps David, and we all lose.
I'm not saying he has no reason to find fault in either the DOB's initial decision about his new crane, or in Crain's coverage of the issue.
Just that it's kind of weird (in my view) that so many people seem to be happy to conclude that we somehow "know" that it was union arm-twisting which (at least temporarily) sealed his fate. Despite the complete lack of primary (or even secondary) evidence for such a connection.
Just that it's kind of weird (in my view) that so many people seem to be happy to conclude that we somehow "know" that it was union arm-twisting which (at least temporarily) sealed his fate. Despite the complete lack of primary (or even secondary) evidence for such a connection.
We're often guilty of the same sort of thing in IT. I've seen IT leaders go on witch-hunts for areas of a business solving their own small issues with Ms Access, FileMaker, etc. Or developers complaining about simple crud apps and their support being outsourced overseas.
The Access/Filemaker thing is frequently an "actual" problem at the enterprise level, because in large-enough companies, the concern isn't just "does it get the job done" but also:
• Is the data being backed up? Is that backup process actually correct (i.e. if the backing data-store is a file on a SAN, and we perform filesystem-level snapshots of that SAN, can all the data actually be restored from such a snapshot, or will it be partially corrupt?)
• For that matter, is there a documented process for restoring from such a backup, such that whoever's on the ops shift could do it if need be?
• Is the backing store transparent/auditable, esp. for compliance to our privacy policy—i.e., can we write an indexing agent to determine whether any Personally Identifiable Information is being stored, without needing to ask the software's ISV for their format spec?
• Can the backing store be locked down with ACLs such that getting access to the app's connection to its backing store as an unprivileged user, doesn't let them grab our entire database, or execute arbitrary storage changes (e.g. DROP TABLE)?
• Can audit-trail logic be installed in the backing store (rather than in the app layer by the ISV), so that we will know if some contractor takes a copy of the data home with them?
When your software speaks to a formal DBMS, all these questions have easy answers. When it manages its own little proprietary DB/file-format thing, they're up in the air.
• Is the data being backed up? Is that backup process actually correct (i.e. if the backing data-store is a file on a SAN, and we perform filesystem-level snapshots of that SAN, can all the data actually be restored from such a snapshot, or will it be partially corrupt?)
• For that matter, is there a documented process for restoring from such a backup, such that whoever's on the ops shift could do it if need be?
• Is the backing store transparent/auditable, esp. for compliance to our privacy policy—i.e., can we write an indexing agent to determine whether any Personally Identifiable Information is being stored, without needing to ask the software's ISV for their format spec?
• Can the backing store be locked down with ACLs such that getting access to the app's connection to its backing store as an unprivileged user, doesn't let them grab our entire database, or execute arbitrary storage changes (e.g. DROP TABLE)?
• Can audit-trail logic be installed in the backing store (rather than in the app layer by the ISV), so that we will know if some contractor takes a copy of the data home with them?
When your software speaks to a formal DBMS, all these questions have easy answers. When it manages its own little proprietary DB/file-format thing, they're up in the air.
I've been in enterprise IT for a long time. These issues only exist because the governance/funding model is broken, and IT is incapable of delivering scaled down solutions at a reasonable price.
Then when the access app gets "important", IT uses it as a hostage for more funding, using the absurdly expensive cost model that they build.
Then when the access app gets "important", IT uses it as a hostage for more funding, using the absurdly expensive cost model that they build.
Well true, but I expect the crane operator guys will say that this crane sounds all super-cool until one of them collapses and kills a dozen people, and then we'd all ask why they aren't subject to the same requirements as the bigger cranes.
I do get what you mean, but I assume a crane operator union has similar worries about this small crane and the potential safety, work rule, etc, issues. :)
extract a lot of questionable value from society.
So they've become "extractive" in the parlance of economists and sociologists studying 3rd world economies?
So they've become "extractive" in the parlance of economists and sociologists studying 3rd world economies?
Right, or you could say that they were successful rent-seekers.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me chuckle every time someone suggests a software developers union.
[deleted]
That's a great example of the positive impact of unions on society.
Those waterless urinals are a bullshit green thing used to suck up grant money -- sort of like the "big smelly" trash cans that appeared with Obamas stimulus program. Most often, if not usually, they are removed from service because they get disgusting unless you train your janitorial staff and keep good track of when maintenance is performed.
The pipes are there so when you decide to flush the waterless urinal, you can do so without engaging in some massive project.
Those waterless urinals are a bullshit green thing used to suck up grant money -- sort of like the "big smelly" trash cans that appeared with Obamas stimulus program. Most often, if not usually, they are removed from service because they get disgusting unless you train your janitorial staff and keep good track of when maintenance is performed.
The pipes are there so when you decide to flush the waterless urinal, you can do so without engaging in some massive project.
I'm not sure which I hate more. Union shenanigans or waterless urinals. They both stink.
There are a few places here that use those urinals and the smell hits me in the face every time I enter the lavatory.
In the case you describe, perhaps the unions are a net positive because their protectionist rule will make it easier to replace those waterless stink pits with actual urinals in the future.
There are a few places here that use those urinals and the smell hits me in the face every time I enter the lavatory.
In the case you describe, perhaps the unions are a net positive because their protectionist rule will make it easier to replace those waterless stink pits with actual urinals in the future.
That's an absurd generalisation. One thing like this happens every 20 years and people talk about it forever. But companies do shit like this constantly.
How is this an absurd generalization? This type of crap happens all the time. And people should absolutely talk about this stuff constantly because this kind of stuff shows the true colors of the union(s) and what they really stand for. And people need to be constantly reminded of that.
All of these unions that center around apprenticeship programs or requiring special training that is near-impossible to get without being part of the union is all just protectionist garbage. Its sole purpose is to control the supply of available labor for certain types of work.
All of these unions that center around apprenticeship programs or requiring special training that is near-impossible to get without being part of the union is all just protectionist garbage. Its sole purpose is to control the supply of available labor for certain types of work.
Of course! Unions are a way to balance the scales against corporations. Controlling the supply of labor is very important if you want the wages to be at all decent.
But the parent is right that anything questionable done by unions is labored over and repeated again and again and again and again while corporations (for the most part) don't face the same scrutiny.
But the parent is right that anything questionable done by unions is labored over and repeated again and again and again and again while corporations (for the most part) don't face the same scrutiny.
