S*****l
发帖数: 1043 | 1 纽时是比较客观靠谱，可读性强的左派媒体，比CNN强多了
没读完，注意到如下几点：
1. 2010年一个未向公众披露的调查显示：某隧道工程1/3的工人吃空饷，每天1000美元
工资
2. 工会收买政客要挟建筑商
3. 纽约隧道工程操作同样的机器，做类似量的工作，
需要的人手是亚洲澳洲欧洲（法国等）国家3-4倍
4. 挖隧道工人时薪＋福利每小时111元，周末节假日时薪翻倍，超时再翻倍到 400／
per hour， 结果发现工人工作很容易超时（为啥工程整体进度还是那么慢想不明白）
。。lol
The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth
How excessive staffing, little competition, generous contracts and archaic
rules dramatically inflate
capital costs for transit in New York. An accountant discovered the
discrepancy while reviewing the budget for new train platforms under Grand
Central Terminal in Manhattan.
The budget showed that 900 workers were being paid to dig caverns for the
platforms as part of a 3.5-mile tunnel connecting the historic station to
the Long Island Rail Road. But the accountant could only identify about 700
jobs that needed to be done, according to three project supervisors.
Officials could not find any reason for the other 200 people to be there.
“Nobody knew what those people were doing, if they were doing anything,”
said Michael Horodniceanu, who was then the head of construction at the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs transit in New York. The
workers were laid off, Mr. Horodniceanu said, but no one figured out how
long they had been employed. “All we knew is they were each being paid
about $1,000 every day.”
System Failure
A series of stories examining the reasons behind problems plaguing New York
City's subways.
A LITANY OF ERRORS
How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways
NEGLECTING THE BASICS
Lax Subway Upkeep Leads to Crippling Breakdowns
EXCESSIVE COSTS
The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth
The discovery, which occurred in 2010 and was not disclosed to the public,
illustrates one of the main issues that has helped lead to the increasing
delays now tormenting millions of subway riders every day: The leaders
entrusted to expand New York’s regional transit network have paid the
highest construction costs in the world, spending billions of dollars that
could have been used to fix existing subway tunnels, tracks, trains and
signals.
The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as “East
Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 billion for each
new mile of track — seven times the average elsewhere in the world. The
recently completed Second Avenue subway on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and
the 2015 extension of the No. 7 line to Hudson Yards also cost far above
average, at $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion per mile, respectively.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The spending has taken place even as the M.T.A. has cut back on core subway
maintenance because, as The New York Times has documented, generations of
politicians have diverted money from the transit authority and saddled it
with debt.
The Times found that a host of factors have contributed to the transit
authority’s exorbitant capital costs.
For years, The Times found, public officials have stood by as a small group
of politically connected labor unions, construction companies and consulting
firms have amassed large profits.
Trade unions, which have closely aligned themselves with Gov. Andrew M.
Cuomo and other politicians, have secured deals requiring underground
construction work to be staffed by as many as four times more laborers than
elsewhere in the world, documents show.
Construction companies, which have given millions of dollars in campaign
donations in recent years, have increased their projected costs by up to 50
percent when bidding for work from the M.T.A., contractors say.
Consulting firms, which have hired away scores of M.T.A. employees, have
persuaded the authority to spend an unusual amount on design and management,
statistics indicate.
Public officials, mired in bureaucracy, have not acted to curb the costs.
The M.T.A. has not adopted best practices nor worked to increase competition
in contracting, and it almost never punishes vendors for spending too much
or taking too long, according to inspector general reports.
At the heart of the issue is the obscure way that construction costs are set
in New York. Worker wages and labor conditions are determined through
negotiations between the unions and the companies, none of whom have any
incentive to control costs. The transit authority has made no attempt to
intervene to contain the spending.
“It’s sad, really,” said Lok Home, owner of the Robbins Company, which
manufactured much of the tunneling equipment used for East Side Access. “
Because if they controlled the costs, they could do twice as many expansion
projects and still have more money for maintenance.”
Asked about The Times’s findings, union leaders and construction executives
insisted that no money had been wasted. They said tunneling was difficult
and dangerous work that must be well funded.
The M.T.A., for its part, did not dispute the findings.
Joseph J. Lhota, who was chairman of the authority in 2012 and returned to
the job in June, said he had recently appointed working groups to study
costs and the procurement process.
