Live data from Hacker News

Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

crainsnewyork.com

151–160 of 312 posts

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#151
post #99
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's exactly the point. Just as corporations extract questionable value from society on behalf of their owning structure, unions extract questionable value from society on behalf of the workers. They are a similar-in-kind counterweight to corporate power, so it stands to reason they do similar things. As it turns out in capitalism "extracting questionable value from society and taking it for yourself" is real…

But where corporate power with labor is scoped to each specific corporation, union power often crosses to many corporations, often even crossing to different industries. Many industries have needlessly suffered and died at the hands of overpowered unions. Capitalism rarely extracts questionable value from society, and when it does it's normally the result of government interference in an industry in order to advantag…

>Capitalism rarely extracts questionable value from society, and when it does it's normally the result of government interference in an industry in order to advantage one business vs another - creating non-value-based power imbalances like monopolies.

May I suggest cigarette / smoking advertising?

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/unions/humans/g A few unions engage in poor practices and you are happy to tar them all with the same brush. The problem is not the unions.

Saying "the problem is not the unions" is as wide-brush as saying they are the problem; unions have some good causes but the core of their existence is to keep employees employed, sometimes that means important jobs that should exist and sometimes its a cancer that stops a business from profiting or stopping the creation of new ones or the advance of technology (think taxi drivers vs self-driving cars)

I don't know how to tell you this but there's no such thing as a car that can drive itself.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when people advocate for programmers unionizing, I don't see why we'd be any different. There'd be people employed doing X, a programmer would make something to automate X, and "our" union would be trying to save their job.

Just throwing in another reason why programmer unions don't make a lot of sense: licensing. It makes sense to license electricians, crane operators, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions who do safety-critical work. Only a very small minority of programmers work on software that could actually hurt someone (at Boeing, Toyota, etc...). There's no reason to create a legal barrier to entry for programming.

You forgot only about: - banking - online shopping - medical data handling - other sensitive data handling - medical devices (pacemakers etc) - IoT

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe and Korea still manage to build subways 10-20x cheaper than New York. As far as I know they don't have tons more worker deaths. With all our modern technology, we should be able to achieve what our ancestors did. Even with our higher standards for safety.

Helsinki is currently building a metro expansion for $103 million per kilometer, at least if I got the numbers right. Of course the setting is very different in New York vs. outskirts of Helsinki, but yes, it's cheaper.

Building on the outskirts of New York City is also cheaper than building in Manhattan.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#155
post #21

This is sort of like how when the waterless urinal was first commercialized, the plumbers union blocked it from getting approved in the general building code. Eventually a compromised was reached that involves requiring a plumber to draw an water line (unutilized) to every water-less install. Unions for skilled, high-pay jobs in highly regulated industries really extract a lot of questionable value from society.

waterless ones are patented and without a water line you'd be locked in to higher priced products and/or have to spend a lot of extra money to run a new water line after the walls go up. Generally the situation with waterless ones is people endlessly social signal their green superiority about them, then the incredible stench makes them install real urinals. Even if only 5% or so install real urinals the net cost is…

> waterless ones are patented and without a water line you'd be locked in to higher priced products and/or have to spend a lot of extra money to run a new water line after the walls go up.

Urinals have a very long life cycle, and by the time one needs to be replaced, it is likely any patent left would be in Design only, and thus other manufacturers can build and sell them, allowing the market to rebalance the cost.

In other words, "they're patented" is a bogus argument for needing a water line.

There are better arguments which you tried to hit on - what if you want to replace a urinal with a stall or some other fixture, e.g. - but this one alone isn't a good one. There are also plenty of counter arguments for why this kind of thing is a really bad idea in the case of a water line (e.g., a blind water line is going to be a much more ugly problem when renovations do happen if they aren't well enough noted in the designs or if the designs are unavailable, and what happens when a blind water line leaks, bursts or corrodes through inside a wall due to freezing/accidentally drilling or nailing through a pipe/etc.)

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#156
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "the problem is not the unions" is as wide-brush as saying they are the problem; unions have some good causes but the core of their existence is to keep employees employed, sometimes that means important jobs that should exist and sometimes its a cancer that stops a business from profiting or stopping the creation of new ones or the advance of technology (think taxi drivers vs self-driving cars)

I don't know how to tell you this but there's no such thing as a car that can drive itself.

Oh my, I'm afraid they exist[0], and there are already NYC unions trying to ban them: http://readwrite.com/2017/01/17/new-york-ban-self-driving-tl...

