Duncan Rebuilder Snags Building Permit

Roland for our next Mayor?

At least someone is sounding like an adult on this issue. I feel proud to have him as my State Rep.

In contrast the Union-controlled BofA is out of control. We need the tax revenue from continued developmental growth. We don't need the Unions hijacking City government for their own narrow concerns.

We don't they take their energy and push for a $15/hr minimum wage? Or for 40/hour work weeks for all long-term employees, (instead of the four-shift, 32 hours per week charade?)

The Unite Here Unions care about themselves. The rest of us? Not so much!

The problem with the UNITE-HERE folks is that they view unions as and end, not a means. Considering how many of the Alders are actually not just union members, but union employees, this fact is not surprising. Union dues pay their salaries. The more union members, the more dues which flow into the Alders' pockets. On the other hand, if employers treat workers fairly, pay them fairly with decent benefits, the employees do not need a union. Without a union, however, dues money is less and the Alders have less money in their pockets. If the Graduate Hotel grants its workers pay and benefits similar to that of the Omni, there is no need for its workers to unionize. The employer retains workforce flexibility, while the workers don't have dues deducted from their paychecks.

Bottom line; Shared prosperity isn't what UNITE is about. UNITE backed alders are feathering their own nest and lying about it. Because they got caught in a lie, Boss Proto won't even comment about it.

Jim Turcio gives all us New Haveners hope that there is someone left in City Hall who still has the integrity and intestinal fortitude to do what's right.

This stunt reminds me of the last calamity when Alder Marchand thought he was going to hold up Yale's project. Until Yale showed him and the others obstructionists how the game of hardball is really played. It's to bad that our City is run by amateur limousine liberal elitists who are out of touch with the working and middle class.

To all of the union haters.The unions just do not fight for wages.There also fight for for worker's rights.According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, more than 30 percent of employers in the United States retaliate against working people trying to come together in union.You all talk about how the Union-controlled BOA has taken over.The question you should ask as why do people keep voting them in?

posted by: 1644 on November 13, 2017 5:24pm

If the Graduate Hotel grants its workers pay and benefits similar to that of the Omni, there is no need for its workers to unionize. The employer retains workforce flexibility, while the workers don't have dues deducted from their paychecks.

And ask those people who work there about the nepotism they face when it comes to job picks.

3/5,

You don't create worker prosperity by raising wages so much that all manufacturing leaves the city; as has happened here and elsewhere that overaggressive unions have asserted their influence.

In 1983 union membership was over 20%; in 2013 it was just over 11%. Which period was better for the middle class? Now the economy is circling the drain for the middle class. All you anti unionists are getting your wish. Hooray! Unions are slowly being extinguished by billionaires. Good job! Oh, and by the way, the top 3 richest people in the U.S. (Gates, Buffet and Bezos) equal the wealth of the bottom half of our nation, over150 million people. Personal vendettas against local union bosses have blinded you to the the bigger game, privatizing all public wealth. Resist further income inequality and further erosion of our democracy. Support unions.

The union concept, while critical and useful in its time, has far outlived its usefulness. When unions artificially drive up the cost of doing business, business either fail or move to a place where they have the ability to compete. That scenario has played out across many industries and regions. The only places that are stuck having to deal with unions are entities that cannot leave (Yale, city government...etc) If we want New Haven to thrive, we must not force the burden of unionization on them.

3/5's Since the Graduate is years from opening, I cannot ask if nepotism exists there. Or, are you saying that nepotism is rife at the union Omni? Union shops are infamous for nepotism, as unions limit free competition by job-seekers, and unions often act as gate-keepers for organizations, or union stewards use trade union peace for jobs for relatives and friends. I would bet that union CT state has more related folks on its payroll than non-union Apple.

CALLISTO,

Nice try but you make a mistaken assumption that union shrinkage is a symptom rather than a cause. Besides ballooning labor costs decimating manufacturing in New Haven, this story and the story of the Marriot outright failing to proceed are cases in point.

Callisto: Union membership was probable highest in the 1950's, 35% in 1954 when virtually no public employees were unionized. That was a unique economic period. The United States did faced little economic competition, as (a) China and the USSR had shut themselves out of world trade, (b) much of the world was not industrialized, and (b) the US had bombed major industrial competitors such as Germany and Japan into dust. Today, of the remaining union members, about half are public employees. Unions thrive in the public sphere because their employer has little competition.

Wow - interesting how the interview and the thread of comments became more about UNITE HERE than SRO's and the lack of affordable housing downtown ... whcih is what this issue of proposing the moratorium is supposed to be about ... or is it?

