Unions Block Non-Union Solar Projects (Unions add 20% to cost)

[Soul Crusher]

Unions Block Non-Union Solar Projects
The Business Insider ^ | 6/19/09

Posted on Friday, June 19, 2009 9:39:11 AM by FromLori

Without unionized labor on board, solar developers can expect a whole bunch of delays.

If green collar jobs are really going to revive the nation's manufacturing sector, as hoped, unions don't want to get shafted.

So they are doing all they can to make sure any big solar installations are built with union labor:

NYT: When a company called Ausra filed plans for a big solar power plant in California, it was deluged with demands from a union group that it study the effect on creatures like the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

By contrast, when a competitor, BrightSource Energy, filed plans for an even bigger solar plant that would affect the imperiled desert tortoise, the same union group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, raised no complaint. Instead, it urged regulators to approve the project as quickly as possible.

One big difference between the projects? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.

It's an added cost for an industry that can hardly afford added costs. Solar projects face a 20% increase in project costs when unions are brought on board.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com

________________________ ________________________ ______________

Great. 

[Hereford]

And see.... this is why I cannot fathom why any company would ever even consider using union labor.  You get nothing more for it except a bigger bill.

If I was a CEO of a company, I would laugh my ass off if a union tried to demand anything. Hell with 'em. Without government (democrat) protecting them like a big brother on the playground, they wouldn't and shouldn't get shit.

[Soul Crusher]

And see.... this is why I cannot fathom why any company would ever even consider using union labor.  You get nothing more for it except a bigger bill.

If I was a CEO of a company, I would laugh my ass off if a union tried to demand anything. Hell with 'em. Without government (democrat) protecting them like a big brother on the playground, they wouldn't and shouldn't get shit.

This is exactly what "Card Check" is about.

Union = high prices, less quality, less competion, lower innovation, and ultimately bankruptcy. 

[Hereford]

Card Check was, by my understanding, an attempt by unions to force membership by making voting public. This would allow them to ramp up the intimidation of workers who wern't on board with them, and blackball those they couldn't intimidate.

[GigantorX]

Card Check was, by my understanding, an attempt by unions to force membership by making voting public. This would allow them to ramp up the intimidation of workers who wern't on board with them, and blackball those they couldn't intimidate.

It would have eliminated the secret ballot. So everyone would know who voted for what....and thus open the door to Union intimidation and the like until said voters "see the light" and vote Union.

Not very democratic.

[Hereford]

I can think of no other purpose for having a open public vote other than to allow for intimidation.