6 ms·

More people need to know about the role unions play in obstructing new construction. From locking up permits in CEQA reviews to blocking pre-fabricated structu

More people need to know about the role unions play in obstructing new construction. From locking up permits in CEQA reviews to blocking pre-fabricated structures, they are one of the driving factors behind a housing unit costing $700k at the very minimum. This puts housing out of reach for anyone making less than $150k/year. It’s a 3rd rail issue for anyone in the democratic machine, which is why we won’t see meaningful progress in housing or homelessness under the current incumbents. I’m actually pro union in most other contexts, especially when workers are underdogs. But in CA there are some unions which are quite powerful, exclusionary, and have negative effects on society.

Moru 2y ago
If not the unions, there is always someone else that drives the prices up. In Sweden we don't have this problem with the Unions but it's still very expensive with housing.
- csharpminor 2y ago
  The same problem can have different causes. Forgive me, but this sounds like rationalized fatalism. I’m genuinely curious, what keeps Sweden from building more cheap housing?
ako 2y ago
I bet the unions are seeing pre-fabricated structures the same way actors and writers are looking at AI, technology taking away jobs. I’m sure we’ll see much more of this in the future.
- jamil7 2y ago
  Apparently the city was outsourcing to prefab firms outside of SF and many of the projects had safety violations that couldn’t be inspected because everything was already put together on arrival.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Put aside for a moment that this is a classic tactic to ban something. Tear through a bunch of them looking for any imperfections whatsoever, ignoring any equivalent imperfections in the status quo, then exaggerate the issue and propose prohibition as the solution. Even if the problem is real, why is the solution prohibition? Put liability on the manufacturer for regulatory non-compliance, the same as we do for cars or appliances or any other prefabricated product.
    - sokoloff 2y ago
      > Even if the problem is real, why is the solution prohibition? Because the problem for the union isn’t the safety concerns, it’s the fact that labor from outside was used to make it.
  - LanceH 2y ago
    Another tactic in the bay area is for a union to demand the environmental impact assessment until they are put on the job, then they withdraw their objection.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> I’m actually pro union in most other contexts, especially when workers are underdogs. But in CA there are some unions which are quite powerful, exclusionary, and have negative effects on society. The premise of unions is "bargaining power". Bargaining power comes from having alternatives. Nobody can make you take a deal worse than your next best alternative, so the way to get a good deal is to have a lot of alternatives. The best way to get it for labor is to have lots of prospective employers for people with your skill set, i.e. for your industry not to be a monopoly. Unions nominally do this the other way around. Instead of giving employees more options, they try to give employers less. But most of the time that doesn't work. You can unionize some baristas or something, but then you go on strike and the company hires different baristas and doesn't care. By contrast, if the employer is a monopoly, then they often have to hire most of the people with that skill set. If they're all in the union, the employer can't just replace them because there are no more. This is when unions can behave like a monopoly themselves and dictate terms. But monopolies are bad. When a union has a monopoly, they do exactly the sort of things which are happening in this case, which is terrible for society and especially anyone who needs the product the union makes. The correct solution isn't unions, it's to break up monopolistic employers so that individual workers -- and customers -- have bargaining power. Which is to say, alternatives, not their own adversarial monopoly.
- mrandish 2y ago
  > it's to break up monopolistic employers Indeed. And the primary method employers use to gain monopolistic leverage is limiting competition by barring new entrants through government regulation, licensing, permitting, etc. Anytime we give government bureaucrats power to regulate, license, permit, etc, that power becomes a highly desirable target for crony capture, either legal through lobbyists, campaign donations etc or illegal through bribes and revolving-door influence peddling. Like you, I have no problem with unions in concept. Employees should be free to organize and choose who to work for (or not to work for) as they see fit — as long as employers also have the corresponding freedom to choose who to hire (or dismiss) as they see fit. When everyone is free to opt-in or out, everyone has an incentive to find mutually agreeable terms. This creates a naturally sustainable market-driven balance between the parties. The problem comes in those states which don't have "right to work" protections. In those states a union can legally force an employer to hire only union members (or the government sends police to shut the business down). It can also force an existing employee to join the union (ie give the union part of their paycheck) or they lose their job, even if the employee sees no benefit to joining the union (which happened to a friend of mine). As you'd expect, once any party in a transaction loses their freedom to choose, this imbalance is eventually exploited and abused.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gosub100 2y ago
> This puts housing out of reach for anyone making less than $150k/year Then more labor sectors should unionize! Make the wealthy pay the true cost for living in their communities. Not live with all this government protection and regulations, then outsource production to a free state a thousand miles away. If regulation and taxes are the problem, then fix the problem. You can't have it both ways.

Moru 2y ago

If not the unions, there is always someone else that drives the prices up. In Sweden we don't have this problem with the Unions but it's still very expensive with housing.

csharpminor 2y ago
The same problem can have different causes. Forgive me, but this sounds like rationalized fatalism. I’m genuinely curious, what keeps Sweden from building more cheap housing?

ako 2y ago

I bet the unions are seeing pre-fabricated structures the same way actors and writers are looking at AI, technology taking away jobs. I’m sure we’ll see much more of this in the future.

jamil7 2y ago
Apparently the city was outsourcing to prefab firms outside of SF and many of the projects had safety violations that couldn’t be inspected because everything was already put together on arrival.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Put aside for a moment that this is a classic tactic to ban something. Tear through a bunch of them looking for any imperfections whatsoever, ignoring any equivalent imperfections in the status quo, then exaggerate the issue and propose prohibition as the solution. Even if the problem is real, why is the solution prohibition? Put liability on the manufacturer for regulatory non-compliance, the same as we do for cars or appliances or any other prefabricated product.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    > Even if the problem is real, why is the solution prohibition? Because the problem for the union isn’t the safety concerns, it’s the fact that labor from outside was used to make it.
- LanceH 2y ago
  Another tactic in the bay area is for a union to demand the environmental impact assessment until they are put on the job, then they withdraw their objection.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> I’m actually pro union in most other contexts, especially when workers are underdogs. But in CA there are some unions which are quite powerful, exclusionary, and have negative effects on society. The premise of unions is "bargaining power". Bargaining power comes from having alternatives. Nobody can make you take a deal worse than your next best alternative, so the way to get a good deal is to have a lot of alternatives. The best way to get it for labor is to have lots of prospective employers for people with your skill set, i.e. for your industry not to be a monopoly. Unions nominally do this the other way around. Instead of giving employees more options, they try to give employers less. But most of the time that doesn't work. You can unionize some baristas or something, but then you go on strike and the company hires different baristas and doesn't care. By contrast, if the employer is a monopoly, then they often have to hire most of the people with that skill set. If they're all in the union, the employer can't just replace them because there are no more. This is when unions can behave like a monopoly themselves and dictate terms. But monopolies are bad. When a union has a monopoly, they do exactly the sort of things which are happening in this case, which is terrible for society and especially anyone who needs the product the union makes. The correct solution isn't unions, it's to break up monopolistic employers so that individual workers -- and customers -- have bargaining power. Which is to say, alternatives, not their own adversarial monopoly.

mrandish 2y ago
> it's to break up monopolistic employers Indeed. And the primary method employers use to gain monopolistic leverage is limiting competition by barring new entrants through government regulation, licensing, permitting, etc. Anytime we give government bureaucrats power to regulate, license, permit, etc, that power becomes a highly desirable target for crony capture, either legal through lobbyists, campaign donations etc or illegal through bribes and revolving-door influence peddling. Like you, I have no problem with unions in concept. Employees should be free to organize and choose who to work for (or not to work for) as they see fit — as long as employers also have the corresponding freedom to choose who to hire (or dismiss) as they see fit. When everyone is free to opt-in or out, everyone has an incentive to find mutually agreeable terms. This creates a naturally sustainable market-driven balance between the parties. The problem comes in those states which don't have "right to work" protections. In those states a union can legally force an employer to hire only union members (or the government sends police to shut the business down). It can also force an existing employee to join the union (ie give the union part of their paycheck) or they lose their job, even if the employee sees no benefit to joining the union (which happened to a friend of mine). As you'd expect, once any party in a transaction loses their freedom to choose, this imbalance is eventually exploited and abused.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gosub100 2y ago

> This puts housing out of reach for anyone making less than $150k/year Then more labor sectors should unionize! Make the wealthy pay the true cost for living in their communities. Not live with all this government protection and regulations, then outsource production to a free state a thousand miles away. If regulation and taxes are the problem, then fix the problem. You can't have it both ways.