Unionized construction workers want their industry to be safe, but it would be naive to think that’s why thousands of them flocked to City Hall last week as a hearing began on 21 jobsite-safety bills. In fact, the building trades tell the world incessantly that their members work safely while their nonunion counterparts are at grave risk of severe injury and death.
No, that impressive show of force last week was about market share. Nonunion contractors have increasingly been doing work, such as building towers, that was once the exclusive domain of union employers—and the unions are in a perpetual quest to stem the tide. For example, they have been pushing to move into the traditionally nonunion realm of affordable-housing construction, arguing that taxpayer-subsidized projects should pay prevailing wages because it is good for society.
The City Council’s task here is to protect workers, not steer jobs to unions. It must weed out elements of the legislation that are not primarily safety-related—notably one that would require aspiring laborers to complete an apprenticeship, which in some cases would funnel them into the union that offers the needed apprenticeship.
article continues below advertisement
Such programs include safety training, but that is not their main purpose. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, however, does offer 10-hour and 30-hour courses devoted to risk reduction. If the council were to require a safety course, OSHA’s would seem more appropriate. But let’s be honest: Construction workers usually don’t need a course to know when they’re in danger. They can tell when a contractor takes shortcuts, such as not installing netting, or demands a job be completed faster than it can be done safely—which can lead to workers neglecting to use safety harnesses every time they should. Apprenticeships and OSHA courses won’t change that dynamic.
What will? Unions tout job protection as crucial, because if workers cannot be fired without cause, they have the freedom to insist on safety. The flip side is that a worker too secure in his job lacks incentive.
Another bill would require more projects to have site-safety managers, who have no productivity goals to meet. But the number of qualified site-safety personnel in the city is insufficient to meet the current demand, let alone an expanded one.
These are just a few of the factors for council members to consider. Our concern is that unions’ shows of force, like last week’s rally, and their campaign arms’ ability to influence incumbents’ re-election chances, provide an impetus for council members to do the wrong thing, just as the lure of saving money can lead a contractor to cut corners on safety. It’s an accident waiting to happen. — THE EDITORS
Unionized construction workers want their industry to be safe, but it would be naive to think that’s why thousands of them flocked to City Hall last week as a hearing began on 21 jobsite-safety bills. In fact, the building trades tell the world incessantly that their members work safely while their nonunion counterparts are at grave risk of severe injury and death.
No, that impressive show of force last week was about market share. Nonunion contractors have increasingly been doing work, such as building towers, that was once the exclusive domain of union employers—and the unions are in a perpetual quest to stem the tide. For example, they have been pushing to move into the traditionally nonunion realm of affordable-housing construction, arguing that taxpayer-subsidized projects should pay prevailing wages because it is good for society.
The City Council’s task here is to protect workers, not steer jobs to unions. It must weed out elements of the legislation that are not primarily safety-related—notably one that would require aspiring laborers to complete an apprenticeship, which in some cases would funnel them into the union that offers the needed apprenticeship.
Such programs include safety training, but that is not their main purpose. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, however, does offer 10-hour and 30-hour courses devoted to risk reduction. If the council were to require a safety course, OSHA’s would seem more appropriate. But let’s be honest: Construction workers usually don’t need a course to know when they’re in danger. They can tell when a contractor takes shortcuts, such as not installing netting, or demands a job be completed faster than it can be done safely—which can lead to workers neglecting to use safety harnesses every time they should. Apprenticeships and OSHA courses won’t change that dynamic.
What will? Unions tout job protection as crucial, because if workers cannot be fired without cause, they have the freedom to insist on safety. The flip side is that a worker too secure in his job lacks incentive.
Another bill would require more projects to have site-safety managers, who have no productivity goals to meet. But the number of qualified site-safety personnel in the city is insufficient to meet the current demand, let alone an expanded one.
These are just a few of the factors for council members to consider. Our concern is that unions’ shows of force, like last week’s rally, and their campaign arms’ ability to influence incumbents’ re-election chances, provide an impetus for council members to do the wrong thing, just as the lure of saving money can lead a contractor to cut corners on safety. It’s an accident waiting to happen. — THE EDITORS
A version of this article appears in the February 6, 2017, print issue of Crain’s New York Business.
Sign up for our FREE daily email newsletter. A summary of the day’s top business and political headlines from the newsroom of Crain’s New York Business.
More Newsletters ›
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
