> My employer holds contractor licenses in all 50 states. Please be specific about which things are not above board with regards to contractor licensing instead of allusion.
I live in SF. Prevailing wage laws and political opposition by unions to non-union projects are massive problems here, both for public and private projects. Our building codes are so crufty that it is expected that you will fork out for a private "permitting consultant" who's well-connected and if you don't your project will not be approved.
Yes, you are correct that it can strictly only be forced on public projects! When the city requires as much political bullshit as SF does, union support tends to be required for private projects to get approval. If you'd like, I can find some specific examples - they're not uncommon.
Building codes also frequently require "traditional" windows, ban modular construction, and I'm sure other things that make very little sense to anyone but the workers getting paid.
> Electricians are almost all union labor in Chicago due to the city’s electrical code requiring conduit and banning romex in residential construction.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: when a jurisdiction enforces significantly stricter laws than are used in other places. Wiring a single family house is not more dangerous in Chicago than anywhere else, and you've already told me that this requirement tends to favor union labor.
Sure, there is an actual safety case here - but I am confident that this question of who this policy benefits was definitely considered before enacting it.
> Nobody is forcing you to live where you do.
This is a crazy take. Should I move because local construction workers are politically well-connected?
> By the way, I’m a construction project manager and deal with these things every single day.
I am not surprised! You clearly know a lot more than me on the issue, but to some extent this is like a banker swearing to me that monthly account fees are necessary.
I live in SF. Prevailing wage laws and political opposition by unions to non-union projects are massive problems here, both for public and private projects. Our building codes are so crufty that it is expected that you will fork out for a private "permitting consultant" who's well-connected and if you don't your project will not be approved.
Yes, you are correct that it can strictly only be forced on public projects! When the city requires as much political bullshit as SF does, union support tends to be required for private projects to get approval. If you'd like, I can find some specific examples - they're not uncommon.
Building codes also frequently require "traditional" windows, ban modular construction, and I'm sure other things that make very little sense to anyone but the workers getting paid.
> Electricians are almost all union labor in Chicago due to the city’s electrical code requiring conduit and banning romex in residential construction.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: when a jurisdiction enforces significantly stricter laws than are used in other places. Wiring a single family house is not more dangerous in Chicago than anywhere else, and you've already told me that this requirement tends to favor union labor.
Sure, there is an actual safety case here - but I am confident that this question of who this policy benefits was definitely considered before enacting it.
> Nobody is forcing you to live where you do.
This is a crazy take. Should I move because local construction workers are politically well-connected?
> By the way, I’m a construction project manager and deal with these things every single day.
I am not surprised! You clearly know a lot more than me on the issue, but to some extent this is like a banker swearing to me that monthly account fees are necessary.