Of course, and I wonder how equitable this control will be. Will it let the guy with the skill do it or will it be the friend of the union president?
Able-bodied men and women don't have jobs in America and you want a 'decent' wage floor of 150k for the chosen ones. Trade unions, the supposed bulwark of the left. Worker's rights, etc.
I fully expect people to support all this, have the unions endorse the Democrats, and then have discussions at afternoon tea about how everyone else just considers themselves "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and votes against their own interest.
They want the jobs, man. And rightfully so. And when you stand there with your $150k-wage-floor job and they have to subsist on the dole because you decided to 'control the supply of labour', you shouldn't be surprised when they don't like you.
Unions and union workers are acting exactly as they're expected to under the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem. And everyone else is acting exactly as they are expected to as well. So I'm not surprised they're acting that way, but the Mafia act as expected to, and I'm damned if I'll back either of these.
Able-bodied men and women don't have jobs in America and you want a 'decent' wage floor of 150k for the chosen ones. Trade unions, the supposed bulwark of the left. Worker's rights, etc.
I fully expect people to support all this, have the unions endorse the Democrats, and then have discussions at afternoon tea about how everyone else just considers themselves "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and votes against their own interest.
They want the jobs, man. And rightfully so. And when you stand there with your $150k-wage-floor job and they have to subsist on the dole because you decided to 'control the supply of labour', you shouldn't be surprised when they don't like you.
Unions and union workers are acting exactly as they're expected to under the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem. And everyone else is acting exactly as they are expected to as well. So I'm not surprised they're acting that way, but the Mafia act as expected to, and I'm damned if I'll back either of these.
Who is expecting a $150k wage floor?
Edit: the union mentioned in the article. (I hadn't read it).
It appears you're generalizing this union to represent other unions. It's possible for one union to be exploitative while other ones to have merit. Just as some corporations behave responsibly while a few others blatantly disregard consumers and workers.
Edit: the union mentioned in the article. (I hadn't read it).
It appears you're generalizing this union to represent other unions. It's possible for one union to be exploitative while other ones to have merit. Just as some corporations behave responsibly while a few others blatantly disregard consumers and workers.
> The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B lays out the wage floor for its operators at $73.91 per hour. That’s $150,000 a year before overtime, plus benefits equal to $32.50 an hour. When the operator is behind the controls of a tower crane, he gets a $2-an-hour bump. On weekends, when cranes are moved, pay doubles. With overtime, many union members earn half a million dollars a year.
The union in the article.
EDIT: I also wonder how they get so much overtime. Surely it couldn't be because of 'controlling the supply of labour'. Yeah, that's right. Give them their half a million dollars a year. It's only 'decent'.
The union in the article.
EDIT: I also wonder how they get so much overtime. Surely it couldn't be because of 'controlling the supply of labour'. Yeah, that's right. Give them their half a million dollars a year. It's only 'decent'.
OK, so let's really do this, even though the other commenter got downvoted into oblivion just for daring to check the math.
The claim is they make 75.91/hr when in the crane, 73.91 when not. Let's say they spend 6 hours a day in the crane, 2 hours not in the crane; that's 603.28/day. Five days a week is 3,016.40. 52 weeks a year would be 156,852.80.
So we're at $156,852.80/year from 8-hour days of work. We need to somehow get to "half a million". By which I mean we need to come up with $343,147.20 in overtime. The quote doesn't say what the overtime rate is, but traditionally it's time and a half; At a behind-the-crane rate of $75.91, overtime would be $113.86/hour. The engineer would then need to work "only" 3,013 hours of overtime a year in order to hit that "half a million" target. Or 2,135 hours of overtime a year in order to hit the $400k another commenter suggests below.
There are 8,760 total hours in a (non-leap) year and we've already used 2,080 of them accounting for 8-hour weekday shifts. So our engineer has 6,680 hours in the year left in which to work either 3,013 or 2,135 hours of overtime so we can bash him for making too much money. If he works an 8-hour shift every Saturday and every Sunday at the overtime rate, that only gets us 832 hours of overtime. We still need to find between 1,303 and 2,181 additional hours of overtime. That's an additional 3.5 - 6 hours per day every day for the year.
So... "many union members earn half a million dollars a year". To get to that number, at the quoted wages, they would have to be working 14-hour shifts every day. Not "every week day with two week's vacation". 14 hours every day: 7 days a week, 365 days a year. To get to the $400,000 estimate the comment below thinks is reasonable, they'd only need to work 11.5 hours a day all 365 days of the year. And that's probably a low estimate: I got that number by assuming the engineer spends 6 hours of every working weekday 8-hour shift behind the crane at the higher rate, and 100% of overtime hours behind the crane at the higher rate. If he's spending any more than 2 hours per weekday not behind the crane he needs to work even more hours since he's paid a lower rate then.
I hope nobody actually believes that these guys are genuinely working 11-14 hours a day, 365 days a year, or that if they are it would be wrong to massively compensate them for it.
Of course, someone will point out that I didn't account for the $32.50/hour in "benefits". But how can I? What does that mean? How many jobs have you had where you said "oh, my rate is low but I also count an hourly benefit amount as part of my wages"? Do you genuinely, truly, honestly and actively make sure you include the cost of any employer matching on your health insurance or 401(k) as dollar value and lump it into your salary? I know I don't.
But let's run with it anyway. Let's suppose the engineer gets 100% of his health plan covered by these "benefits", and what's more let's go high on it and assume that his health plan costs $5,000/month. If we only have him work 8-hour shifts 7 days a week we still need to make up a lot of money out of overtime or non-health-plan benefits:
weekday wage = (75.91 * 6) + (73.91 * 2) = 603.28
weekend wage = (75.91 * 1.5) * 16 (hours in two 8-hour shifts) = 1,821.84
Full week = 5 * weekday + weekend = 4,838.24
Full year of 8-hour shifts 7 days a week = 52 * 4,838.24 = 251,588.48
Add in $60,000 worth of health insurance = $311,588.48
To hit the "half a million" we still need to find nearly another $200,000. Specifically, we still need to find him 1,655 hours of overtime at this point. That's 4.5 hours a day in a 365-day year, so we're at 12.5-hour shifts, 365 days a year, to hit $500,000 in compensation.
A 401(k) doesn't help since his max contribution to that is $18,000/year, which is peanuts compared to the gap we need to make up to get him to $500,000.
