|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Union Projectionists
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Marini
Film Handler
Posts: 27
From: issue maryland/ USA
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 07-10-2010 07:16 PM
What a union truely does is to allow workers to speak with a greater voice than just the single person, to bargain for superior working conditions and benefits and for a better life.
Can you find examples, many even, of unions doing bad things...sure...can you find examples of employers doing bad things? At least 10 times more. There needs to be a balance and at the moment, the balance is not there and as such, workers in the states are not paid fair wages or benefits. To think, once upon a time in the US (not too long ago even) the average worker could support their familiy on a single income where they paid cash for their car (not financed it 5-7 years). To think that business were big and profitable at the same time too.
Most concepts that the government feels the need to try and legislate really started with the labor movement and the benefits they bargained for...even restrictions on child labor were born with the labor movement. Minimum wage...again a labor idea. In the state of Maryland, the legislative body has pass a bill to require large corporations to spend at least 8% of payroll on health insurance to all employees. Personally, I don't think that is the right place for government but that is something that unions have baragined for and without them...employers are going to increasingly be told what they have to do by law.
It is about control...business owners want all of it...but people are not property (now that slavery is gone) so absolute control is not nor should not be condoned. "Take it or leave it" is a 3rd world concept, not one that the USA should strive for.
Remember, worker's right to unionize is guaranteed, an employer's desire to not have union workers is not legally protected...it isn't the employer's choice in the USA.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Goucher
Film Handler
Posts: 34
From: New York, NY USA
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 07-10-2010 10:22 PM
We're getting quite political now.
I agree fully that since REAGAN the unions have been shafted. Right-leaning courts and judges have fallen over themselves to create "supervisors" who cannot join unions, who are vaguely defined, and maybe get to wear a white shirt instead of a blue one and are no more supervisors than the lowest person on the staff ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Sorry for the run-on sentence.
The girl who works the concession stand can say, "Take up the print!" which a projectionist would do anyway, but she's a supervisor because she directs workers! It began that managers and assistant managers were the "supervisors" but as they demanded more money, it became easier for employers to designate the girl or guy who had been there a month as the "supervisor".
BTW, turnover at movie theaters is horrendous. When I started in the 1970s, little old ladies had been there since they stopped being chorus girls 30 years before. Have you seen anyone over the age of 30 working in a movie house lately? I mean a megaplex?
School kids aren't taught the list of work practices brought about by unions. "Social Studies" have eliminated the history of unions, anything about unions, and civics! It will (sadly) require a return to the streets with jail time for leaders and perhaps violence to earn (yes, EARN) back the rights which have been eroded while we all enjoyed the fat cat life of the coked up '70s, me generation '80s, and the hi-tech '90s and the go-go early 21st Century (up to 2007, anyway).
The so-called greatest generation spent lots of time in the streets organizing those jobs under union jurisdiction. We're going to have to do it all over again.
I'm the President of my union and I have re-read and okayed this message.
Thanks to John Pena for bringing all this up!!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-11-2010 04:04 PM
Okay...I've held off on this one long enough...I suspect the thread may be closed soon only because it is difficult to not talk politics when talking about unions because both involve philosophy about how people should interact and live. That said, nothing in my statements should be taken for anything political (belief, position, endorsement...etc. If you see it...you are reading into it).
I have seen this thing (unions) from just about every side. I've been a non-union worker, supervisor (in the real sense...had hire/fire capability, authority to change/implement policy). I've been sent on missions to dissuade people from joining a union or getting one involved. On the union side I have been (and am) a member of IATSE (locals 22, 224 and 815), served as an executive board member, been responsible for training (both union and non-union and not just at the location I may been presently working...but for either a company as a whole or for the local, as a whole. I've been involved in organizing, NLRB hearings and contract negotiations. As I have said, I've seen it from all sides. And like many others here, I have also had the pleasure (and displeasure) of working with other trades in construction that may or may not have been unionized.
I'm not going back to page 1 of this thread but will concentrate on pages 30 and onward (the recent discussions relative to this one).
The most relevant posting in the span of pages 30-35 is actually from Mr. Marini when he states:
quote:
What a union truely [sic] does is to allow workers to speak with a greater voice than just the single person, to bargain for superior working conditions and benefits and for a better life.
