5 ms·

The fact that Union participation in the work force has declined from 20% in 1983 to 10% in 2020 [1] tells me that something else is at play. [1] https://www.b

The fact that Union participation in the work force has declined from 20% in 1983 to 10% in 2020 [1] tells me that something else is at play. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

randomdata 5y ago
A lot of what unions once offered has been rolled into labour legislation. The entire workforce is now a member of the de facto union, so to speak.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  amazing to watch entire generations stumble forward without understanding "retirement,healthcare,workhours,promotion" since you know, "I have never had a problem".. Everyone is protected now.. yeah, thats it
  - randomdata 5y ago
    The unionization movement was built on solving the safety issues of the day for workers exposed to employers who found employees to be expendable. The topic here is about how those safety expectations once established by unions slow down construction. Labor laws now cover those concerns, so the decline in unionization is largely irrelevant. The entire workforce has become a member of the de facto union.
    - pseudo0 5y ago
      That's a rather limited view of the role of unions. One of their biggest accomplishments was the establishment of a standard 40 hour work week as the norm. That was mostly about work/life balance, not safety. And that certainly isn't codified in labor laws, given the remarkably loose overtime rules for most salaried employees today.
      - randomdata 5y ago
        How does that pertain to the discussion? We’re not focused on talking about unions here, we’re talking about why construction projects take a long time, so what does that mean for project duration?
taeric 5y ago
I lean in your direction on this. However, I am worried that this evidence doesn't say what we think it says. Is it that there was more growth in non union fields? It is conceivable that union work is still responsible for much in the building realm. That combined with a non growing workforce could easily explain slowness. Combined with basic supply/demand thinking can then explain costs.
- crowbahr 5y ago
  > Is it that there was more growth in non union fields? Most unionized labor in the US was outsourced during the deindustrialization of the USA. More than 6 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the US between 2001 and 2010 (representing approximately 1/3 of all manufacturing jobs). So yes: non union fields are growing, mostly because unionized jobs were busted by companies shipping production overseas. The jobs that "replaced" the good labor of industry are mostly poverty wage service jobs which require very little training. As there's little investment per-worker Unions have effectively 0 bargaining power: Scabbing a strike is simple when you only need 2 hours of training to do their jobs. Funnily enough the USA manufactures more goods than ever in its history, accounting for ~6 trillion USD of our GDP in 2019.
  - taeric 5y ago
    But this really doesn't feel to be talking to my question. Local building of infrastructure isn't really offshoreable, is it? Such that I get a ton of things were shipped overseas. Not entirely clear that explains why building locally is so expensive. Your last line indicates that robotics and other large scale industrialization can be pointed at. We manufacture more with far fewer resources? But, back to my hypothesis that i would love to see shot down. Is the only labor left in large unions in a position that they are in the critical path of building? (Note, that if true, the answer isn't necessarily to bust unions, but to expand their base significantly. I could easily believe that their funds have been starved such that they aren't growing due to so much money being funneled away from them.)
starkd 5y ago
While private union participation has sharply declined, public unions are still quite powerful and present a virtual lock on substantial changes. Witness the teachers' unions. Particularly, their obstinance during the pandemic and reluctance to providing true school choice.
- TimPC 5y ago
  True school choice is an illusion as long as private schools are free to decline unwanted students that cost more to teach. The advocates of such policies tend to ignore the fact that it would leave disabled and other special needs students in a public system that no longer had enough other students to pay for their higher costs. That’s a problem that requires an adequate solution before any type of voucher is reasonable.
  - starkd 5y ago
    A fair point. But the unions have been anything but reasonable on this issue. True, some have opened up to charter schools, but many have rescinded that option as soon as it was politically feasible. True choice can only happen when a different management of schools is in place. They have been obstinately against this.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    >The advocates of such policies tend to ignore the fact that it would leave disabled and other special needs students in a public system that no longer had enough other students to pay for their higher costs. People already pay for public schooling through income and property taxes, whether they're children use it or not. I don't see how your theory prevents higher cost students from being taught. It just sounds like you're advocating for a crab bucket.
    - TimPC 5y ago
      Every proposal I’ve seen for vouchers tries to tie the amount to average spending per student. My point is that’s fundamentally unfair because private schools are only interested in students that cost below the average to educate. They work hard to exclude and disqualify those with costly special needs. The result is you leave the public education system with all the high cost students but still getting the $X k they had per student when they had low cost students too. The net result of vouchers is raising the per capita cost of public education without raising the per capita funding. That’s unfair to everyone forced into using that system.

