SpecciesAdmirer - I understand why you would wonder, but don't...

SpecciesAdmirer - I understand why you would wonder, but don't waste any energy being concerned about unions having any influence on robotic technology fears in the US. Unions are only strong in metro areas of large cities. They are likely at most 25% of the labor force in construction market (perhaps even under 20%). DRAMATICALLY less percentage in residential construction. That said, technology advances such as forklifts, cranes, platform scaffold, and pre-blended mortars, have been embraced as they put less wear and tear on the bodies of the workers. Unions also already have "robot" related language in many of their collective bargaining agreements which secures the manning of the robots as their work to claim (rather than laborers or operating engineers). Not to belittle your concern about the union influence, but just know it is NOT anything to be anxious about as it relates to FBR-like inventions. That how I see it.

Delays in getting an actual agreement, in my opinion, are more so about getting FBR at the front end of a development's design. FBR's Hadrian process is IMPRESSIVE, PROMISSING, and has a place. However, until it is more well known, it is a significant enough value engineering change that I believe it needs to be at the front end of the design process in a development before actually awarding contracts for laying block walls. Now that we know the demonstrations received the nod from local building authorities, using the FBR process can and should start to happen. But you don't just flip a switch. Let's hope FBR stays afloat long enough for a PULTE or similar to include the FBR process in the drawings for a new development. Then, the awkward WaaS arrangement would finally start. Or, better yet, FBR would allow a mason contractor or general contractor or self-performing developer to buy a few machines and do the work for PULTE - which would start the trend. Peace!