Unions were needed in the 50s and 60s when employers had all the cards. Today the unions have all the cards and they employers just leave those areas that do not play nice. look at Winchester and all of the other manufacturers who have fled CT for right to work states. We have no major manufacturers left to provide good well paying entry level jobs with good benefits. It was not the benefits or the wages that drove these employers out of CT. It was the unions legal requirement that they defend all of their members 100% of the time even if they dead wrong. They would not concede that any member of their union was ever wrong even if their own members were hurt by the actions of a bad employee. After a while even the fairest company says enough fighting. They take their lumps and leave the area. It is cheaper in the long run to go where the playing field is level and the taxes and expenses are not high.

posted by: robn on November 13, 2017 9:47pm

3/5,

You don't create worker prosperity by raising wages so much that all manufacturing leaves the city; as has happened here and elsewhere that overaggressive unions have asserted their influence.

Manufacturing leaves because of Corporate Tax Inversions.Then they use Sweatshop Labor to line there pockets.Also look at how CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less ..

I will differ, slightly, with my friend and state rep Roland Lemar. Development moratoria are often used to discourage affordable housing developments. But they can be used thoughtfully to update land use regulations.

I don't think a moratorium is needed in the context of SROs in New Haven. The moratorium was never going to affect the Duncan, and the other SROs are not under imminent threat of redevelopment. But there is a need to update the zoning regulations on SROs and related forms of housing, which can be a mechanism for promoting affordability.

posted by: LookOut on November 14, 2017 7:47am

The union concept, while critical and useful in its time, has far outlived its usefulness. When unions artificially drive up the cost of doing business, business either fail or move to a place where they have the ability to compete.

How is fighting for fair wages drive up the cost of doing business? Again how about the Top CEOs who make more than 300 times the average worker?Again Avoiding corporate income taxes is one way CEOs boost their companies' profits and thereby increase their own pay.Take a look at what they make.This is drive up the cost of doing business.

Highest-Paid CEOs in the State of Connecticut.

Aetna Mark T. Bertolini 2016 $18,662,306

Cigna Corporation David M. Cordani 2016 $15,279,857

Xerox Corporation Ursula M. Burns 2016 $14,068,167

https://aflcio.org/paywatch/highest-paid-ceos

And this is way you still need unions to foght for fair wages.

posted by: 1644 on November 14, 2017 7:54am

3/5's Since the Graduate is years from opening, I cannot ask if nepotism exists there. Or, are you saying that nepotism is rife at the union Omni? Union shops are infamous for nepotism, as unions limit free competition by job-seekers, and unions often act as gate-keepers for organizations, or union stewards use trade union peace for jobs for relatives and friends. I would bet that union CT state has more related folks on its payroll than non-union Apple.

At non union jobs there is a lot nepotism.As far as Union shops are infamous for nepotism.Some not only.But that is also on the side of Management.Also those union workers can file a grievance about that. I know memebers who have.How about the Higher poverty rate in right to work states compared to 12.8% in non-right to work states. that have unions.In fact the taxpayers put more money out in benfits in those right to work states that do not have unions.how about the tworst pay gaps between men and women are right to work states that do not have unions to fight for fair wages.like I told you before.I was in the public sector union in New York.I can tell you you could not pull nepotism due to rules.

It's possible to be pro-Union without supporting everything the Union does. I believe Unions help workers get fair treatment from unfair employers. Does that make it right to use government as a tool to stop a company which has already purchased a property from using a building exactly as it was intended after they already bought it?

No, it doesn't.

People make things out to be so black and white. Unions bad, companies good. Companies bad, unions good. Maybe it's not so clear. Maybe some Unions really have bled companies dry. Maybe some companies need a Union to even consider treating their employees fairly.

But the idea that either is 100% right is ridiculous. How's that Marriott expansion coming along?

The job of the BoA is not to represent Unions, but to represent New Haven. And part of the difficulties of living in a city are the high taxes associated with it, so when you chase away a developer because of Union demands, you put the burden on all of New Haven -- not just Union members.

When this company bought the Duncan, they bought a hotel, and they are opening a hotel. That's their right. Trying to change the rules after the fact is clearly unethical, and the idea that the Union alders only care about SRO's -- something they didn't care about up until a month ago -- is a farce.

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but we need to pick our battles here, and punishing every developer feels like the wrong battle.

So when unions were prominent and the middle class was doing well it's all "specific historical circumstances" but now that corporate profits are obscenely misaligned with wages it's the unions' faults? Interesting argumentation. And all because of unions? Hmm sounds like you're arguing for furthering gross disparities of income. Anyone with eyes to see realizes corporations leave to maximize shareholder/CEO pay and avoid paying billions in legitimate taxes. When Canada set limits on pharma profits to increase accessibility every company stayed. Your arguments only support supply side, trickle-down jive that has been historically disproven. I assume you support the current "tax reform" plan which will further the middle class slide into wage slavery.

