Hyperloop, hyper hype...

The current news is all abuzz about the [limited] demonstration of the new hyperloop project. On paper this sounds pretty interesting and as it is being done by (mostly?) private companies with their private money, more power to them.

I am sad to say that I don't think it will ever be deployed commercially. My reasons for my pessimism are:

• NIMBY - This technology is basically a rail system, updated. It takes land to lay out the tube that this runs in. Think laying down a new freeway stretch. I see endless battles for easements and right of ways. Others will fight the addition of this "eye sore" that will spoil the value of their McManions and "blight" the area.

• Environmentalists - I see endless court battles with the greenies over things like the habitat of the orange eyed, three toed, purple tree frog. Greenies do what greenies do. They oppose anything technology unless it is the "right" technology even if their "right" tech does more harm than good, cause it "feels good" to be on the side of Gaia!

• Regulations - What started out as a "great idea" will get crushed under an endless stream of safety tests and local, state, and federal regulations involving everything from what plastic is used to support the seat frame to what is used to insulate the "pods" from temperature/noise.

• Unions - Union contracts and union work rules will add additional large sums to the project costs. Combined with the NIMBY and environmental court costs, will dramatically increase the costs per foot of the project.

• Occupancy - In order to make a "transportation" company successful you need to 1) get people from point a to point b, 2) more conveniently than if they were to drive themselves, and 3) cheap enough to make the "hassle" of not driving themselves worth it. That means that this "Hyperloop" must move enough people from where ever they are to where ever they want to go quickly enough and cheaply enough to out weigh the value of driving themselves from point a to point b. Any two of these are easy but all three is difficult to do for enough people to allow the business to make money. Think Amtrak.

Add all of these up and I just don't see "Hyperloop" making it. For that matter, I don't see any new, disruptive mass transportation system making it either unless it removes the requirement of a long distance physical infrastructure to enable it (i.e. train tracks or tubes).

Think I am making too much out of the impediments? When was the last time a large international airport was constructed? All of my above reasons for the failure of "Hyperloop" are the cause of the failure of all other "really large" projects. Even when you have the power of the Government behind you these big projects take a long time. Look at how long any large government projects take (i.e. Chicago's Big Dig, etc.) with their corresponding cost over-runs.

It is for reasons like those listed above that we "can't have nice things".

Fast Food Workers Plan Thursday Strike, Really?

At a convention that was held outside Chicago in July, 1,300 fast-food workers unanimously approved a resolution calling for civil disobedience as a way to step up pressure on the fast-food chains.

“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign. “They’re invoking civil rights history to make the case that these jobs ought to be paid $15 and the companies ought to recognize a union.”

“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign.

Nonviolent "civil disobedience", sure... When unions are involved that is really a euphemism for "breaking stuff" and preventing customers from being serviced.

The unions are all in favor of these kinds of actions as they want to drive up minimum wage as many union contracts tie member pay to the minimum wage. Getting it raised is a back door way to get many union members raises without having to directly negotiate for one. If they can get some of these fast food chains unionized, that would be even better as it gets them a huge pool of new members to offset union losses elsewhere.

Mr. Obama added that if he had a service-sector job, and “wanted an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, I’d join a union.”

The one thing they [unions and apparently the President] don't care about is the actual workers they are instigating. These jobs pay what they are worth and in this economy these folks should be more grateful that they even can get work. If you want a better job, get it / earn it. Forcing a business to pay more than a job is worth causes some combination of the following two actions a) raising prices to offset increased costs - putting the product out of reach of some customers and b) causing the affected businesses to reassess employee requirements and typically reducing staff / hours to compensate for the increased employee expenses. Are the unions going to back fill these people's paychecks if their plan succeeds? Not hardly. More likely this expected and foreseeable result of this plan would only end up with greater calls for unionization, further raising costs and costing jobs and suppressing businesses. When the foreseeable happens, it will be called "bad luck".

“They want to join,” Ms. Henry said. “They think their jobs should be valued at $15.”