“We recognize this has been a problem. We’re never going to deny history,
” Mr. Lhota said. “This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It needs
to be attacked.”
Continue reading the main story
Photo
Supervisors discovered several hundred extra workers on East Side Access, an
example of rampant overstaffing on Metropolitan Transportation Authority
projects. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times
Why Is New York Different?
New York’s struggles come as transit construction is booming around the
world. At least 150 projects have been initiated since 1990, according to a
recent study by Yale University researcher David Schleicher.
The approximate average cost of the projects — both in the U.S. and abroad
— has been less than $500 million per track mile, the study concluded.
“There was one glaring exception,” Mr. Schleicher said. “New York.”
That exception has not gone unnoticed. Independent online journalist Alon
Levy first noted the M.T.A’s high construction costs, and 28 City Council
members urged officials to research the issue in October.
The M.T.A. declined. In a letter, Mr. Lhota defended the costs, saying, “
There are unique challenges that contribute to high construction costs in
New York City in general, and for M.T.A. projects in particular.”
Mr. Lhota listed 10 explanations, including aging utilities, expensive land,
high density, strict regulations and large ridership requiring big stations.
To evaluate those arguments, The Times brought the list to more than 50
contractors, many of whom had worked in New York as well as in other cities.
The Times also interviewed nearly 100 current and former M.T.A. employees,
reviewed internal project records, consulted industry price indexes and
built a database to compare spending on specific items. And The Times
observed construction on site in Paris, which is building a project similar
to the Second Avenue subway at one-sixth the cost.
The review found evidence for one of the issues cited by the M.T.A.: Because
most countries have nationalized health care, projects abroad do not have
to fund worker health insurance. That might explain a tenth of the cost
differences, contractors said.
But the contractors said the other issues cited by the M.T.A. were
challenges that all transit systems face. Density is the norm in cities
where subway projects occur. Regulations are similar everywhere. All
projects use the same equipment at the same prices. Land and other types of
construction do not cost dramatically more in New York. Insurance costs more
but is only a fraction of the budget. The M.T.A.’s stations have not been
bigger (nor deeper) than is typical.
“Those sound like cop-outs,” said Rob Muley, an executive at the John
Holland engineering firm who has worked in Hong Kong and Singapore and
visited the East Side Access project, after hearing Mr. Lhota’s reasons.
In Paris, which has famously powerful unions, the review found the lower
costs were the result of efficient staffing, fierce vendor competition and
scant use of consultants.
In some ways, M.T.A. projects have been easier than work elsewhere. East
Side Access uses an existing tunnel for nearly half its route. The hard rock
under the city also is easy to blast through, and workers do not encounter
ancient sites that need to be protected.
“They’re claiming the age of the city is to blame?” asked Andy Mitchell,
the former head of Crossrail, a project to build 13 miles of subway under
the center of London, a city built 2,000 years ago. “Really?”
Continue reading the main story
Photo
A tunnel-boring machine being used on the Second Avenue subway project in
2010. As many as 25 workers are required to run the machines in New York,
while the number is roughly a dozen in other cities.
Credit Richard Perry/The New York Times
A Dizzying Maze of Jobs
The reasons for the M.T.A.’s high costs start with the sheer number of
people employed.
Mike Roach noticed it immediately upon entering the No. 7 line work site a
few years ago. Mr. Roach, a California-based tunneling contractor, was not
involved in the project but was invited to see it. He was stunned by how
many people were operating the machine churning through soil to create the
tunnel.
“I actually started counting because I was so surprised, and I counted 25
or 26 people,” he said. “That’s three times what I’m used to.”
The staffing of tunnel-boring machines came up repeatedly in interviews with
contractors. The so-called T.B.M.s are massive contraptions, weighing over
1,000 tons and stretching up to 500 feet from cutting wheel to thrust system
, but they largely run automatically. Other cities typically man the machine
with fewer than 10 people.
It is not just tunneling machines that are overstaffed, though. A dozen New
York unions work on tunnel creation, station erection and system setup. Each
negotiates with the construction companies over labor conditions, without
the M.T.A.’s involvement. And each has secured rules that contractors say
require more workers than necessary.
The unions and vendors declined to release the labor deals, but The Times
obtained them. Along with interviews with contractors, the documents reveal
a dizzying maze of jobs, many of which do not exist on projects elsewhere.
