Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's pretty common for union wages to be 2x to even 3x times non-union; you also regularly deal with a skill difference, because non-union contractors usually put fewer and less skilled people on the same job because they don't have union rules, including safety rules.

The profitability for nonunion contractors is significantly higher. Again, by a factor, maybe just a factor of 2 instead of 3, but a significant factor. Maybe you could argue that the non-union job should be 95M instead of 100M, but experience around here is that the graft cost for the non-union "privatization" contracts is a lot higher - Charlie's buddies are making a lot of money, but they've got to keep the Republican party and its candidates funded as a quid pro quo, and need to hire the right PR and lobbying firms with Charlie Baker's out of office friends. So even if the nonunion contractor makes more from the job, they have a lot of mouths to feed.

If the wage differentials are that high, that starts to make a difference. Why are the graft costs higher for non-union jobs? Seems like politicians who like privatization are the cause of those, not whether the job is union or non-union.