But at this point I think we can safely say that something is very fishy with what you've quoted. And to reference my other comment, the reason this engineer isn't hanging out with other millionaires is that he can't because he spends 12.5 hours a day, all 365 days of the year, at work in order to get to that "half a million" wage you're attributing to him.
(except of course you know that the crane operators aren't really doing that, but that would sink the whole story...)
The claim is they make 75.91/hr when in the crane, 73.91 when not. Let's say they spend 6 hours a day in the crane, 2 hours not in the crane; that's 603.28/day. Five days a week is 3,016.40. 52 weeks a year would be 156,852.80.
So we're at $156,852.80/year from 8-hour days of work. We need to somehow get to "half a million". By which I mean we need to come up with $343,147.20 in overtime. The quote doesn't say what the overtime rate is, but traditionally it's time and a half; At a behind-the-crane rate of $75.91, overtime would be $113.86/hour. The engineer would then need to work "only" 3,013 hours of overtime a year in order to hit that "half a million" target. Or 2,135 hours of overtime a year in order to hit the $400k another commenter suggests below.
There are 8,760 total hours in a (non-leap) year and we've already used 2,080 of them accounting for 8-hour weekday shifts. So our engineer has 6,680 hours in the year left in which to work either 3,013 or 2,135 hours of overtime so we can bash him for making too much money. If he works an 8-hour shift every Saturday and every Sunday at the overtime rate, that only gets us 832 hours of overtime. We still need to find between 1,303 and 2,181 additional hours of overtime. That's an additional 3.5 - 6 hours per day every day for the year.
So... "many union members earn half a million dollars a year". To get to that number, at the quoted wages, they would have to be working 14-hour shifts every day. Not "every week day with two week's vacation". 14 hours every day: 7 days a week, 365 days a year. To get to the $400,000 estimate the comment below thinks is reasonable, they'd only need to work 11.5 hours a day all 365 days of the year. And that's probably a low estimate: I got that number by assuming the engineer spends 6 hours of every working weekday 8-hour shift behind the crane at the higher rate, and 100% of overtime hours behind the crane at the higher rate. If he's spending any more than 2 hours per weekday not behind the crane he needs to work even more hours since he's paid a lower rate then.
I hope nobody actually believes that these guys are genuinely working 11-14 hours a day, 365 days a year, or that if they are it would be wrong to massively compensate them for it.
Of course, someone will point out that I didn't account for the $32.50/hour in "benefits". But how can I? What does that mean? How many jobs have you had where you said "oh, my rate is low but I also count an hourly benefit amount as part of my wages"? Do you genuinely, truly, honestly and actively make sure you include the cost of any employer matching on your health insurance or 401(k) as dollar value and lump it into your salary? I know I don't.
But let's run with it anyway. Let's suppose the engineer gets 100% of his health plan covered by these "benefits", and what's more let's go high on it and assume that his health plan costs $5,000/month. If we only have him work 8-hour shifts 7 days a week we still need to make up a lot of money out of overtime or non-health-plan benefits:
weekday wage = (75.91 * 6) + (73.91 * 2) = 603.28
weekend wage = (75.91 * 1.5) * 16 (hours in two 8-hour shifts) = 1,821.84
Full week = 5 * weekday + weekend = 4,838.24
Full year of 8-hour shifts 7 days a week = 52 * 4,838.24 = 251,588.48
Add in $60,000 worth of health insurance = $311,588.48
To hit the "half a million" we still need to find nearly another $200,000. Specifically, we still need to find him 1,655 hours of overtime at this point. That's 4.5 hours a day in a 365-day year, so we're at 12.5-hour shifts, 365 days a year, to hit $500,000 in compensation.
A 401(k) doesn't help since his max contribution to that is $18,000/year, which is peanuts compared to the gap we need to make up to get him to $500,000.
But at this point I think we can safely say that something is very fishy with what you've quoted. And to reference my other comment, the reason this engineer isn't hanging out with other millionaires is that he can't because he spends 12.5 hours a day, all 365 days of the year, at work in order to get to that "half a million" wage you're attributing to him.
(except of course you know that the crane operators aren't really doing that, but that would sink the whole story...)
Why you'd go to the effort of doing all these estimates and just make up nonsensical multipliers is beyond me. Off-shift work is a little over 1.5x (this is non-overtime work that's not between 8 and 5), overtime is 2x. Weekend is 2x. Every overtime hour gets you a D stamp that is not insignificant in value.
All that information is public. I'm a little suspicious of a $500k crane engineer myself, but you managed to get everything wrong. If you missed half the stuff, and the half that was available in the article and in a two-minute Google, god knows what you're leaving out. I literally had the top result in my first search showing the wage card and here you're busy making up nonsensical numbers.
All that information is public. I'm a little suspicious of a $500k crane engineer myself, but you managed to get everything wrong. If you missed half the stuff, and the half that was available in the article and in a two-minute Google, god knows what you're leaving out. I literally had the top result in my first search showing the wage card and here you're busy making up nonsensical numbers.
OK, so let's run the numbers for overtime as double time.
An 8-hour weekday shift with 2 hours not behind the crane is:
(75.91 * 6) + (73.91 * 2) = 603.28
A five-day week at that rate is 3,016.40.
52 weeks of that is $156,852.80. Add $60k insurance (and it's questionable to bundle that as "pay", but whatever), and we're at $218,652.80. Add $18k for max 401(k) contribution and it's $234,852.80.
From there we need to find $265,147.20 in overtime to get to $500k. If the overtime rate is double time, and if literally every overtime hour worked is behind the crane, our engineer needs 1,747 hours of overtime in a year in order to hit $500,000.
Working at 8-hour shift every weekend day can eat up 832 hours of that, leaving 915 hours we still need to find somewhere else. That's 17.6 hours of overtime per week. If they're only worked on weekdays, the crane operator needs to work an 11.5 hour shift every weekday and an 8 hour shift every Saturday and Sunday, year-round, to hit $500,000.
I'm more than "a little suspicious" of that.
An 8-hour weekday shift with 2 hours not behind the crane is:
(75.91 * 6) + (73.91 * 2) = 603.28
A five-day week at that rate is 3,016.40.
52 weeks of that is $156,852.80. Add $60k insurance (and it's questionable to bundle that as "pay", but whatever), and we're at $218,652.80. Add $18k for max 401(k) contribution and it's $234,852.80.
From there we need to find $265,147.20 in overtime to get to $500k. If the overtime rate is double time, and if literally every overtime hour worked is behind the crane, our engineer needs 1,747 hours of overtime in a year in order to hit $500,000.
Working at 8-hour shift every weekend day can eat up 832 hours of that, leaving 915 hours we still need to find somewhere else. That's 17.6 hours of overtime per week. If they're only worked on weekdays, the crane operator needs to work an 11.5 hour shift every weekday and an 8 hour shift every Saturday and Sunday, year-round, to hit $500,000.
I'm more than "a little suspicious" of that.
I don't think you're measuring this accurately. You keep leaving out too much. Fortunately, since $235k is far above the threshold to make my point, I'm not going to press it.
It's only $235k if you estimate health insurance at $60k + a maxed-out 401(k) contribution and add both of them to the dollar amount of what the engineer makes in wages.
Without, if they work 52 40-hour weeks, it's $156k. Which is good money, but a far, far cry from the "many make half a million" claim.
And since a little bit of "let's actually run the numbers you just presented" reduced the initially claimed amount by nearly 70%, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say the initial claim was not rooted in reality, and probably the real amount is lower yet.
Without, if they work 52 40-hour weeks, it's $156k. Which is good money, but a far, far cry from the "many make half a million" claim.
And since a little bit of "let's actually run the numbers you just presented" reduced the initially claimed amount by nearly 70%, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say the initial claim was not rooted in reality, and probably the real amount is lower yet.
Assuming hourly rate of:
73.91 (wage floor) + 32.50 (benefits) + 2 (bump) = 108.41
And a 40 hour standard week:
108.41 x 40 = 4336 (weekly rate),
4336 x 52 = 225492 (yearly rate)
Assuming double weekend rate, for 8 hours on both sat/sun:
108.41 x 2 = 218.82 (weekend hourly rate),
218,41 x 8 x 2 = 3469.1 (weekend rate,
3469 x 52 = 180394 (yearly rate)
Therefore working 8 hours a day, for every day of the week (including weekends), for one year would earn: 225492 + 180394 = 405886
This is very big money but it's not 'half a million dollars'.
Therefore working 8 hours a day, for every day of the week (including weekends), for one year would earn: 225492 + 180394 = 405886
This is very big money but it's not 'half a million dollars'.
80% of half a million is close enough, perhaps.
But, if not, the sentence still works with "give them their $400k a year".
But, if not, the sentence still works with "give them their $400k a year".
So where are all the engineers who work for a handful of years and then retire as millionaires? Where are all the crane operators rubbing elbows with their fellows at Davos?
I'll give you a hint: someone may trying to mislead you and inflame prejudices which have been carefully drilled into you over many years of media exposure.
I'll give you a hint: someone may trying to mislead you and inflame prejudices which have been carefully drilled into you over many years of media exposure.
I agree corporations get off far too easy. And that is the fault of the government in many cases for not prosecuting them or letting them off with fines far below the profits of illegal activity.
"Controlling the supply of labor is very important if you want the wages to be at all decent." - I interpret that sentence very differently. I see it as controlling the labor supply is a great way to prevent the flow of labor that may be just as good and willing to work for less from entering the job market for this activity. It's also a great way to force higher prices upon your customers because no matter which provider/firm they go to they are likely to all have members of the union working there forcing the same wages.
This behavior at its core it anti-competitive. If they were in fact corporations this activity would be a felony. But as employees it is not. Just a thought.
"Controlling the supply of labor is very important if you want the wages to be at all decent." - I interpret that sentence very differently. I see it as controlling the labor supply is a great way to prevent the flow of labor that may be just as good and willing to work for less from entering the job market for this activity. It's also a great way to force higher prices upon your customers because no matter which provider/firm they go to they are likely to all have members of the union working there forcing the same wages.
This behavior at its core it anti-competitive. If they were in fact corporations this activity would be a felony. But as employees it is not. Just a thought.
If a company couldn't "collectively bargain", it wouldn't even exist. Companies are not collections of individuals bargaining for themselves.
The basic idea of collective bargaining isn't really illegal when applied to a employers in general, because it's already the norm on that side of the table. A group of businesspeople with mutual economic interest can legally "collude" when they decide what wages to offer employees, how to structure working conditions, how to carry out negotiations, etc., if they agree to form a legal partnership (you don't even need the newer legal fiction of unitary corporate personhood, just a classic partnership structure). Then colluding in business matters is not only legal, but expected. Why can't employees of such a partnership likewise "collude" when bargaining over wages and working conditions, forming into a single joined legal entity that sits opposite the joined legal entity of businesspeople on the other side of the table? It seems much more asymmetrical to say that the group of businesspeople can legally form a partnership to coordinate their economic activities for mutual gain, but the employees must each bargain individually and cannot form a, let's call it "workers' partnership", or union of workers, to likewise coordinate their economic activities for mutual gain.
One thing I find interesting: Will we will see some version of the odd asymmetries between corporate and union law tested out in the courts as the gig economy grows? A company providing labor, for example, can legally ask for exclusivity agreements. Aramark, a big catering contractor, does that frequently. A union can't, though; an exclusivity deal for employees, saying that catering staff can only be hired from a certain union, is banned as a "closed shop" under the Taft-Hartley act. What about a partnership of gig-economy workers? If they're not employees, it seems like they should be able to push for deals more like Aramark ones, even though unions can't do that.
One thing I find interesting: Will we will see some version of the odd asymmetries between corporate and union law tested out in the courts as the gig economy grows? A company providing labor, for example, can legally ask for exclusivity agreements. Aramark, a big catering contractor, does that frequently. A union can't, though; an exclusivity deal for employees, saying that catering staff can only be hired from a certain union, is banned as a "closed shop" under the Taft-Hartley act. What about a partnership of gig-economy workers? If they're not employees, it seems like they should be able to push for deals more like Aramark ones, even though unions can't do that.
The problem isn't "collusion" over wages for the union members. The problem is that the union is a gatekeeper for training for or holding that type of job, period. In this particular case, the law requires (for licensing) that prospective crane operators be apprenticed to a licensed operator before they're eligible for their own license. When all the licensed operators are union members, only union members can get licenses. That allows the union to get around the "closed shop" bits of Taft-Hartley, and allows them to restrict the supply of crane operators to their gain.
Well that has absolutely nothing to do with unions. That is the Government mandating that people be trained by particular people. That's a Government-imposed rule.
I personally think that laws banning closed shops are completely absurd and undermine peoples' freedom to negotiate contracts that suit them (which labour should have free access to, because of the massive unfairness of employment as a concept, and its inherent inequity between employer and employee).
But they have, and pretending that it's not their own fault for then turning around and effectively mandating a closed shop is absurd.
I personally think that laws banning closed shops are completely absurd and undermine peoples' freedom to negotiate contracts that suit them (which labour should have free access to, because of the massive unfairness of employment as a concept, and its inherent inequity between employer and employee).
But they have, and pretending that it's not their own fault for then turning around and effectively mandating a closed shop is absurd.
The first subway in New York City cost about $100 million per kilometer in 1900 (adjusted for inflation of course). The new subway line being opened this year cost $2.2 billion per kilometer. This is despite over a century of improvements in technology.
Here's an interesting HN post, "Forty Percent of the Buildings in Manhattan Could Not Be Built Today" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11736696 In that article is a statistic that three fourths of the square footage of Manhattan was built between 1900 and 1930. If a freak hurricane somehow destroyed New York, we would be literally unable to rebuild it. For both cost and legal reasons.
Someday soon we might be like the later generations of Romans. Living amongst the great crumbling structures built by our ancestors. Wondering how on Earth they could have achieved such things.
Here's an interesting HN post, "Forty Percent of the Buildings in Manhattan Could Not Be Built Today" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11736696 In that article is a statistic that three fourths of the square footage of Manhattan was built between 1900 and 1930. If a freak hurricane somehow destroyed New York, we would be literally unable to rebuild it. For both cost and legal reasons.
Someday soon we might be like the later generations of Romans. Living amongst the great crumbling structures built by our ancestors. Wondering how on Earth they could have achieved such things.
A big difference in subway costs is that subways used to be built by closing roadways and digging from above ("cut and cover"). But now it's almost always done by very slow, very expensive to operate underground boring machines.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new...
NYC subway construction costs exceed costs of similar projects in different countries, by quite a bit.
NYC subway construction costs exceed costs of similar projects in different countries, by quite a bit.
And a lot of ultra cheap semi expendable navvies
A tunnel built in 1900 looks nothing like a tunnel built in 2017. Strength, longevity, safety systems, dimensions, computer controls, power etc etc are all massively upgraded. It's not a fair comparison.
That's like saying this electric car [1] from the 1902 would be far cheaper to build than a Telsa in 2017, therefore Teslas are over priced.
[1] http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/41483/media/f4.jpg
That's like saying this electric car [1] from the 1902 would be far cheaper to build than a Telsa in 2017, therefore Teslas are over priced.
[1] http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/41483/media/f4.jpg
Here's a subway line in South Korea that was built for $100 million / km.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE87IPJqW4M
Granted, it's not the most fair comparison, but the cost of subway construction in NY is abomination.
https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE87IPJqW4M
Granted, it's not the most fair comparison, but the cost of subway construction in NY is abomination.
https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...
Yes, but he's noting that a century of technological advancement has not been able to keep the costs to less than a 22x increase. It must be something other than the technology.
And the answer, much as it was in ancient times: By exploiting workers - and often letting them die.
Europe and Korea still manage to build subways 10-20x cheaper than New York. As far as I know they don't have tons more worker deaths.
With all our modern technology, we should be able to achieve what our ancestors did. Even with our higher standards for safety.
With all our modern technology, we should be able to achieve what our ancestors did. Even with our higher standards for safety.
It is far from 10-20x difference. And many or most of those nations have stronger worker protections than the US, calling into question the idea that labor law is really the main driving force there. It's probably more like propertyholder protectionism (i.e. NIMBYism) dominating local politics.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i... http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/03/31/high_costs_ma...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i... http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/03/31/high_costs_ma...
Those nations also have stronger social safety nets, including health and retirement benefits provided nationally rather than by the employer. Your first article mentions that operating costs per ride in the NYC metro are $4.11, compared to $2.61 in London. It also estimates though that $1 of that is health and retirement benefits.
The strong welfare state in these countries essentially subsidises employers in this way. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.
Helsinki is currently building a metro expansion for $103 million per kilometer, at least if I got the numbers right. Of course the setting is very different in New York vs. outskirts of Helsinki, but yes, it's cheaper.
Building on the outskirts of New York City is also cheaper than building in Manhattan.
So many "accidents" over the last century, and most of them were because the construction companies just didn't care. The life of a sandhog was probably the worst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhog).
We're still fascinated by the properties of Roman concrete which has, in many cases, survived 2000 years mostly unscathed.
Meanwhile brutalist buildings from the 1950s are crumbling.
Meanwhile brutalist buildings from the 1950s are crumbling.
Careful of survivorship bias here. Of course we don't see any Roman buildings that crumbled 50 years after construction.
They really did use better construction, though. Unreinforced opus caementicum (with particular kinds of Italian volcanic ash) can't be built as tall as reinforced OPC, but lasts infinitely longer. Of course, OPC could last longer if it didn't use ferrous reinforcement...
> The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B lays out the wage floor for its operators at $73.91 per hour. That’s $150,000 a year before overtime, plus benefits equal to $32.50 an hour. When the operator is behind the controls of a tower crane, he gets a $2-an-hour bump. On weekends, when cranes are moved, pay doubles. With overtime, many union members earn half a million dollars a year.
And they don't have to take their work home with them! Wow, I'm in the wrong line of work.
And they don't have to take their work home with them! Wow, I'm in the wrong line of work.
Question: Why didn't the guy just pack up the crane and take it elsewhere? The issues that make tower cranes unsafe and expensive aren't unique to New York City, and if Austin, TX was any indication, there has been a shortage of cranes due to construction activity worldwide.
Is there something about the economics or the licensing that makes this crane only work in New York City?
Is there something about the economics or the licensing that makes this crane only work in New York City?
That was my thought too, I'm sure there's many cities to market his product. He needs to get on his GaryVee train and start calling every city until he finds places to land. Bring it up to Vancouver, most of our downtown is low rise and would probably make this ideal. And making $400,000 means he could probably take a year off as well.
He still works as a crane operator in NYC and likely knows (only) that market.