There are “nippers” to watch material being moved around and “hog house
tenders” to supervise the break room. Each crane must have an “oiler,” a
relic of a time when they needed frequent lubrication. Standby electricians
and plumbers are to be on hand at all times, as is at least one “master
mechanic.” Generators and elevators must have their own operators, even
though they are automatic. An extra person is required to be present for all
concrete pumping, steam fitting, sheet metal work and other tasks.
In New York, “underground construction employs approximately four times the
number of personnel as in similar jobs in Asia, Australia, or Europe,”
according to an internal report by Arup, a consulting firm that worked on
the Second Avenue subway and many similar projects around the world.
That ratio does not include people who get lost in the sea of workers and
get paid even though they have no apparent responsibility, as happened on
East Side Access. The construction company running that project declined to
comment.
Continue reading the main story
Photo
Costs for the East Side Access project are seven times higher than the
average elsewhere, in part because New York has stood by a small group of
politically connected labor unions, construction companies and consulting
firms. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times
The labor deals negotiated between the unions and construction companies
also ensure that workers are well paid. The agreement for Local 147, the
union for the famed “sandhogs” who dig the tunnels, includes a pay rate
for most members of $111 per hour in salary and benefits. The pay doubles
for overtime or Sunday work, which is common in transit construction.
Weekend overtime pays quadruple — more than $400 per hour.
Other trades are not paid as much but get overtime more frequently on M.T.A.
projects, driving up costs.
Union officials pushed back against the idea that their members are overpaid
. The construction unions, after all, arose in response to exploitative
bosses who underpaid and endangered workers. More than a dozen people died
building New York’s subway, and many more have perished since. Even today,
workers labor in dirty and uncomfortable conditions to build marvels.
“Construction workers deserve every penny they make, and more,” said Gary
LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of
Greater New York. “We live in New York. It’s very expensive to live here.
We take great pride in the work that we do. And the work rules are there to
make sure we stay alive.”
But statistics suggest that the labor deals multiply costs while doing
little to boost safety. During the Second Avenue subway project, for example
, there were 5.5 safety incidents for every 200,000 work hours, according to
federal data. The national average is 3.2. The Silver Line in Washington,
which cost just $300 million per mile, had an even lower rate of incidents.
There also is no evidence that the deals spur faster construction. M.T.A.
projects usually take longer than similar work elsewhere.
Some labor leaders said they were willing to negotiate the work rules to
increase efficiency.
“We can figure out a way,” said Richard Fitzsimmons, business manager for
Local 147, who said that he often sees the construction companies insisting
on workers that are not needed. “I’m the union, and sometimes I’m saying
to myself, ‘What the hell are they even doing?’”
But, Mr. Fitzsimmons added, “we will never negotiate with the safety of our
members.”
Several contractors said the unions are able to maintain the deals because
everybody knows they are politically powerful. The unions working on M.T.A.
projects have donated more than $1 million combined to Mr. Cuomo during his
administration, records show. The governor’s office referred questions to
the M.T.A..
The critics pointed to several unusual provisions in the labor agreements.
One part of Local 147’s deal entitles the union to $450,000 for each tunnel
-boring machine used. That is to make up for job losses from “technological
advancement,” even though equipment has been standard for decades.
“I’m not anti-union at all, but it’s amazing how much they dictate
everything that happens on a job in New York,” said Jim Peregoy, a Missouri
-based cost estimator who has worked on 240 projects in 27 states, including
the Second Avenue subway. Mr. Peregoy said labor was a far bigger part of
his estimates in New York than elsewhere. “You have to account for it,
because it’s huge.”
Continue reading the main story
Photo
The agreement for Local 147, the union for the famed “sandhogs” who dig
the tunnels, includes a pay rate for most members of $111 per hour in salary
and benefits. Overtime on the weekend pays more than $400 per hour. Credit
Todd Heisler/The New York Times
Driving Up Expenses
Even though the M.T.A. is paying for its capital construction with taxpayer
dollars, the government does not get a seat at the table when labor
conditions are determined. Instead, the task of reining in the unions falls
to the construction companies — which often try to drive up costs
themselves.
Typically, construction companies meet with each trade union every three
years to hammer out the labor deals. The resulting agreements apply to all
companies, preventing contractors from lowering their bids by proposing less
generous wages or work rules.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
New York Today
Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining,
style and more.
Sign Up
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York
Times's products and services.
SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
That is not a problem in the private sector, where the possibility of
nonunion labor can force unions to be more competitive, or in parts of the
public sector that involve more potential bidders. But in the small world of
underground construction, experts say there is little cost containment.
Tim Gilchrist, a transportation adviser to Govs. Eliot L. Spitzer and David
A. Paterson, noted all costs are passed on to the M.T.A. “Nobody at the
negotiating table is footing the bill,” he said.
Critics pointed out that construction companies actually have an incentive
to maximize costs — they earn a percentage of the project’s costs as
profit, so the higher the cost, the bigger their profit.
Mr. Lhota, the M.T.A. chairman, agreed that leaving negotiations to unions
and vendors may be problematic. “You’re right; in many ways, there’s this
level of connection between the two,” he said.
But the chairman said he did not know what could be done about it. Hiring
nonunion labor is legal but not politically realistic for the M.T.A. The
transit authority could get unions to agree to project-specific labor deals,
but it has not.
The profit percentage taken by vendors also is itself a factor in the M.T.A.
’s high costs.
In other parts of the world, companies bidding on transit projects typically
add 10 percent to their estimated costs to account for profit, overhead and
change orders, contractors in five continents said. Final profit is usually
less than 5 percent of the total project cost, which is sufficient given
the size of the projects, the contractors said.
Things are much different in New York. In a series of interviews, dozens of
M.T.A. contractors described how vendors routinely increase their estimated
costs when bidding for work.
First, the contractors said, the vendors add between 15 and 25 percent as an
“M.T.A. Factor” because of how hard it can be to work within the
bureaucracy of the transit authority. Then they add 10 percent as a
contingency for possible changes. And then they add another 10-12 percent on
top of all that for profit and overhead.
“It adds up,” said Mysore L. Nagaraja, a former head of M.T.A.
construction now working as a consultant, who called the surcharges standard
for most vendors. “Everybody is looking out for their own interests.”
Denise Richardson, the executive director of the General Contractors
Association, which represents construction companies on M.T.A. projects,
said the surcharges are needed because the vendors assume huge risks on
transit projects and often are forced to pay for mistakes made by the
authority. At the end of the day, she said, the companies make a relatively
small profit.
“It is profit, not covering costs, that allows a firm to hire more people,
expand their administrative space and buy new equipment,” Ms. Richardson
said. “Firms that only cover their costs do not stay in business.”
Continue reading the main story
Photo
When companies prepare bids for M.T.A. projects, they start by estimating
the cost of the work. Then they add between 15 and 25 percent as an “M.T.A.
Factor,” to account for the difficulty of working with the authority.
Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times
Lack of competition is also problem for the M.T.A. A Times analysis of
roughly 150 contracts worth more than $10 million that the authority has
signed in the past five years found the average project received just 3.5
bids.
“In other cities, you get eight bids for projects,” said Gary Brierley, a
consultant who has worked on hundreds of projects in the last 50 years,
including the No. 7 line extension and the Second Avenue subway. “In New
York, you get two or three, and they know that, so they’ll inflate their
bids if they think they can get away with it.”
One of the most important contracts in recent years, for the construction of
the Second Avenue tunnel, got just two bids. M.T.A. engineers had estimated
the contract would cost $290 million, but both bids came in well above $300
million, and the authority did not have much leverage. Ultimately, it
awarded the deal for about $350 million — 20 percent above its estimate.
And then there are the political connections. The vendors that worked on the
East Side Access, Second Avenue subway and No. 7 line projects have given a
combined $5 million to New York politicians since the projects began in
2000, a Times analysis found.
More than a dozen M.T.A. workers were fined for accepting gifts from
contractors during that time, records show. One was Anil Parikh, the
director of the Second Avenue subway project. He got a $2,500 ticket to a
gala, a round of golf and dinner from a contractor in 2002. Years later,
shortly after the line opened, he went to work for the contractor’s parent
company, AECOM. Mr. Parikh and AECOM declined to comment.
A Times analysis of the 25 M.T.A. agency presidents who have left over the
past two decades found that at least 18 of them became consultants or went
to work for authority contractors, including many who have worked on
expansion projects.
“Is it rigged? Yes,” said Charles G. Moerdler, who has served on the M.T.A
. board since 2010. “I don’t think it’s corrupt. But I think people like
doing business with people they know, and so a few companies get all the
work, and they can charge whatever they want.”
