22 ms·

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.

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.

stcredzero 10y ago
extract a lot of questionable value from society. So they've become "extractive" in the parlance of economists and sociologists studying 3rd world economies?
- JBReefer 10y ago
  Right, or you could say that they were successful rent-seekers.
tyingq 10y ago
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.
- derefr 10y ago
  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.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    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. :)
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    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.
  - ufmace 10y ago
    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.
VLM 10y ago
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.
- fiter 10y ago
  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.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    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
  - LordKano 10y ago
    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.
    - jlg23 10y ago
      In principle, I agree with you, but in practice: Don't use my urinal if you don't like it. Liberalism goes both ways.
atom-morgan 10y ago
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.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  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?
  - jlg23 10y ago
    > 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.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    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.
- gingerbread-man 10y ago
  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.
milesrout 10y ago
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.
- turc1656 10y ago
  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.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    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.
    - turc1656 10y ago
      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.
LordKano 10y ago
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.
wahern 10y ago
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.
kafkaesq 10y ago
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)
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Who said anything about backroom cahoots? They're openly protesting.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    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.
    - notgood 10y ago
      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.
      - kafkaesq 10y ago
        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.
        kelnos 10y ago
        (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.
wfo 10y ago
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.
- crusso 10y ago
  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.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Wow! Many industries have "suffered and died" at the hands of unions? That is an amazing claim.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      SMH at the libertarians who beleive competition magically always maintains itself in a free market.
  - jlawer 10y ago
    >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?
ahoy 10y ago
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".
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  The difference is when either the union or a corporation successfully hijacks law enforcement to promote its members' interests over those of the public.
  - wahern 10y ago
    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.
- imgabe 10y ago
  There are plenty of people saying the former when corporations act in their own interests.
- a_puppy 10y ago
  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-libertarian-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta... (see section 2.5)
Spooky23 10y ago
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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ryandvm 10y ago
This is the kind of stuff that makes me chuckle every time someone suggests a software developers union.
- bjourne 10y ago
  Because it would be completely horrible awful if programmers were making $500k/year (convert to your local currency as you see fit) like 'effing crane operators? :)
  - kelnos 10y ago
    That might be good for programmers, but is it good for society?
    - bjourne 10y ago
      Yes, absolutely.
brudgers 10y ago
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_building_conservation_reports_plans_and_waterless_urinals_-s-.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/50076-22-09_build... See also: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local_laws/ll41of2012.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local_laws/ll41of2012.... for the larger law as of 2012.

stcredzero 10y ago

extract a lot of questionable value from society. So they've become "extractive" in the parlance of economists and sociologists studying 3rd world economies?

JBReefer 10y ago
Right, or you could say that they were successful rent-seekers.

tyingq 10y ago

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.

derefr 10y ago
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.
- tyingq 10y ago
  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. :)
- Spooky23 10y ago
  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.
- ufmace 10y ago
  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.

VLM 10y ago

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.

fiter 10y ago
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.
- brudgers 10y ago
  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
- LordKano 10y ago
  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.
  - jlg23 10y ago
    In principle, I agree with you, but in practice: Don't use my urinal if you don't like it. Liberalism goes both ways.

atom-morgan 10y ago

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.

RangerScience 10y ago
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?
- jlg23 10y ago
  > 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.
- viraptor 10y ago
  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.
gingerbread-man 10y ago
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.

milesrout 10y ago

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.

turc1656 10y ago
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.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  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.
  - turc1656 10y ago
    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.

LordKano 10y ago

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.

wahern 10y ago

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.

kafkaesq 10y ago

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)

Dylan16807 10y ago
Who said anything about backroom cahoots? They're openly protesting.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  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.
  - notgood 10y ago
    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.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      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.
      - kelnos 10y ago
        (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.

wfo 10y ago

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.

crusso 10y ago
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.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Wow! Many industries have "suffered and died" at the hands of unions? That is an amazing claim.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    SMH at the libertarians who beleive competition magically always maintains itself in a free market.
- jlawer 10y ago
  >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?

ahoy 10y ago

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".

andrewflnr 10y ago
The difference is when either the union or a corporation successfully hijacks law enforcement to promote its members' interests over those of the public.
- wahern 10y ago
  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.
imgabe 10y ago
There are plenty of people saying the former when corporations act in their own interests.
a_puppy 10y ago
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-libertarian-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta... (see section 2.5)

Spooky23 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ryandvm 10y ago

This is the kind of stuff that makes me chuckle every time someone suggests a software developers union.

bjourne 10y ago
Because it would be completely horrible awful if programmers were making $500k/year (convert to your local currency as you see fit) like 'effing crane operators? :)
- kelnos 10y ago
  That might be good for programmers, but is it good for society?
  - bjourne 10y ago
    Yes, absolutely.

brudgers 10y ago

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_building_conservation_reports_plans_and_waterless_urinals_-s-.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/50076-22-09_build... See also: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local_laws/ll41of2012.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local_laws/ll41of2012.... for the larger law as of 2012.