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHbMt6WDhQ8

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#157
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's disgusting and unsanitary: no water == no sink.

Ever used an outhouse? or been to a concert or event venue with portable hand-wash units?

Since when are those things regulated by the same building codes as a permanent building?

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof. I did no such thing. A `TL;DR` is typically a summation of an article. The primary narrative in the article was the union stifling this businessman. Whether it's true or not doesn't really effect a summary of the content itself. To openly state a summary without including the primary narrative of the article seems disingenuous to the…

I meant "you're" in the universal sense as a reader. In my opinion, a tl;dr that glosses over pointing out the unsubstantiated crux of an article's narrative is a major disservice. It's fine to sum up the narrative. It's just as disingenuous to fail to point out the narrative lacks evidentiary support whatsoever.

Fair enough

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#159

Question: Why didn't the guy just pack up the crane and take it elsewhere? The issues that make tower cranes unsafe and expensive aren't unique to New York City, and if Austin, TX was any indication, there has been a shortage of cranes due to construction activity worldwide. Is there something about the economics or the licensing that makes this crane only work in New York City?

That was my thought too, I'm sure there's many cities to market his product. He needs to get on his GaryVee train and start calling every city until he finds places to land. Bring it up to Vancouver, most of our downtown is low rise and would probably make this ideal. And making $400,000 means he could probably take a year off as well.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#160
post #25

The New York Department of Buildings response to this article (June 2016) : Skypicker presented the department with plans for a small, truck-mounted crane... However, when we inspected the Skypicker in use at a construction site, we found something significantly different: The crane was attached to a building slab, and appeared to be a hodgepodge of parts from other cranes, mounted on a homemade, untested base. http:…

True, but remember this is New York City. In the original article, when the crane was first used on jobs and word got around about it being less expensive and required fewer operator man hours, his job sites were picketed by unions. There were anonymous calls to 311 reporting violations but when the inspectors got there, they didn't find anything wrong. In my mind, I'm skeptical and it could have been the cranes or i…

Here's a fun story about union influence in NYC (with a little twist I hope you'll indulge[1]):

In 2005, I moved into a 19th-floor apartment in lower Manhattan. My girlfriend and I spent about 12 hours at IKEA getting everything needed to furnish the place. By the time we finished taking (2!) taxies back from Jersey with all my stuff, it was about midnight on a Friday night. It took another hour or so to schlep everything up in the elevator - everything, that is, except for a sofa, which we'd tied to the roof of one of the taxis and which was now the last thing between us and sleep.

We were just about to load it into the elevator for the last run of the night, but _not so fast!_, said the doorman: that's the passenger elevator, and you aren't allowed to use it for furniture.

We pointed out that the sofa, at about 80-100 lbs, weighed quite a bit less than the full elevator cars-worth of stuff we'd already brought up, but he was undeterred. He could lose his job, he explained, because the building's contract with the labor union prohibited use of the passenger elevator for "furniture".

OK, I said, not really understanding what that had to do with unions, where's the freight elevator?

It's locked, he said, because you aren't allowed to use it.

Why not?

Because the building maintenance union regs say nobody who isn't in the union can touch that elevator, and require the use of union labor to move anything in or out via that elevator. (At something like $160/hr, iirc.)

And since it was a Friday, the sofa would have to sit in the building lobby until 10am on Monday, at which point we could get in touch with the labor union to get the Appropriately Licensed and Bonded Personnel to load the sofa into the freight elevator. (Assuming the members of the sanitation engineers' union hadn't already decided it was trash and carted it away -- and yes, he did warn us about this.)

Counting PATH train and taxi rides etc, we're now about 14 hours into the furnishing-my-apartment project. We haven't eaten in about 10 hours, it's the middle of the night, and I am beyond frustrated at this point.

I don't want to get arrested though and the guy is clearly not going to give in, so I'm not really sure what to do. I half jokingly ask the guy: well, what about the stairs? Do the union regs prohibit the stairs too?

He laughs. No, do whatever you want in the stairs, he says.

I look at my gf. She looks at me. _Well? You want to?_, she says. Remember: 19 floors. I think: I can't believe we're going to do this.

But we do. ~40 flights of stairs later, we both look like we just climbed out of a lake, and are breathing like horses. And though I'd already had a pretty strong suspicion in this direction, at this point I was certain: I had to marry this girl.

I still don't think much of unions, but 11 years and 2 kids later, I'm grateful every day that I ended up with such a strong and capable partner. [1](Sorry for the autobiography but I thought folks might appreciate the story. And it really is on-topic... sortof.)

Post reply on HN