That is it, in a nutshell. All of the rest of the BS discussed here, is just that, BS. Everyone can come up with anecdotal evidence about a good or bad experience (from just about every angle).
Now obviously, this world does not allow such a rosy concept, as Mike states, to just be that...the real world does tend to muck things up a bit and hence the discourse.
There are individuals among us that are just out for themselves. This tends to get you bad unions and bad workplaces. Those that tend to be "team players" and think about the greater good tend to have better unions and better work places.
I tend to feel that both unions and employers would benefit from greater regulation to prevent abuses (which is often by the few). Self-policing seldom works because once the problem "gets in power" it self-perpetuates.
If an employer treats their workers fairly...they need not worry about unions. Unions get involved when workers feel they are being taken advantage. Generally speaking, those that get unions, deserve them.
quote: Michael Marini was the last to post
Remember, worker's right to unionize is guaranteed, an employer's desire to not have union workers is not legally protected...it isn't the employer's choice in the USA
Another quote from Mr. Marini on page 35 that is right on target. That is the law. This applies to ANY worker that is not excluded by the NLRB. If the front of the house wants to unionized...so be it...even if they are just "kids." You may not like it or think it is foolish or resent it as a business owner or operator...but that is their right, under the law and it should also be a wake up call that people are feeling particularly oppressed. It isn't easy or free to form a union so something has a bug up their butt. And it isn't the "fat cat union looking for dues" because that rarely is it.
Okay...on to looking at the statements made since page 30.
Here are some (of many) statements that Randy has made:
quote: Randy Stankey
My problem is that, regardless of what union organizes the shop or what local chapter of the union has jurisdiction, the goal of the workers changes from getting the job done to maintaining political power.
I would not give even one cent of my money to an organization that doesn't look out for my interests.
Political power? Or do you mean control over the work environment? There isn't political power on the job site...there is political power within the union or with making laws. If you mean the "take what I say or get out" mentality changes...well yes...one thing that a union will do is legally define rules that EVERYONE has to play by. You don't get to arbitrarily change ones job description or rules. Every one knows what the rules are (they are spelled out if they are covered by a contract).
As to giving money to an organization that doesn't have your interests at heart...a union is generally a very GOOD example of an organization that has your interest highest on their priority list. In fact, of their various things one contributes money do, unions are very high at return on investment. Not always, for sure but in general...very high. I also dare say you contribute money to a government (local, state, country) that may not always have your specific interests at heart...or homeowners associations...and the examples go on and on. In fact, if you look at many of the disgust on this thread it relates to lazy workers that get too much representation.
And then there is Richard...
quote: Richard Hamilton
I haven't worked in an operating union booth, but I've done enough installs that I can say union people can kiss my ass.
I'm sure the feeling is mutual. Just read all of the crap you have spewed...you are way too hostel.
I too have worked on many sites that had either union or non-union trades and not once have I had a problem with a union shop...just the opposite. If you approach people with a hostel attitude, it tends to come back at you. I don't doubt that you have had bad experiences...there are good and bad in any trade (as been states MANY times)...but even you said:
quote: Richard Hamilton
A card in your pocket doesn't make you any smarter.
And no one will disagree with you there.
Anyone that has done a few installations knows that a good electrician is worth their weight in gold and they are few and far between.
quote: Richard Hamilton
When I want to finish an install and have to wait because the Union electrions have to take a 30 minute smoke break because they are intitled to it really pisses me off.
There we go...when a contract is signed...it set up the rules for everybody...you know when the breaks are coming. There is nothing wrong with breaks...in fact, they are often legislated. If you don't want to play by the established rules, that is your fault, not theirs...it isn't arbitrary. You may want to get to the work place faster by driving 70 in a 35 zone...it doesn't make it right. Your complaint is pointless.
quote: Richard Hamilton
I usually try to work after 3 PM when the union guys just drop their tools and walk out the door because it is their union quitting time. Thats when I terminate wires and double check shit
They quit because the work day is over. Their life does not revolve around 1 specific job. They also probably started around 6:00am too. They have also probably been on the job site many months longer than you...it is far easier for a specialty trade to put on the afterburners and work 12-14 hour days for 2-weeks than to keep that up for months...they also, probably being family folk have kids to pick up, groceries to buy...etc...again your complaint is stupid.
I too note when the job site closes down (union or non) and schedule myself to overlap enough to convey what I need to the foreman, check over what I was expecting and then have much of the time to myself by working the "2nd shift" so I get an uncluttered workspace. So what is the problem? Some site do not allow work outside of the job hours for security reasons...on those I work the same hours as the construction crew and generally do work slower...but that is the owner's choice and they pay for it.
Okay...back to Randy
quote: Randy Stankey
The problem is the sense of universal entitlement that people develop. They start to think that because they are allowed to have a break that they are the arbiters of when and where the break shall be taken.
I dunno...all of the break times I've been involved with were in the contract...not arbitrary at all. If your complaint is that they all happened at the same time...it was because it was in the contract that way. If you don't like it...change the language in the contract before you sign it. You don't seem like you have a problem with the break concept so there shouldn't be a problem of making it more conclusive to what environment you are in.
And the converse to your argument is that one reason people form/join unions is they don't want their supervisor to arbitrarily decide who/when people get breaks...they want things spelled out so they are treated fairly. In many of the construction environments I've been on...there is a set time for breaks and you are expected to be working at other times. It is a lot easier to have set times so the supervisors don't have to keep track of who is on break...the roach coaches can be scheduled to be on site at set times...etc.
quote: Randy Stankey
At any job I have worked, people had to spell each other for breaks and lunch/dinner times. This includes retail stores, hotels, theaters and other places. Not everybody could go on break at the same time.
It really depends on the type of job, doesn't it? As a projectionist, union or non...I've never had a "diner break." I have been expected to be in the booth at all times when equipment is running. In singles, one could go out for some "carry out" if the timing worked out. If the job environment is conducive...you can write the method of break any way you want, so long as it is evenly applied and agreed.
quote: Randy Stankey
The actual procedure is inconsequential. It is more important that there is an agreed-upon way to dole out lunch times that is fair and orderly.
Agreed.
I think Rick adequately answered rest.
quote: Randy Stankey
I don't care if union dues are $19.00 or 19¢. I do not want any of my union dues money used as campaign contributions or special interest donations towards candidates or causes that I do not believe in. I don't care what your political affiliation is. The fact remains that the UNION decides how to spend that money, not ME.
Okay...this statement is WAY beneath you, Randy! I'm still amazed you said it. Unions have PACs because companies do. The goal is for favorable legislation that DOES benefit you. The laws are perpetually against unions/workers...don't believe me...go to an NLRB hearing. About the only group working in the worker's best interest is the union and those PACs. As for deciding how it is spent...those contributions are indeed voted upon by the membership and/or their duly elected representatives. In a community, one does not get to have a say over each and every item...it would ensure that NOTHING gets done...just like we have a representational form of government, we have a representational form of unions. You may not agree with how every penny is spent but most of the dollars are going to benefit you. And like before, there are many things that you are spending money on that you don't get a complete say on how it is spent.
quote: Richard Hamilton
When I am on site and am trying to meet a deadline so that i can be somewhere else, and some fuck demands a "smoke break" fuck em, they can go to hell.
Who appointed you king of the job site? Because YOU show up people should say "fuck my family and life"...I'll work 24-hour to ensure Rick gets to get to another job site? Your statement is very self-serving and speaks not one nit to the worker who is merely taking a break. If you want to work crazy hours to get the job done...great. There is nothing legally or morally wrong for a worker to take a break and work a standard day (typically 8-hours). Sam summed it up pretty well.
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
The advent of xenon bulbs. platters and automations pretty much made the job so easy, a caveman can do it, and the unions, rather than enforcing quality of persons, had the territorial rights reaction that Sam was referring to.
Actually no. They changed the landscape, not the job. The better projectionist will be notably better (even from the theatre perspective) than the caveman projectionist.
What REALLY changed was that the actual showing of the movie no longer was part of the money making scheme. If you dump x amount of money to the presentation, how much return on that investment can you prove came back to the business? This is a question going on with 3D right now...and while 3D remains (though diminishing) a draw over 2D of the same movie one can easily show a higher percentage of the gross going to the 3D screen(s). But right now...if you bought Dolby Digital versus Datasat digital...could you show a return on the investment on your spread sheet? How about buying the digital sound at all? Now...look at the projectionist...there is a person you are spending money on every day...how much return on that investment do you get? It is a business, after all. These questions need to be asked. While most here will be able to rationalize that there is a level of presentation mediocrity that will cause folks to stay away from a particular theatre but one would be really hard pressed to show how any ONE part of the presentation is worth x-amount. It is normally the sum of all of the little parts to the theatre experience...from the ad through the boxoffice experience, lobby, concession and finally the theatrical show...it all adds up. Some theatres, like the Uptown in DC, the Ziegfeld, Arclight...etc that develop reputations of being "special" though I doubt a typical patron could put their finger on why..except the obvious..."big screen" "great sound"...etc...but in truth they also do recognize non-scratched movies bright vibrant pictures, well tuned sound...etc. But it is REALLY hard to quantify the financial impact for providing any one of those pieces because they are interactive. The projectionist falls in there somewhere. The perception of scratched film inevitability (films always get scratched in the first shows)...is really a self-fulfilling prophecy. You put cavemen in the booths...you get cavemen shows which look like crap (Regardless of equipment provided) and then you rationalize that putting in digital is required to overcome that there are "no good projectionists anymore" and they would "want too much money if they did exist." Well, the exhibitor, by in large, created that environment because there is no money in showing the movie itself. If there was a penalty (a real one) for damaged prints or botched shows...the demise of the projectionist would have been forestalled FAR longer. If the accountant could show on the spreadsheet the cost of equipment and print damage that the exhibitor payed for due to poorly qualified booth personnel, then the "value" would be easier assessed.
quote: Sean McKinnon
The idea of having recourse against abusive management is great. The idea that you can have someone on your side if you are being unfairly targeted or singled out is great. However, again, I have seen it perverted. If someone is supposed to be a highly skilled professional and supposed to be worth a wage substantially higher than a non represented worker they should act as such. I understand that everyone has bad days and everyone get's stuck in traffic but when you are more than an hour and a half late for work I don't think one should hide behind their union for their wrong it gives the whole union a bad name. Case in point a projectionist I once had was 1 and 1/2 hours late for work (which we almost had to cancel some shows and would have if another manager had been opening as I was the only one who could run the projectors) and instead of owning up to it refused to even acknowledge my existance or take a copy of his "write-up" because he did not have a union witness. He was asked to call someone to come in as a witness but he would not do it. In the end the write-up still stood but come on he knew he was wrong, he knew he deserved it every single employee in the building including myself would have been treated exactly the same way if they were 1 and 1/2 hours late for work but this person tried to shirk his responsibility by hiding behind the local.
Okay...you bring up a specific case but it can be applied to any case of an employee that does not fulfill their obligations as an employee (showing up on time...following established company procedures, conduct...etc).
Here is the scoop on that one...regardless of union or non-union YOU MUST DOCUMENT the incident and YOU DO HAVE RECOURSE. The rules have to be applied fairly though. If you have a policy of three-lates = suspension...then it must apply to all. What a Union's obligation is to investigate and represent the employee. If the charges are valid, the employee may be disciplined as agreed to in the contract including with dismissal. If the employer does not document it, they have no grounds. If the employee refuses to sign (which most will be advised not to do without a representative of the union there)...all you need is a witness to the refusal and notification to the union. A judge or, more likely, arbitrator, will take the witness as the same as the employee signing it. It makes no difference. If you don't document it...the union could be sued for not properly representing the employee. Now you wouldn't want Randy suing the union for him being accused of being late and the union not defending him after he paid his union dues or representational fees! It is the employer's responsibility for documenting the problems. I can personally attest to having employees fired, with a union card, for breaking company rules. And, as a board member having to bring folks before the board to answer for complaints.
Please note, this documentation is necessary for non-union people too...an employer can be sued by any employee for wrongful dismissal. We had a manager sue us at KB...it was a long drawn out case which KB prevailed because we had just enough documentation...and it cost us a bundle to win the case! After that, we dramatically improved the documentation with employee control cards (yellow cards, as they were known). Everyone had them, from upper management on down. If an employee was to be dismissed...the evidence would be overwhelming and it could be easily shown that all were treated fairly.
Okay Lyle...onto you...your heart is in the right place but your ideas are off.
quote: Lyle Romer
For instance, if General Motors factory workers want to collectively bargain, they should form a union and elect representatives from within thier ranks. They should not join the UAW that represents workers from other companies. All the UAW really cares about is getting as many workers unionized and collecting dues. An internal GM union could accomplish the same goals for the workers while significantly cutting down the expense. They can just collect enough dues to pay for attorney's to handle negotiations when necessary.
From experience...the union has to be as strong (financially) and as large as the entity that it is up against if it is to obtain a "fair" contract (the same applies to the business). If the "GM UNION" were to go up against GM...particularly in its heyday...it would have been given a "take it or leave it" contract that would have sucked or killed the union.
In this industry, one could see it easily. One reason for the union projectionist demise was the fact that local unions tried to take on national chains...each with separate contracts. I witnessed the large chains flying folks around when they would target NYC or Chicago..or whatever. If the IA had a master contract that affected the entire chain at once...it would have been MUCH harder to erode the union as the IA has more might than any local within it and the ability to a large chain to withstand a nation wide strike would be far less as all of their major markets would have an issue at once. It is far easier to pickoff one entity at a time...which they did. Mind you, these locals brought it upon themselves...the big locals had big contracts that far exceeded their smaller cousins and they did not want to be brought down by the "lesser" locals. It was very short sighted and self-serving...which brings up an earlier statement of mind...if you are about being a "team" then that is what lends oneself to unionizing...if you just want to better yourself and screw the community...that is not a good plan for a union...they are very counterproductive for each other. To this day, I don't get union required "free-agency."
Anyway...back to Lyle:
quote: Lyle Romer
The other problem I have with unions is striking. If you don't like your job/pay/benefits then quit but it is ridiculous to hold a business hostage, force them to lose money and then return to your job.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) <smack>
Let me be VERY CLEAR about this...the "Strike" is the absolute last resort of any union. It is like chemotherapy. You are there because you are trying to kill a problem before it kills you...and even if successful you may die.
It is NEVER a first or early resort. It is your argument that is ridiculous. The purpose of the strike is to apply the maximum amount of pressure to management to come to terms. It is NOT rosy for the worker...when you go out on strike, you never know if you will have that job again...it is the equivalent to walking out but in an organized fashion. Often you have no income during that time except maybe if there is a strike fund and even then, it isn't going to be big or long lasting. Management knows this and will literally try to starve strikers. Note, Management will hire "scabs" to keep going, if at all possible...strikers, who will need to walk the line are putting their jobs at stake for something they feel they need in the contract. Even at a strike's conclusion, even if the workers "win" is likely not a happy outcome...often that money is not entirely repaid, if at all so the employee is out and the business may have suffered a bit or a lot due to customer dissatisfaction with the whole strike thing happening (people tend to just care about themselves rather than finding out about the issues at stake...a generalization, for sure, but one that I have found to be mostly true).
Your proposed method of just "quitting" has legal ramifications aside from its overall silliness. A strike is essentially the same thing but legally on the right side for the worker...and again, there is no guarantee that the striker will ever set foot back to the workplace again.
quote: Lyle Romer
Also, the concept of collective bargaining works much better in jobs where it is very difficult to measure the quality of work. This is not the case with projectionists. If it is possible to assess the quality of an individual's work then why should pay be based on nothing more than service time?
A misconception that pay is based on service time...pay is based on the contract and schedule. It is normally a non-union environment where pay is tied to length of employment. The only times I've seen specific worker pay in an IA contract I was involved with was relating to management wanting to lower the pay of new-hires but not wanting to penalize the existing worker. The management argument being that "why should I pay the same for a "green" projectionist as the seasoned veteran? The reason is they are doing the same job. The better operators, if they want to make more, can gravitate towards the better paying positions. There can be some room for a few tiers of "merit" based pay increases in a contract schedule...but it does get into a slippery slope of how this merit was earned. The incentive for doing a good job is to get a new contract with wage increases (or benefits) for all. Generally speaking, the best paid positions in projection are not in the mainstream theatres but in places where "the show must go one" and the show quality is considered paramount...(i.e. screening rooms). Normally, these rooms also have a bit of control over who will work there as they demand the highest quality...again...it is all in how you word the contract and most anything can be on the table.
And when it comes to equal pay...unions have a better record...I know that none of the contracts I've been involved with had lower pay for women...which if you believe the various reports, women still make less than men. In my mind, the same job deserves the same pay. I can appreciate a "training pay" or even an apprenticeship pay as one acquires knowledge...however, there should be a point where anyone doing the same job receives the same pay.
I tend to agree that there are jobs that do not lend themselves to unionization as they are very individual talent based (e.g. an author).
quote: Martin McCaffery
I remember there were a few operators who were banned from almost every chain. We in the local knew who they were and wished we could get rid of them. Alas, unions are not legally allowed to fire people.
Yeah, but thankfully, one of the bad apples migrated to Alabama! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Martin McCaffery
Though, I was still there when KB made the transition to non-union, and the bozos they put in the booths at some places were the worst I have ever run across. There are some particularly lovely horror stories from that period.
I have no doubt of that. Then again, I know in the early '80s...K-B's non-union operators stood toe-to-toe with the union operators in terms of quality of show, print damage, missed shows...and so forth. In fact, I would say, as a whole, K-B was notably better. The commotion over any show interruption at K-B in the early '80s was so huge (and I mean even if an exciter lamp burnt out and was replaced immediately...required a fully detailed report, supervisors being paged and an answer for why the lamp was allowed to burn out...it was expected that things like exciter lamps were cleaned and inspected weekly and changed BEFORE they blew out).
Okay, the rest of Mr. Marini's excellent post:
quote: Michael Marini was the last to post
Most concepts that the government feels the need to try and legislate really started with the labor movement and the benefits they bargained for...even restrictions on child labor were born with the labor movement. Minimum wage...again a labor idea. In the state of Maryland, the legislative body has pass a bill to require large corporations to spend at least 8% of payroll on health insurance to all employees. Personally, I don't think that is the right place for government but that is something that unions have baragined for and without them...employers are going to increasingly be told what they have to do by law.
It is about control...business owners want all of it...but people are not property (now that slavery is gone) so absolute control is not nor should not be condoned. "Take it or leave it" is a 3rd world concept, not one that the USA should strive for.
Mike is spot on here. What many folks think of as normal working conditions started with unions fighting, striking, and working for. Doing even the most basic of research will find out ugly things have been.
But it isn't like that is all over and things are all wonderful now. We now have "at will" employment situations where people don't have to have reasons for firing someone. A union contract can put an end to all of that. I'm amazed at some of the arbitrary decisions made at today's work environments. A union is a workers best method to have a greater say in how they will be treated at work. Living through the generosity and good-natureness of others can and does work in some situations and I would say that it is the preferred environment. You don't have the overhead of the union and you can be judged/valued by your own strengths. However, if you do feel you are not being treated fairly, then a union may be an answer. If there is a union where you work, I can guarantee that there was a situation that caused it
quote: Edward Havens
I wish I could live in Michael's world, where everything is black and white, where all unions and union members are good, and where the world never changed after the election of Eisenhower.
Mis-read and mis-representation of Michael's last post. Your statement is as silly as anyone that would post that the world is so rosy now that no unions are needed. The grass is brown everywhere...it is a matter of what degree.
Et tu Chris? You normally look at things pretty well.
quote: Chris Slycord
There also was a time where lots of people didn't care about getting a car that was beyond their means. See, people can buy cars in cash. They just have to be reasonable about what they can afford.
While your statement is true...it misses the point. Though I'm not sure how Mike's statement relates to unions in this case except people's buying power has NOT kept up with inflation. If you take the price of a typical "family" card and look at the typtical middle-class worker of the past...they could buy it cash-out right (and do so about every 6-years or so)...today...the average middle class worker can no longer do that. That is more of a general economic discussion than a union one. A discussion that would get way off topic. I see Mr. Spaeth hit upon a chief reason I think the buying power of most has shrunk.
quote: Chris Slycord
Some people said things against specific unions or even specific dealings with specific unions, then you say "Since you hate unions altogether and think they did nothing good ever, look at the good things they did." That's a strawman argument.
That comment would been applicable to an earlier post of Mike's, but not this one...this one is right on target and legitimate. Too many folks provide a couple cases and try to make a generalization. Mike's statement above is a fact of labor history. