Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xyzzy_plugh 3203 days ago
To paint a wall in an individual office on Market St, San Francisco, with whiteboard paint, is upwards of $10000 in labor, because of union regulations.

Unions are ripe to be used as instruments for abuse.

2 comments

I can't believe this. Do you have proof?
I was present when a facilities manager explained why we shouldn't use spray-cleaner to clean whiteboards, because it wore down the paint faster, and repainting it cost $10k, and that they had already paid to repaint them twice.
What does that have to do with unions?
...and then the facilities manager threw up their hands, sighed, said "yeah, but what can you do..." flipped through a couple of emails on the old smart phone, then went and sat down and watched some crap on youtube for a few more hours, until oh... 4:35 PM, close enough, and clocked out for the day, with the wall still unpainted. C'est la vie.
My understanding is that per regulations only union labor is permitted to perform various tasks -- you can't just call any old contractor to install light fixtures.

This was a requirement having to do with the location, I am not sure about the specifics (if it was a city thing or if the building owner had entered into such an agreement) but I'd like to have a better understanding. On the face of it, it does seem absurd.

Right, I understand that aspect, but it's still worth highlighting cognitive dissonance where it exists.
That's not proof, it's hearsay.
Indeed, I didn't state that I have proof.
Is that because of unions or because of market forces?
Unions are a market force.
Ok, fine. "Is that because of unions or some other market force such as high demand for white board walls relative to the supply of contractors".
It's due to the lack of wall painting robots and it would seem that the market is soon to provide a solution.

The future will hasten the demise of human labor, it's economic inevitability.

That is one thing unions specifically address..."work rules". What can, and cannot, be automated.

It does require the union to have the upper hand in the first place in order to get a company management to sign a union contract with restrictions like that.

However, for this particular story, it makes no sense, because the union only has leverage with their employer, not with the big name companies that have chosen their employer as the provider of the service. The big name companies would just switch to a new provider if they didn't like what was happening.