Continue reading the main story
Photo
A priest blessed a new phase of the construction of the Second Avenue subway
in 2012. The line also cost far more than the average transit project — $2
.5 billion per mile. Credit ángel Franco/The New York Times
Swelling ‘Soft’ Costs
The M.T.A.’s high costs are not limited to the companies that build the
tunnels. Projects start burning through cash long before construction begins.
On average, “soft costs” — preliminary design and engineering, plus
management while construction is underway — make up about 20 percent of the
cost of transit projects in America, according to a 2010 report by the
Transportation Research Board. The average is similar in other countries,
contractors said.
Not in New York.
The latest federal oversight report for the Second Avenue subway projected
soft cost spending at $1.4 billion — one-third of the budget, not including
financing expenses. M.T.A. officials said that number was high because it
included some costs for design of later phases of the line. But experts said
it was still shocking.
“The crazy thing is it’s so high even with everything else,” said Larry
Gould, a transit consultant and former M.T.A. subway planner. “If we have
three or four times as many workers, how can the percentage for soft costs
be so high?”
Soft costs for East Side Access are expected to exceed $2 billion. The
project plan called for the hiring of 500 consultants from a dozen different
companies, according to a 2009 federal oversight report.
Both the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access projects hired the same
main engineering firm: WSP USA, formerly known as Parsons Brinckerhoff. The
firm, which designed some of New York’s original subway, has donated
hundreds of thousands to politicians in recent years, and has hired so many
transit officials that some in the system refer to it as “the M.T.A.
retirement home.”
The firm was the only vendor to bid on the engineering contract for the
Second Avenue subway, records show. On East Side Access, it is sharing the
contract with STV Inc., which recently hired the former M.T.A. chairman
Thomas F. Prendergast. The contract was initially for $140 million, but it
has grown to $481 million.
WSP USA declined to answer questions. “WSP has undertaken complex and
enduring infrastructure projects across the U.S., and the New York region
presents unique needs and challenges,” the firm said in a statement.
The M.T.A. is partly to blame. Officials have added to the soft costs by
struggling to coordinate between vendors, taking a long time to approve
plans, insisting on extravagant station designs and changing their minds
midway through projects. In 2010, they hired a team of three consultants to
work full time on East Side Access “operational readiness” — getting the
tunnel ready to open — even though contractors knew construction would not
end for another decade.
Janno Lieber, who joined the M.T.A. as chief development officer in April,
acknowledged there were parts of the authority’s project management
approach that have been “broken” and “self-defeating.” Changing plans
midway through projects is a “huge issue,” as is over-customization of
designs and poor management of consultants, he said.
“We just have to do a much better job,” Mr. Lieber said. “We’re relying
on these consultants to run our projects, and we’re not getting good
results out of them.”
Others have a more skeptical perspective about the soft costs.
Jack Brockway, an executive at Herrenknecht, a German manufacturer of tunnel
-boring machines, said he got “stacks and stacks and stacks” of
instructions from consultants for his work on the Second Avenue subway, down
to details that barely made sense.
“It makes you wonder if it’s really necessary, or if they’re just trying
to do something to justify how much they’re getting paid,” Mr. Brockway
said.
Photo
Workers at a new Metro station in Paris in December. Despite France’s
strong unions, Paris has lower subway construction costs than New York City
because of more efficient staffing, fierce vendor competition and scant use
of consultants. Credit Pete Kiehart for The New York Times
The View From Paris
Across the Atlantic Ocean, Paris is working on a project that brings the
inefficiency of New York into stark relief.
The project, called the Line 14 extension, is similar to the Second Avenue
subway. Both projects extend decades-old lines in the hopes of reducing
systemwide overcrowding. Both involved digging through moderately hard soil
just north of the city center to make a few miles of tunnel and a few
stations about 80 feet underground. Both used tunnel-boring machines made by
Herrenknecht. Both faced strict regulations, high density and demands from
neighbors, which limited some construction to 12 hours per day.
But while the Second Avenue Subway cost $2.5 billion a mile, the Line 14
extension is on track to cost $450 million a mile.
On a recent afternoon at a Line 14 construction site, an official expressed
disbelief that New York was spending so much.
“We thought ours was expensive,” said Laurent Probst, managing director of
Île-de-France Mobilités, which controls transit in the French capital.
