Well Ronny tried...

[Peter_Puget]

..to stop this excercise in corruption but the the effete liberal elite were too heavily buttressed by the trade unions and he failed...is the monorail "the big dig redux"

 

Budget 4 billion actual close to 15!

 

PP

[catbirdseat]

The Big Dig doesn't even compare to the Panama Canal.

 

Boston's Big Dig: 16 million cubic yards

Panama Canal: 211 million cubic yards

[klenke]

In my view, probably the greatest reason why large public works projects such as the monorail are so expensive now is because of the over-unionization of our blue-collar workforce. In the early 20th Century unions were weak by comparison. Things could be done for that much cheaper. Now, the average unionized construction worker is so heavily subsidized with perks, etc. (they strike so often for it, after all; and lately it's become a fad) that they require 10 times as much on a percentage basis as they received 80 years ago. When things cost $50 Billion these days, they would have cost $50 Million or less 80 years ago. This rate of increase is much greater than inflation alone. So when anything is passed by public approval or otherwise, invariably taxes are levied to pay for it. It's no wonder the percentage of our income taxes keeps going up and up and up. Will the percentage ever reach an asymptope?

 

I'm not saying I'm anti-union. I understand their import, without which corporations would have even less regard for their employees. Now it is more difficult--comparatively speaking--for companies to mistreat their employees. There's constant litigation, for instance, which itself contributes to cost. Then there is more concern with safety now than long ago. More cost ratcheting.

 

My opinion is that once unions became so large that they were able to pull strings in Congress and The White House, it was the beginning of the prohibitive cost era. Unions no longer care about the welfare of the U.S. as a whole. They're only interested in taking care of themselves, and the unionized masses often don't know better. Case in point is the requirement that you be a union member to work certain industries (like electrical workers in Washington). If that's what you do for a living, then you have to be union to do it. You can't leave the union. If you then have no choice in the matter, then that is a problem for America as a whole. It certainly benefits the Union, it doesn't benefit America.

 

We just can't get anything done in the 21st Century without it being prohibitively expensive. As William Buckley once said, "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."

 

Now I'm sure some union employees like Marylou will pipe in and toe the union line. Unions are like their own political entity. There's the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Union Branch.

[catbirdseat]

In other words, the cost didn't have anything to do with moving 16 million yards of soil in an urban environment, while still enabling cars to use the old highway. It's all the unions fault. Gotcha.

[Jim]

..to stop this excercise in corruption but the the effete liberal elite were too heavily buttressed by the trade unions and he failed...is the monorail "the big dig redux"

 

Budget 4 billion actual close to 15!

 

PP

 

Just think of what GW's $87 Billion is going to balloon into!!!

[Dru]

Case in point is the requirement that you be a union member to work certain industries (like electrical workers in Washington). If that's what you do for a living, then you have to be union to do it. You can't leave the union.

 

maybe you could make it more like guiding in the USA where anyone can call themselves a guide without certification "Hi my name's Scot'teryx and for $200 I will take you top-roping!"

 

Is there any body for professional regulation of the electricians other than the electrician's union?

[sobo]

Is there any body for professional regulation of the electricians other than the electrician's union?

 

In Washington, the Department of Labor & Industries Electrical Inspection Division requires that all electrical work for public works projects be done by licensed, bonded electricians, and inspected by the Department of L&I Electrical Inspection Division prior to energizing/use.

 

While not exactly "regulation" in the sense that I think you ask your question, at least it is "oversight" of their work.

 

FWIW.

[Dru]

"licensed, bonded" - who issues the license? The union?

[sobo]

The State.

[rbw1966]

Is there any body for professional regulation of the electricians other than the electrician's union?

 

Yes. I am. I don't want some idiot (like myself) wiring my house.

[klenke]

In other words, the cost didn't have anything to do with moving 16 million yards of soil in an urban environment, while still enabling cars to use the old highway. It's all the unions fault. Gotcha.

We don't pay the soil to move itself. We pay unionized workers to move the soil. Got me?

 

Your comment about the cars still using the highway is not germane to my point, but it does make things take longer to do because you can't simply close down the right of ways in the construction zones. Well you could but there are other issues which preclude it (like the effects on businesses in those work zones).

[JoshK]

Klenke, why don't you explain to us what you would propose to replace unions? I suppose the late 19th century and before were great, where a wealthy few employeed the masses to work for wages that would barely keep a family alive? I believe moderation and possibly better arbitration would be very useful for the situation but you'll have a hard time convincing me that we should underpay those who work all day to help make a few rich people even richer.

 

I think most of us should just consider ourselves lucky that we dont work in an industry where we need to unionize simply to avoid being shit upon.

[JoshK]

..to stop this excercise in corruption but the the effete liberal elite were too heavily buttressed by the trade unions and he failed...is the monorail "the big dig redux"

 

PP

 

Yes, Ronnie would have been a true hero. So I suppose the same goes for all your repub. buddies in congress that push through expensive, cost-overrun, and worthless military spending bills?

