3 ms·
The problem is that the funds wouldn't go to tradespeople doing the hard work, most of it would go into the pockets of CEOs and shareholders. (And any attempt
by bluescrn 4y ago
The problem is that the funds wouldn't go to tradespeople doing the hard work, most of it would go into the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.
(And any attempt to build anything these days, at least in the UK, will face a horde of NIMBYs and environmental activists trying to stop it, adding more to the cost and timescale if the project ever happens. Even 'green' projects like wind and solar farms face heavy opposition)
- nickff 4y agoDo you have any evidence for this? I ask because I’ve heard that public projects are overburdened with unnecessary unionized staff.
- spaetzleesser 4y agoWhen I look at other industries I would expect that if the unionized staff causes overhead and more cost then shareholders and management take a multiple of that for themselves.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoTypically what happens is that the government contract effectively requires the use of union labor, which then fixes a substantial element of the cost for all bidders due to union work rules and salaries. Insofar as price is a competitive element of the bidding, you're then talking about the other costs.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoThere's no need for hearsay on this. This is a true statement. During the construction of New York's East Side Access subway project, union rules required 18 workers to run and supervise one of the tunneling machines. The manufacturers of the machine say no more than six are required to do this, which is how many are used in hardly-slave-labor countries like Norway. Underground construction projects usually require three to four times as many staff in NYC as they do in Asia or Europe.
- nobodyandproud 4y agoAre those government employees?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoNo; they're unionized construction workers, tunnelers, carpenters etc.