Heck, who doesn't think their job should be valued higher than it is? If it actually was though, you would be getting it. What most people forget is "it is NOT your job", it is the business' job and they have chosen you to fill it, for now. It is worth what it is worth. If you get too expensive because you have outgrown the responsibilities of that job or are not productive enough that the business is not getting good value, they find someone else to fill it. If you have been doing a good job, you might get promoted to a better job but even that one (if that happens) is NOT yours! If I owned one of these franchises and some of my employees walked out when they had already agreed to work, I would be replacing them with others that valued the opportunity and the paycheck.

If you feel the need to blame someone, how about blaming the Government that has done everything in it power (and something not in its power) over the last 6 years to raise the costs of running a business. Between the EPA, the NLRB, Obamacare, the IRS and the other government agencies, this administration has declared war on business and then when they get the expected results point the finger at "greedy businesses" instead of at the mirror.

I may just have to get lunch at McDs tomorrow...

Union disbanded at Boeing Co.

I have to admit that I am pleased. My distaste for unions runs wide and deep. I believe that unions have long stopped being for the benefit of employees and instead are for the benefit of Democrats and union bosses.

If the card-check bill passes (as un-American as it is) it should at least include a provision for union ouster following the same rules. If all it takes is 51% of the employees to sign a petition to install a union then 51% of employee signatures on a petition for ouster should be sufficient as well. That would still not be equivalent (we have seen what the SEIU does to people that it disagrees with) and intimidation and strong-arm tactics would likely prevail. That was what drove secret votes in the first place.

Should be an OSHA requirement!

Health Care Astroturfing

So, who are the people "astroturfing"? The following is from an SEIU email instructing union members attending a health care townhall on how to act and to try and hide the fact that they are part of an organized effort by urging them to create "homemade" signs. I also like the part where the opposition is simply based on "Fox-news style ignorance" rather than a true difference of opinion. Oh and the SEIU crowd "are the sane, educated side". Right...

If you plan on staying outside the building (or have to because the venue becomes full), please make and bring a sign. The anti-reform signs are homemade and look like they are real constituents (some of them are constituents, but some are paid to be there). Positive educational signs work best, rather than sarcastic ones or nasty ones. Their “facts” are based in complete Fox-news style ignorance. Remember WE are the sane, educated side. These rallies are photographed and the media will print or publish great signs. (see below for sign ideas from Nancy Cronk.)

and

Some sign ideas from Nancy: Every week, 14,000 Americans lose their health care. No Rush - health care reform has been on the table since 1949. Reform means choice. Keep your own plan if you want it. Health Reform NOW. Thank-you Barack Obama. Everyone deserves Health Care. Health Care for all - it’s the moral option. Jesus would not deny anyone. Every other modern country insures everyone - why not U.S.?

I don't know what kool-aid they are drinking but this statement is so far from the truth that their noses MUST be growing!

Surveys show we are the majority.

Ha! Sorry but repeating the same lie often enough still does not make it true. All recent polling shows health care reform either dead even or a majority against.

Update:

And I am rather surprised that this actually made the LA Times! They will get their union cards revoked for accidentally covering this story: Wanted: Obama healthcare reform volunteers willing to be paid $15 an hour. a web ad on Craigslist: "You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week."

What is really funny is that the article can not help but include "both sides appear to have paid lobbyists". There is a big difference between paid Washington lobbyists and the implication that those protesting against reform are paid. The only paid protesters that the LA Times gives evidence of are those supporting the reform plan.

More Update:

And this gem!

Roxana Mayer introduces herself as a doctor (a general practitioner for four years) in order to support ObamaCare and Jackson-Lee in a fairly hostile crowd. For her efforts, she gets a big hug from the Congresswoman, an image which the Houston Chronicle featured prominently on their website coverage of the event.

Not only was Mayer not a doctor, Roxana Mayer was an Obama delegate, as Patterico discovered with some digging. What’s more, the Houston Chronicle apparently knew this and failed to include it in its glowing coverage of Mayer’s appearance.

They are getting so desperate that they are getting sloppy! All of this could have slipped quietly under the radar a few years ago but no longer (thank God!).

Anti-Card Check Ad

More ads like this please!

This is a bad idea that will only make things worst!

For anyone that does not know, going union at a company/factory is basically a two step process.