[klenke]

I don't propose that we replace unions. You will note that I did not say I was against them. I just think they have grown to something bigger than they need to be, that modern workplace safety (for all employees not just unionized ones) and workers rights take care of a lot of what union people think they have coming to them because they are union. It's really a checks and balances thing in my mind. Keep everything in the middle. Don't let one side get too much clout over the other.

 

My initial point sought only to explain one of the main reasons why large public infrastructure projects cost so damn much these days.

 

The other main problem is the source of this money (on a taxation basis). In the 50's and 60's many of the freeways were built. Unions at that time were getting stronger than they were but costs were still manageable on a nationwide basis. Lots and lots of roads and power lines and canals and the like were built. These are infrastructure improvements. Once these were completed there was a marked drop in the number of infrastructure projects being built. The costs for these projects minus yearly maintenance was a one-time expense. So, naturally, where will all of those continued tax revenues be spent? The 70's and 80's saw a build out of social programs. Social programs are the antithesis of infrastructure projects. Where as a nationwide infrastructure helps everyone out or at least a great percentage of us (who hasn't driven on the freeway in their life or taken power off the electrical grid?), social programs cater to individuals or groups of individuals. They are meant to help out smaller percentages of us (like programs such as Unemployment and Alcoholics Anonymous).

 

The problem is that these social programs are not a one-time expense. They are on-going. And while no single program has an annual budget of $50 Billion, over a lifespan equivalent to the life span of some segment of infrastructure (power lines, for example), the costs might become more comparable. The final problem with social programs is that they almost always immediately become institutionalized, meaning that you simply can't undo them. Sure you can reduce their yearly funds but they do still exist. As the 70's and 80's progressed, more and more social programs came into being, each with their own budget requirements.

 

Now, our infrastructure is getting old. Bridges are wearing out, Power poles and lines are deteriorating, freeways are eroding, and so on and so on. Yet even though this is the case, there is no money for it (or not as much as there once was) because a greater proportion of the tax revenue to pay for such improvements is tied up in keeping social programs running. But the programs are institutionalized and no politician is going to risk his candidacy in an attempt to abolish some or more of them.

 

I essentially separate the nation into two halves: society and infrastructure. It's hard to effectively pay for both at the same time. One must suffer and it is so much easier to let the infrastructure suffer. After all, it's not people, it's concrete and copper. Well, if you like your social programs, let's hope the power stays on for them. Let's hope we don't have another massive blackout on antiquated equipment.

[cj001f]

repub. buddies in congress that push through expensive, cost-overrun, and worthless military spending bills?

How dare you insult Boeing, an honest and trustworthy company supported by WA's fine Democratic delegation to congress!

 

Klenke -

If you wish to raise the funds to fix americas roads and bridges, the free market (and in my mind correct) solution is to tax those who cause the damage. Disporportionately this is the trucking industry - tax them based on miles driven & weight carried. And if you actually look at the federal budget - the vast majority of the discretionary spending is defense.

[klenke]

I have previously pondered your point about charging those that do the damage with the costs of fixing said damage. It appears to make sense but it does open up a real problem: the trucking industry will tell you that if they're going to be charged for 80% of costs, then the other 20% should be charged to the other users (us ordinary drivers). Will the government then pay our share or will we pay for it out of our own pockets? Either way it's a "tax burden" imposed upon us. If the trucking industry then pays for it all, then the cost of trucking cargo will go up, which ultimately is paid by the consumer (us in our singular cars). What goes around comes around.

 

I place military/defense in the society half. We only need it because of humanity's (society's) ill will toward each other. But this world is not a utopia so what can you do? It's really too bad we've got to spend so much money on defense. Unfortunately, now that we are the Superpower, we have no choice otherwise because we have to protect our interests. If we don't we die. Just what exactly are our interests on this melancholy orb is debatable. People that don't got want what you've got. That's human nature. We all like to strut around saying we aren't like that but really 95% of us are (especially us folks dragging along the lead ball of mass consumerism, which, sadly, is too many of us in America and Europe). As long as you're one of the people who would like more money, be it for whatever purpose, you'll be someone who wants what you haven't got but others have got.

 

I once brainstormed a silly thought regarding taxation: if we're paying taxes to fund social programs such as Welfare, how about then cutting out the middle man (the government entity)? Each citizen is required to give up 0.005 percent of his salary to some sorry sap on the street. Since everyone is poorer than at least one other person in the country with the exception of Bill Gates, we all stand to get some money from somewhere. Call it trickle down taxation, or a reverse pyramid scheme. By cutting out the middle man you are also cutting out the beauracracy associated with the middle man.

[sexual_chocolate]

klenke, i think you're barking up the wrong tree when you speak of union wages being too high; all union power has done is give its members living wages. What a novel concept, huh?

 

As far as our defense spending being a justified number, well that's just insane. As tax-payers, we are simply lining the pockets of defense contractors, and helping to distribute arms to all our questionable allies.

 

I truly believe a progressive tax system, with no protection for corporations under the guise of "individual rights", is the way to go: No one pays taxes for the initial, say, 15 grand; 15% for the amount made between 15 to 40 grand; 20% from 40 to 60 grand, etc etc.

 

right now we live in a corporatist oligarchy,and i for one am tired of it!

[cj001f]

I have previously pondered your point about charging those that do the damage with the costs of fixing said damage. It appears to make sense but it does open up a real problem: the trucking industry will tell you that if they're going to be charged for 80% of costs, then the other 20% should be charged to the other users (us ordinary drivers). Will the government then pay our share or will we pay for it out of our own pockets? Either way it's a "tax burden" imposed upon us. If the trucking industry then pays for it all, then the cost of trucking cargo will go up, which ultimately is paid by the consumer (us in our singular cars). What goes around comes around.

Goods should be priced what they actually cost society. Currently we all subsidize the trucking industry - no matter our patterns of consumption.

[JoshK]

To say that social programs do not benifit society as a whole is just plain uninformed. It's a well known fact that by improving the state of the poorer and less engaged members of society that soecity itself improves as a whole through increased economic prosperity, less jail resources, etc. etc. etc. Pick up an economics book.

 

You are going to spend on either social programs or more jails and police. The fact is that the people who claim they haven't gotten anything from the social programs that don't directly support them are wrong. They may not benifit directly but the ways and means that support their lives were built on the backs of other people and social programs that preceeded them.

 

I will return to a point that I like to make when this type of discussion comes up. Anybody that claims that nobody else is entitled to anything because they worked for everything they had is fooling themselves. No matter how hard you work, where you end up in your life is 90% luck.

[allthumbs]

JoshK, No matter how hard you work, where you end up in your life is 90% luck.

That's a ridiculous statement.

[SmokeShow]

Just something to think about regarding unions...

 

I worked on the Big Dig as a surveyor about 4 years ago. I didn't work for the union, my partner did. As a surveyor I was not allowed to use a shovel, a broom, or even move orange construction barrels. These were jobs for a laborer. When the union steward caught me using a broom (to sweep dirt off the point I was trying to locate) he flew into a tirade about how my paycheck didn't feed his belly. I thought he was going to crush my face with his angry Irish fist. A union laborer from a completely different construction company reprimanded me for moving construction barrels to setup a traffic move that I was laying out, as a surveyor. Now when I followed the rules I would call a laborer to shovel some dirt for me so I could locate a point. It would take at least 20 minutes for a laborer to become available and walk over to my location to spend (no kidding) less than a minute to move some dirt.

 

Working the evening shift, on a Friday night, the bar crowd would walk by and constantly coment on how 'it's no wonder that the Big Dig cost so much with everyone standing around'. And to them it did appear that about 5 people were standing around while 2 people would dig. The two guys in the hole were the laborers. One guy standing around would be an equipment operator waiting for direction from a laborer. Another guy standing around was the foreman. Another the project super' roving from hole to hole. The other two... surveyors waiting to locate utilities or something like that.

 

One day I saw a man sitting on the back of a crane doing absolutely nothing for a very long time. When I inquired as to what he was doing there I was informed that he was the 'oiler' and that it was his job to maintenance the crane twice a day. Once in the morning and once in the afternoon. This process took about an hour each time. The other time he sat with the crane, getting paid about $25/hour.

 

Big Dig cost overuns can hardly be blamed on union labor. The project is far too complex and political to sum up who/what is really resposible. All that aside, driving through Boston is sweet compared to what it was and the downtown is going to be extraordinary. A well intentioned project that provides positive improvements yet has a very bad reputation from a ridiculous price tag.

[sexual_chocolate]

i've worked around union gigs before and i can't say i've witnessed what you describe. there is the inevitable protective attitude that unions develop around their particular trade, which i think is understandable, but i never saw it taken to the degree that you speak of.

 

but regardless, the trades are a tough line of work, and asking for a living wage for the workers is hardly unreasonable.

 

if we really want to talk about unreasonable compensation for work performed, let's start with politicians, doctors, and lawyers (and ceo's in major corporations). the costs for all of us are way higher because of these than because of the 25 to 35 an hour union wage earner.

[willstrickland]

I've seen it to the degree Smokeshow describes, both in the office...I could not hang a shelf in my own cubicle and waited 4 days for someone to show up and hang it. After 4 days I said fuck it, hung the shelf and got bitched at "you're not allowed to do that". "Oh yeah? That's funny, because I just did"

 

I did project mgmt on road improvement projects as well, and the situation he describes pretty much mirrors my experience.

 

I've got no opinion on unions other than the UAW. And I'll keep that opinion to myself. I will say I'd prefer to buy American made, but 4 of my last 5 cars have been from the land of the rising sun.

[catbirdseat]

Our lab is definitely not union. When we needed a plywood shelf for the new robot I just brought my truck and Skil saw on a Sunday and stopped at Home Despot. The boss had his shelf on Monday, which happened to be the day the robot arrived, three days early. The robot was churning out product by the next day.

[Dru]

 

robots never unionize.