[_paulc]

The more surprising point was the disparity in staffing levels which multiplies the cost differences:

“For example, in New York, the number of workers at the face of the tunnel can be up to four times the number of workers required in Germany or Austria for similar projects.”

[mjevans]

The article then also highlights the difference in overtime pay of 2-3x (for the rate) in the US and 'as time' compensation in Europe.

I appreciate 2-3x overtime as a means of encouraging fully filling out the workforce at single rate. Overtime should be for true need, not a factored in norm.

[yokaze]

> I appreciate 2-3x overtime as a means of encouraging fully filling out the workforce at single rate.

It should encourage the employer to avoid overtime, but at that rate I would guess it also encourages the employees to do overtime.

[thrav]

More people get well paying jobs, fewer people are overworked, and we pay less overtime? Sounds like killing three birds with one stone.

Inefficiencies like this should be the enemy of both political parties. They’re why Republicans complain about Government inefficiency and waste, and they’re holding progressives back from accomplishing everything they’d like the government to do.

This feels like it’s basically a matter of labor NIMBYs enriching themselves at the general public’s expense.

[JackFr]

It's almost as if it's in the union's benefit to artificially restrict supply ...

[JackFr]

I expected the downvotes of course, but there's no error in the logic. The role of the union is to advance the interests of it's members. In this case, if the city or transit authority was foolish enough to make a contract so easily gamed, that's on them.

Although to the extent that labor unions finance local political campaigns, one wonders if it isn't perverse incentives all the way down...

[bsder]

Actually, you find that almost all of this stuff is transferral of future cash to current time.

Any multiyear project has political ramifications and your funding could get pulled. Better to be short on staff and bill overtime now rather than have have lots of staff and then get your funding pulled later.

[thrav]

That’s an interesting point. You’re asserting that the fear of government funding falling through is what drives this behavior?

Any input on the impact of guarantees? Is this not something we do? Is it irrelevant because if funding isn’t there, they evaporate?

(I don’t know anything about how this actually works)

[bsder]

> Any input on the impact of guarantees? Is this not something we do? Is it irrelevant because if funding isn’t there, they evaporate?

A lot of government contracting is about the process of extracting the money. Multi-year contracts can be particularly fraught with risk--Can a lawsuit shut you down? Will some Senator come shake you down to score "See how much money I just saved us?" points. Did some other project supersede your priority? Did a budget shortfall take 15% out of everybody?

It is simply smart behavior to front load payments and back load execution if you are a company dealing with the government. If you get really lucky, you bank a bunch of money, don't do anything, and then the project gets canned. If you get really unlucky, you bank the money, don't do anything, and then the project flares up in importance and you get slammed by the now looming deadline (see: the original ACA government website debacle).

Some if it is also that companies will optimize to the rules. Do bids go to lowest bidder always? Okay, then the companies will optimize to low bid and charge through the roof for change orders. Is the company responsible for maintenance? If not, then you can be sure that the project will be built to the absolute minimum quality that can be countenanced and leave the maintenance nightmare to somebody else.

You get what you actually incentivize even if it isn't what you necessarily wanted.