As he descended into the hole carved for the future Pont Cardinet station,
it became clear how the costs could be so different. Scattered around the
cavern were a couple dozen workers, running drills, smoothing over soil and
checking electrical systems. Mostly, they worked by themselves.
Mr. Probst, 39, wearing a suit and blue tie under his orange safety jacket,
pushed the button to operate the elevator himself.
France’s unions are powerful, but Mr. Probst said they did not control
project staffing. Isabelle Brochard of RATP, a state-owned company that
operates the Paris Metro and is coordinating the Line 14 project, estimated
there were 200 total workers on the job, each earning $60 per hour. The
Second Avenue subway project employed about 700 workers, many making double
that (although that included health insurance).
The tunnel-boring machine chewing through dirt north of Pont Cardinet — a
secondhand machine, Ms. Brochard noted — was staffed by a dozen laborers
who bounced between the control room, the cutting wheel and the sides of the
machine.
Continue reading the main story
Photo
Inside the control room of a tunnel-boring machine in Paris, where a crew
half the size of those in New York operated the 1,000-ton contraption.
Credit Pete Kiehart for The New York Times
The small number of workers has not slowed the Paris project. The line,
which will run driverless trains every 85 seconds, is set to open by 2020,
six years after groundbreaking. The Second Avenue subway, by contrast, took
a decade to build.
M.T.A. officials declined to comment on the Paris project.
RATP handled all the contracting, Mr. Probst said. But the government worked
closely with vendors, trying to build the type of collaborative
relationships that are rare in New York.
The management contractor — Systra, which also worked on the Second Avenue
subway — got a relatively small contract, Mr. Probst said. Soft costs
totaled 20 percent of the project budget.
Officials awarded dozens of contracts, and most garnered at least a half
dozen bids, driving down costs.
“Our first cost estimate was 260 million euros,” said Patrick Ramond,
underground construction director at Razel-Bec, which beat five competitors
to win a contract for half the tunneling. “We had to drop that by 40
million to get the job.”
Because of that and some technical issues, Mr. Ramond said Razel-Bec was
losing money on the job. Usually, he said, the firm makes a profit of about
5 percent.
“We do fine. I make a good living,” Mr. Ramond said with a laugh. “We’re
not trying to rip anybody off.” | S*****l
发帖数: 1043 | 2 所以说川粉傻逼啊，几个川粉挣钱时薪能比得上挖隧道的左屄，哈哈？ | S*****l
发帖数: 1043 | 3 就美国现在这基建，连有点脑子的美国人自己也看不下去，竟然也有傻逼黄人舔得下去
嘴 | s*****r
发帖数: 43070 | | y*****s
发帖数: 2028 | 5 也得有个度，美国的工会成功摧毁了美国汽车工业，基本上工会强悍的行业，10年之内
就在美国凋零。
【在 s*****r 的大作中提到】
: 挖隧道的活不是人干的，落下一身病，多挣些正常
| S*****l
发帖数: 1043 | 6 马工也伤身体吧？
美国工人要是因为资本家保护没做好搞出工伤，工会绝对为你出头下半身衣食无忧了，
耗子羡慕不已
【在 s*****r 的大作中提到】
: 挖隧道的活不是人干的，落下一身病，多挣些正常
| o*********e
发帖数: 3093 | | z*****l
发帖数: 3472 | 8 民主含量高！五毛懂什么？
【在 S*****l 的大作中提到】
: 就美国现在这基建，连有点脑子的美国人自己也看不下去，竟然也有傻逼黄人舔得下去
: 嘴
| t*****9
发帖数: 10416 | 9 工人超时应该罚款 ～～scheduled work 居然不能按时完成哈
【在 S*****l 的大作中提到】
: 纽时是比较客观靠谱，可读性强的左派媒体，比CNN强多了
: 没读完，注意到如下几点：
: 1. 2010年一个未向公众披露的调查显示：某隧道工程1/3的工人吃空饷，每天1000美元
: 工资
: 2. 工会收买政客要挟建筑商
: 3. 纽约隧道工程操作同样的机器，做类似量的工作，
: 需要的人手是亚洲澳洲欧洲（法国等）国家3-4倍
: 4. 挖隧道工人时薪＋福利每小时111元，周末节假日时薪翻倍，超时再翻倍到 400／
: per hour， 结果发现工人工作很容易超时（为啥工程整体进度还是那么慢想不明白）
: 。。lol
|
|