The attempt of some alders to impose a moratorium was inappropriate and I'm glad to see that the effort was not successful. NHI has done an excellent job over the years documenting New Haven's building permitting and regulatory systems. The process for builders is already too slow and complicated -- there is no need to try to impose additional obstacles. It sounds like part of the motivation for the moratorium may have been genuine empathy for the Duncan's last residents; but I don't disagree with the assertion that another motivation was the ulterior goal of extracting other concessions from the builder.

I don't doubt the union's sincerity in fighting for good wages. At the same time New Haven is long belated in having some simple conflict of interest rules that prevent the reality or appearance of conflicts. Especially when it comes to all matters related to Yale - but other issues too - Alders who are also union employees for or have leadership positions in unions with business before the Board should recuse themselves. I realize the alders themselves are unlikely to impose conflict rules and so I look forward to the next opportunity at the city's charter renewal for some good government watchdogs (who know more about this than I) to make proposals for the electorate's consideration.

MB

Callisto: I am not arguing for anything, nor am I blaming unions. I am simply pointing out that the height of unionization in 1954 took place at an unusual time. To the lack of global competition, I should add that US labor supply was severely restricted by the 1924 Immigration Act, and actual enforcement of immigration laws and a guest worker program for agricultural workers that reduced demand for illicit labor. Any student of economic history will note that, for large societies. vast wealth inequality has been the norm. When societies generate lots of wealth, as during the Roman and earlier empires, as during the Middle Ages through the Industrial revolution, wealth flows to and coagulates in a few. As for tax code, the 1986 code was my favorite, although I would have indexed capital gains and eliminated the mortgage interest deduction completely. As for the present proposal, I like the idea of reducing possible itemized deductions but vastly increasing the standard deduction. Such an increase would benefit the working class, who generally do not itemize. In general, I do not believe we should use the tax code to pick winners or losers, nor favor one group over another (e.g., home mortgagors over renters).

I usually avoid getting into too much back and forth but I can't allow the deceptive pro-union machine comment stand without correction.

@ Callisto: you stated "Anyone with eyes to see realizes corporations leave to maximize shareholder/CEO pay and avoid paying billions in legitimate taxes."

YES! ABSOLUTELY!!! Why should a company stay in a location where they are being sucked dry by unions, regulations, taxes...etc? A vast majority of American retirement $$ are in 401Ks which means that we all will benefit when the underlying companies do well. I am willing to pay CEOs who make this happen big money....those salaries are only a sliver of what is delivered to shareholders. And yes, avoiding billions in taxes should be rewarded. In almost all cases, the paying via the government is the least efficient way to accomplish anything.

----
In many ways unions are like horse drawn carriages. Many generations ago, when we were less developed, they were the best method. In current times, although a few folks still like to do things the old way, there are many better options available.

Let's not be stuck in the past.

"When unions artificially drive up the cost of doing business"

Let's no use euphanisms here, just say when unions made employers compensate their employees more.

Between: Well said. Moreover, as Lemar implies, the fact that this moratorium is being sought in bad faith exposes the city to substantial legal risk. It is hard to see a rational basis for blocking the renovation of a hotel. especially when all residents already have alternative housing arrangements. Thus, a court might rule that New Haven has no rational basis for staying the developer's hand, and has violated section 1983 of the Civil Rights act by taking its property without compensation. The city could be liable for both actual and punitive damages, plus attorney's fees.

What arrogance Alder Sarah Eidelson displays in this ill-fated move. Communist party unite! Not.

@ Lookout - "Why should a company stay in a location where they are being sucked dry by unions, regulations, taxes…" First, because the workers make them their money; s cond, because regulations usually protect the public interest, for example controlling air and water pollution even though it costs corporations profits and third, because the tax base supported the growth of the business via infrastructural investments etc... Your opinion supports serial polluters, the erosion of the tax base that helps ALL of society.and emboldens only wealthy interests. As for "avoiding billions in taxes should be rewarded" - you'll be happy to know this is already the case since our president is very successful at being a tax cheat.

I will vote for Roland. He is invested in this town and has children here. Hurray for the new upcoming hotel. I look forward to a tour.

This city has so many good attractions AND hangouts, bars, etc. Finishing the biketrail and the boathouse this spring would add a lot. I donated a nice scull 2 years ago for the public but we all might be underwater by the time the boathouse gets finished. I have complained to J. Pescatore by email---no reply.

If it weren't for Unions, Management benefit packages would have eroded even faster....