Step 1 is to canvas signatures from workers in support of a union. This is a very public activity. If higher ranking employees are in support of a union, there can be a lot of pressure on the lower level rank and file to sign the petition. When the signature collection period has ended and enough signatures have been collected, Step 2 happens.

Step 2 is a secret vote on whether to unionize or not. This is purposely done like any other election so that each person can vote their own mind without undo influence or pressure. It just so happens that in a lot of cases, step 1 will get a resounding level of support (big shock there) but will fail during the vote, when employees can perform that activity in secret and without fear of retribution.

Your wonderful Democrat controlled federal government, in a big payback move to the unions that supported them so well with money and bodies is looking to remove the requirement for a secret vote. Basically eliminating step 2. This would result in a union organizer being able to bully employees into signing the petition and as soon as enough signatures are collected, you are unionized. That would seem like something that happens in Cuba or North Korea or China, not here in America but that is exactly what they are trying to do. It should be stopped and stopped now!

"Card check," unionization, an idea whose time should never come

In this day and age, in this country, unions are a dinosaur that should have long ago died away. That sadly has not happened and is not likely to happen any time soon. In fact the aged beast that is unions is trying to make an end run around extinction by attempting to get the legal right to not hold secret voting for unionization.

The current rules are basically that in order to unionize, 51% of the employees affected by the unionization have to sign a petition in favor of a union. Then a secret vote is held and if the majority vote in favor of a union, so be it.

In a number of cases, for a number of reasons, a petition for a union does not always result in a union. There can be a number of reasons for this but the one that seems most plausible is that people can easily be strong-armed into signing a petition as most of the signature collection efforts take place in the open where employees congregate and so there can be a bit of social pressure to sign up. But once you are in the voting booth, behind closed doors with no one strong arming you, many vote against the union that they may have felt pressure to publicly endorse. This is called democracy. This is not good enough for unions. They want this public, potentially (likely) coerced collection of signatures to be the same as a secret vote and once 51% have signed, allow unionization.

What would be the result of proposing that general elections be held this way? If it is not good for general elections (for obvious reasons) then why is it good for unionization votes?

Infrastructure technology

It is not often I get to highlight some technology and take a swipe at Unions, well with this post, I get to do both!

The reference article is about a automated pot hole patching system that allows most pot holes to be repaired quickly and efficiently by a single driver/operator that will not be allowed to be used in some municipalities because of the local government unions. Instead crews (with an 's' meaning more than one) are paid in the neighbourhood of $28 an hour to repair pot holes with hand tools.

Good for me but not for the

Well, isn't this a pickle? It seems that some electronic voting machines may allow votes to be recovered and matched back to names. This is a problem because as noted in the article:

Making a secret ballot less secret, of course, could permit vote selling and allow interest groups or family members to exert undue pressure on Ohio residents to vote a certain way.

So people are justifiably worried about undue pressure being exerted on residents to vote a certain way. That is indeed a valid issue. In fact this concern is valid in more than just the voting for politicians. It is also valid in voting for whether to unionize or not. So why is congress moving to do away with the requirement of secret votes for unionization? One could rightfully surmise that union voting is even more of a high pressure event than general elections. These are your co-workers, not just distant politicians. Oh I forgot, unions support democrats much more than republicans and union membership as well as the number of unions is down, that is why.

Unions try to strong arm employees, with Dems help

Democrats claim that the most important right of any American is their right to vote but they are now attempting to deny that right to employees when considering whether or not to unionize. In order to form a union, union representatives must gather signatures from employees. This is a very public process. Employees may feel pressured into signing such a petition because their supervisor does or their co-works and friends do, even if they do not want to unionize. Hence the current requirement for a secret vote after enough signatures have been gathered, a vote where the employee is free to make his or her own decision without the pressure of co-workers or superiors. Currently when this secret vote takes place, in many cases unionization is not approved. This of course does not site well with Unions. To lend them a hand, the Democrats are attempting to get a bill passed that would remove the need for a secret vote. How nice of them. If this bill passes, the petitions alone would be enough to allow a union to form. A bad bill that could become a bad law.