randomdata 5y ago

A lot of what unions once offered has been rolled into labour legislation. The entire workforce is now a member of the de facto union, so to speak.

mistrial9 5y ago
amazing to watch entire generations stumble forward without understanding "retirement,healthcare,workhours,promotion" since you know, "I have never had a problem".. Everyone is protected now.. yeah, thats it
- randomdata 5y ago
  The unionization movement was built on solving the safety issues of the day for workers exposed to employers who found employees to be expendable. The topic here is about how those safety expectations once established by unions slow down construction. Labor laws now cover those concerns, so the decline in unionization is largely irrelevant. The entire workforce has become a member of the de facto union.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    That's a rather limited view of the role of unions. One of their biggest accomplishments was the establishment of a standard 40 hour work week as the norm. That was mostly about work/life balance, not safety. And that certainly isn't codified in labor laws, given the remarkably loose overtime rules for most salaried employees today.
    - randomdata 5y ago
      How does that pertain to the discussion? We’re not focused on talking about unions here, we’re talking about why construction projects take a long time, so what does that mean for project duration?

taeric 5y ago

I lean in your direction on this. However, I am worried that this evidence doesn't say what we think it says. Is it that there was more growth in non union fields? It is conceivable that union work is still responsible for much in the building realm. That combined with a non growing workforce could easily explain slowness. Combined with basic supply/demand thinking can then explain costs.

crowbahr 5y ago
> Is it that there was more growth in non union fields? Most unionized labor in the US was outsourced during the deindustrialization of the USA. More than 6 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the US between 2001 and 2010 (representing approximately 1/3 of all manufacturing jobs). So yes: non union fields are growing, mostly because unionized jobs were busted by companies shipping production overseas. The jobs that "replaced" the good labor of industry are mostly poverty wage service jobs which require very little training. As there's little investment per-worker Unions have effectively 0 bargaining power: Scabbing a strike is simple when you only need 2 hours of training to do their jobs. Funnily enough the USA manufactures more goods than ever in its history, accounting for ~6 trillion USD of our GDP in 2019.
- taeric 5y ago
  But this really doesn't feel to be talking to my question. Local building of infrastructure isn't really offshoreable, is it? Such that I get a ton of things were shipped overseas. Not entirely clear that explains why building locally is so expensive. Your last line indicates that robotics and other large scale industrialization can be pointed at. We manufacture more with far fewer resources? But, back to my hypothesis that i would love to see shot down. Is the only labor left in large unions in a position that they are in the critical path of building? (Note, that if true, the answer isn't necessarily to bust unions, but to expand their base significantly. I could easily believe that their funds have been starved such that they aren't growing due to so much money being funneled away from them.)

starkd 5y ago

While private union participation has sharply declined, public unions are still quite powerful and present a virtual lock on substantial changes. Witness the teachers' unions. Particularly, their obstinance during the pandemic and reluctance to providing true school choice.

TimPC 5y ago
True school choice is an illusion as long as private schools are free to decline unwanted students that cost more to teach. The advocates of such policies tend to ignore the fact that it would leave disabled and other special needs students in a public system that no longer had enough other students to pay for their higher costs. That’s a problem that requires an adequate solution before any type of voucher is reasonable.
- starkd 5y ago
  A fair point. But the unions have been anything but reasonable on this issue. True, some have opened up to charter schools, but many have rescinded that option as soon as it was politically feasible. True choice can only happen when a different management of schools is in place. They have been obstinately against this.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  >The advocates of such policies tend to ignore the fact that it would leave disabled and other special needs students in a public system that no longer had enough other students to pay for their higher costs. People already pay for public schooling through income and property taxes, whether they're children use it or not. I don't see how your theory prevents higher cost students from being taught. It just sounds like you're advocating for a crab bucket.
  - TimPC 5y ago
    Every proposal I’ve seen for vouchers tries to tie the amount to average spending per student. My point is that’s fundamentally unfair because private schools are only interested in students that cost below the average to educate. They work hard to exclude and disqualify those with costly special needs. The result is you leave the public education system with all the high cost students but still getting the $X k they had per student when they had low cost students too. The net result of vouchers is raising the per capita cost of public education without raising the per capita funding. That’s unfair to everyone forced into using that system.