Unions have a purpose. Suppressing innovation and competition to protect their gravy train monopoly should not be one of them.
Not all unions are bad.
Unions serve a purpose in many industries but today a lot of them are antiquated echoes from the past.
Uber drivers should have a union IMO, but the ATeachers Union and Manhattan construction industry should have theirs disrupted by something more fitting for the new reality they have too much power. The construction industry literally have people holdning signal flags the entire day.
Furthermore when it comes to Manhattan lets not forget how much wiseguys control many of the cities industries.
Unions serve a purpose in many industries but today a lot of them are antiquated echoes from the past.
Uber drivers should have a union IMO, but the ATeachers Union and Manhattan construction industry should have theirs disrupted by something more fitting for the new reality they have too much power. The construction industry literally have people holdning signal flags the entire day.
Furthermore when it comes to Manhattan lets not forget how much wiseguys control many of the cities industries.
people are not holding signal flags bc the contractor wants to higher more people but DOT state or federal require it.
I wouldn't be surprised that it's because the unions have been fighting for it.
Other places around the world can figure out to slow traffic down without having flaggers.
Other places around the world can figure out to slow traffic down without having flaggers.
I support union, but when a crane operator makes $500,000/year just because of union and location factor, I become ashamed. This reminded me of story from a few years ago about Spanish air traffic controllers making $1,000,000/year+ while others in far more wealthy Eurozone made 1/10th of that.
They often don't see it that way - they see goals, not purposes, and suppressing competition is one of the more common and obvious means to achieve that goal.
Unions themselves are not the problem. It's the union-government partnership that prevents the market from operating properly.
[deleted]
"In April 2014, City Councilman Ben Kallos, who received $2,500 over two elections from Local 14, introduced new legislation to prohibit climber cranes like the Skypicker from being classified as mobile cranes. The rule would treat the Skypicker like a tower crane, requiring it to carry more insurance and have a Class A operator."
Wow. So, for the price of a laptop I could influence NYC politics and have a councilman of my very own ?
I don't even live in New York and it's still tempting, if only for the lulz.
Do you think Mr. Kallos would pull me in a rickshaw when I visit ? Or would I need an extra fifty bucks ?
Wow. So, for the price of a laptop I could influence NYC politics and have a councilman of my very own ?
I don't even live in New York and it's still tempting, if only for the lulz.
Do you think Mr. Kallos would pull me in a rickshaw when I visit ? Or would I need an extra fifty bucks ?
Honestly, I don't think most people realize just how cheaply politicians can be "influenced" compared to the effect they can have. I mean, $2,500 for a local politician seems cheap to us, but to a corporation making billions a year, $250,000 per year for a congressperson is a similar bargain. In this case, that small $2,500 donation was enough of a foot in the door to (allegedly) create hundreds of thousands or millions of extra dollars per year in revenue; where else can you get that kind of ROI?
People pay too much attention to the money. He wasn't "bought" with the $2500, he was "bought" with the guaranteed votes from union members for supporting it.
The monetary incentive aside - on principle, it's a good thing that a group of people can arrange with a politician to specify the policy they want to see and then vote for that politician to enact it, right?
And the volunteers working for him rather than his opponent.
It is amazing what cheap dates politicians generally are, even at the national level. The largest numbers you see (eg, pharma industry) are in the low millions.
They do a really good job of painting the union as the culprit here without any evidence whatsoever. The first comment on the article suggests a competing crane company was responsible. I think that is just as likely.
Anyhow, as others in this thread have pointed out, the skycranes are back in business.
Anyhow, as others in this thread have pointed out, the skycranes are back in business.
> Mooney was told his crane didn’t have to go through the long approval process required for newly designed large cranes and that it could be approved as a mobile crane.
There has to be some kind of miscommunication going on here. By what definition is his crane mobile? Because it's easier to disassemble and load on to a truck than a tower crane? While the DoB's classifications for cranes seems arbitrary, I can't say I blame them for not considering it mobile.
There has to be some kind of miscommunication going on here. By what definition is his crane mobile? Because it's easier to disassemble and load on to a truck than a tower crane? While the DoB's classifications for cranes seems arbitrary, I can't say I blame them for not considering it mobile.
Too bad they weren't as popular, well known, or well funded as Uber/Lyft to deal with this type of anti-progress nonsense.
I've been meaning for a long time to start a site to track these events of businesses getting sidelined over regulatory hurdles - similar to those sites who track police shootings. Collecting data is the best way to bring light to prevalent but maligned issues like these. I get the impression there are hundreds of these small stories that could have had an impact on the marketplace but get crushed by regulatory/incumbent barriers.
We only ever hear about it when a big company runs into these issues. But for the most part it's usually people who are already taking a huge financial risk to do an entrepreneurial activity and they don't have the runway/capital to deal with the problem, let alone invest the time to draw attention to the issue in the press or politically.
I've been meaning for a long time to start a site to track these events of businesses getting sidelined over regulatory hurdles - similar to those sites who track police shootings. Collecting data is the best way to bring light to prevalent but maligned issues like these. I get the impression there are hundreds of these small stories that could have had an impact on the marketplace but get crushed by regulatory/incumbent barriers.
We only ever hear about it when a big company runs into these issues. But for the most part it's usually people who are already taking a huge financial risk to do an entrepreneurial activity and they don't have the runway/capital to deal with the problem, let alone invest the time to draw attention to the issue in the press or politically.
> During the many hours of downtime on job sites, perched hundreds of feet above the street, he would pull out a journal and sketch new ideas for cranes, hoping to solve some of the machines’ fundamental problems.
Per last week's discussion, who owns those sketches? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13921433
Per last week's discussion, who owns those sketches? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13921433
Well, he owns the company, so it's moot:
> The 50-year-old crane operator and president of crane leasing company Vertikal Solutions was helping to build the 34-story Hilton Garden Inn in midtown.
> The 50-year-old crane operator and president of crane leasing company Vertikal Solutions was helping to build the 34-story Hilton Garden Inn in midtown.
I really doubt a crane operator's contract said anything about assigning IP to his employer. If that is the case, he owns them.
tl;dr - It's like a crawler (mobile with a boom, street level crane) but you put it on top of something already there. Since its on top of something, it's not a "mobile" crane and couldn't get certified as one, however, it also didn't fit into the tower crane (tall, lifts things) certification. So it got stuck in between two classifications and as a result made it too hard for construction companies to bother including it in their building proposals (the only way that NYC would allow anyone to use it... maybe).
It could, and did, get approved as a mobile crane.
Then it was unapproved, thanks to political pressure.
Then it was unapproved, thanks to political pressure.
Apparently the regulators thought it was mounted on a truck, but when they went in person to inspect it they discovered that he had built some sort of jury rigged contraption to move it around instead. This made it fall outside of their definition of a mobile crane.
The article insinuates that the union was behind it all, but I'm not convinced he didn't just piss off the regulators in this case.
The article insinuates that the union was behind it all, but I'm not convinced he didn't just piss off the regulators in this case.
That version of events turns out to be inaccurate:
-- Delia Shumway, a professional engineer and the executive director of the agency’s Cranes and Derricks Unit when the Skypicker was approved, emailed me that Chandler confused the Skypicker revocation with a ruling about an entirely different crane.
Shumway wrote, “He’s the one that’s misinformed. The piece of equipment that he’s referring to was not the Skypicker but IBK’s knockoff of the Skypicker. That machine was not in compliance. There was never any argument about that.” --
[1]http://buildingnyc.org/crains-crane-inventor-gives-his-side-...
-- Delia Shumway, a professional engineer and the executive director of the agency’s Cranes and Derricks Unit when the Skypicker was approved, emailed me that Chandler confused the Skypicker revocation with a ruling about an entirely different crane.
Shumway wrote, “He’s the one that’s misinformed. The piece of equipment that he’s referring to was not the Skypicker but IBK’s knockoff of the Skypicker. That machine was not in compliance. There was never any argument about that.” --
[1]http://buildingnyc.org/crains-crane-inventor-gives-his-side-...
That link has the best quote I've seen in ages: "We know that building construction requires a great deal of fabrication..."
There's no evidence of political pressure provided. There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated suggesting.
Looking at the crane though. Approving it as a mobile crane seems a bit on the bonkers side. Mobile cranes are self contained units and provide their own stability through mass. This bolts to the building. Which, if memory serves, was where building cranes were failing a few years back.
It's based on a JOMAC[1] boom crane, which are intended to be used on trucks.
I can see why someone might want to have them tested before approving them.
[1] http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/
I can see why someone might want to have them tested before approving them.
[1] http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/
Did we read the same article? You excluded what the current crane operator union was doing to prevent this thing from being used which seemed like the meat of the article to me.
There's no evidence of the union activity to prevent this crane from being used. There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated leading the reader to conclude this. There is a very strong anti-union bias throughout the article, with zero support for the allegations and finger-pointing. But it's well done, because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof.
> because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof.
I did no such thing. A `TL;DR` is typically a summation of an article. The primary narrative in the article was the union stifling this businessman. Whether it's true or not doesn't really effect a summary of the content itself.
To openly state a summary without including the primary narrative of the article seems disingenuous to the article you're summarizing, in my opinion.
I did no such thing. A `TL;DR` is typically a summation of an article. The primary narrative in the article was the union stifling this businessman. Whether it's true or not doesn't really effect a summary of the content itself.
To openly state a summary without including the primary narrative of the article seems disingenuous to the article you're summarizing, in my opinion.
I meant "you're" in the universal sense as a reader.
In my opinion, a tl;dr that glosses over pointing out the unsubstantiated crux of an article's narrative is a major disservice. It's fine to sum up the narrative. It's just as disingenuous to fail to point out the narrative lacks evidentiary support whatsoever.
In my opinion, a tl;dr that glosses over pointing out the unsubstantiated crux of an article's narrative is a major disservice. It's fine to sum up the narrative. It's just as disingenuous to fail to point out the narrative lacks evidentiary support whatsoever.
Fair enough
I was more answering the question in the clickbait-ish title then trying to summarize the entire article.
This article is from almost a year ago; any update on what's happened on this issue since then?
It seems that this might be a new push by their PR firm (which is very good I guess, the article is very flattering and small-guy vs union side and all the right buttons)
http://gothamgr.com/media-coverage/
http://gothamgr.com/media-coverage/
It looks like they subsequently received their certification:
http://vertikalsolutions.net/products/
> NYC SKYPICKER CERTIFICATION
> The SKYPICKER MDS is approved for use by the New York City Department of Buildings division of Cranes and Derricks
This article might have been organized by a PR firm, but if so, I guess it's already been successful.
http://vertikalsolutions.net/products/
> NYC SKYPICKER CERTIFICATION
> The SKYPICKER MDS is approved for use by the New York City Department of Buildings division of Cranes and Derricks
This article might have been organized by a PR firm, but if so, I guess it's already been successful.
Good find - the video of the crane 'vertically relocating' itself is pretty amazing.
Holy crap, yes, that video should be the center piece here. That's an absolutely amazing idea.
It looks like that feature is also part of what the regulators were concerned about the safety of (in terms of how firmly it manages to attach to the building levels).
Per the payback machine, that text was added in late 2014 or early 2015, well before the article was written (It was approved in 2012 but then revoked in 2013 though).
Good find :) .
This is why it's so important to have government regulation, so that an interested party can use their political connections to guarantee themselves monopoly profits.
It can go the other way too. Sometimes interested parties use their political connections to guarantee themselves, you know, clean air and clean drinking water.
I wonder whether the inventor would have better luck shipping his cranes to another state where the regulatory barriers would not be so steep. Lots of mid/high-rise buildings going up in places that are not NYC...
I think the main advantage of this crane is that it is bolted to the building, therefore falls under the general insurance policy of the development, whereas tower cranes require a separate policy, which as the article states, are basically impossible to secure right now in NYC. It's interesting to see this article now, as I was just reading about the litigation following the crane collapse at One57 which involved a dispute with the insurer over whether it should be covered by the general insurance policy.
If your crane can be deemed a part of the structure itself, you save millions in insurance costs.
Insurance costs for tower cranes are insane in NYC due to the risks - there were big payouts after a few collapses which killed people. As there are not that many tower cranes in NYC to begin with, this risk pool is not very large.
If your crane can be deemed a part of the structure itself, you save millions in insurance costs.
Insurance costs for tower cranes are insane in NYC due to the risks - there were big payouts after a few collapses which killed people. As there are not that many tower cranes in NYC to begin with, this risk pool is not very large.
Seriously - the NYC-centricity of this article is astonishing. People need a basic lesson in logic - just because "if you can make it there you can make it anywhere," doesn't imply the reverse - if you can't make it in NYC you can always try somewhere else.
"Crain's Cranes of New York"
Correct me if I'm wrong (the article is now behind a paywall for me), but the skypicker was fast-track approved under a Bloomberg program, then unapproved under a new administration, perhaps because it hadn't been tested properly and was miscategorized.
Given that it is a boom crane, normally mounted on a truck, with a custom mounting and lifting system (the kind of thing that has peeled off of buildings before), I'm not seeing the big deal.
http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/
Given that it is a boom crane, normally mounted on a truck, with a custom mounting and lifting system (the kind of thing that has peeled off of buildings before), I'm not seeing the big deal.
http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/
Unions are great. It's also great the whole world isn't run by unions. Meaning, I don't understand why a less union friendly city in the US, china, UAE, anywhere, doesn't pick up his equipment and run with it. After years of drug testing perhaps other cities like NYC will be ready for human trials.
Why is this little construction crane not being used in other cities?
This is what is the oddest piece of the story to me. There are lots of cities where these buildings are built. Mid-size cities. If the cost of the tower crane is so much more than this one, then the cost of transport should be minimal.
This is what is the oddest piece of the story to me. There are lots of cities where these buildings are built. Mid-size cities. If the cost of the tower crane is so much more than this one, then the cost of transport should be minimal.
He should try peddling it in Toronto. There are over 100 high-rises under construction in the area.
I found a video https://youtu.be/5_PjCwMEdSY. It looks like the crane elevates itself before a new concrete floor has forms built and is poured.
Judging from a recent Nova I watched on current advancements in nuclear technology, he should pack up his cranes and move shop to China. China seems more willing to try industry changing tech these days.
Why not just hire a "Class A operator" to operate it? It'll still be huge cost savings, right? And the union will stop stonewalling them, and they can go into business.
How operation of this machine is different from pretty standard small derrick cranes? Like Liebherr DR? Or even spider cranes (Maeda & others)?
The Liebherr you reference is a dismantling crane, so obvious difference in usage there, and spiders/mini crawler are mobile cranes.
The Skypicker is bolted to the floor of the building, and when the next level is ready to go in, it hauls itself up to the height of the next floor through a hole, which is then finished around the crane, which is once again bolted to the floor. The last 30 seconds of the video on this page show how it relocates: http://vertikalsolutions.net/products/
The Skypicker is bolted to the floor of the building, and when the next level is ready to go in, it hauls itself up to the height of the next floor through a hole, which is then finished around the crane, which is once again bolted to the floor. The last 30 seconds of the video on this page show how it relocates: http://vertikalsolutions.net/products/
I'm sorry, but I steadfastly refuse to complain about the unions. All you NYC based software developers probably have no idea to what extent the overall high standard of living in the NE is largely due to so many laborers being able to make a good living doing something that isn't tech.
Many cities need his cranes. Why not relocating the business?
Dumb admission of the day: the domain name, crainsnewyork.com, combined with a story about cranes caused a temporary brain short circuit. I thought "holy shit, this is a really impressive website for NY crane wonks".
Ha! I didn't even register that the domain was not spelled cranesnewyork. I, too, saw the URL and thought "a story about a crane on a crane blog, I should be a bit wary of a bias of some sort"
It is, however 1am for me currently and I did not sleep well last night (beware drinking Armenian homemade vodka (a.k.a. Moonshine made with things other than corn) with native Armenians, they don't allow empty glasses until the vodka is gone), so I'm not firing on all cylinders.
It is, however 1am for me currently and I did not sleep well last night (beware drinking Armenian homemade vodka (a.k.a. Moonshine made with things other than corn) with native Armenians, they don't allow empty glasses until the vodka is gone), so I'm not firing on all cylinders.
Just a side not, I have to admit that I love the nested parens.
Haha, programmer's grammar. I couldn't be bothered to construct the sentence correctly, nested parens did the job clearly enough.
This is interesting. That said for some reason I think that posts like this stray far from the purpose of a site like this as it is more of a general interest and not specific to startups or technology.
I wonder if PG's 'anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity' conflicts with his 'If they'd cover it on TV news' (where I assume TV news is actually broader than just what would be on TV news and includes items of a more general audience business interest).
What's the issue exactly? It crowds out and distracts from stories that might be of more value and relevance than simply something that is interesting.
Maybe a new way to describe would be 'of interest to hackers and relevant to what they do in a strong way'.
I wonder if PG's 'anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity' conflicts with his 'If they'd cover it on TV news' (where I assume TV news is actually broader than just what would be on TV news and includes items of a more general audience business interest).
What's the issue exactly? It crowds out and distracts from stories that might be of more value and relevance than simply something that is interesting.
Maybe a new way to describe would be 'of interest to hackers and relevant to what they do in a strong way'.
This has everything to do with regulation, certification, union relations, etc., issues in some ways similar to what an AirBnB, Uber, or other tech company will deal with when introducing innovations or different business models.
Hmm. I think it is a relevant post - given I worked at construction sites (as an excavator) and my granddad as an actual crane operator, I have a bit of background in the field ;)
Also, it's about legal blabla that is abused to protect certain classes of work from any disrutption by startups - just like the dozens of similar startup posts, only that this one is in the "non-digital" spsce.
Also, it's about legal blabla that is abused to protect certain classes of work from any disrutption by startups - just like the dozens of similar startup posts, only that this one is in the "non-digital" spsce.
This is arguably a story about a disruptive hardware play that's being hampered by legal troubles.
Does this little crane also construct the paywall ?
Just an exposé of Corrupt Bureaucracy.
Skypicker presented the department with plans for a small, truck-mounted crane... However, when we inspected the Skypicker in use at a construction site, we found something significantly different: The crane was attached to a building slab, and appeared to be a hodgepodge of parts from other cranes, mounted on a homemade, untested base.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160623/OPINION/160629...
And the inventor shoots back:
The executive director of the [Department of Buildings] Cranes and Derricks Unit when the Skypicker was approved emailed me that [Department of Buildings Commissioner] Chandler confused the Skypicker revocation with a ruling about an entirely different crane... He’s the one that’s misinformed.
http://buildingnyc.org/crains-crane-inventor-gives-his-side-...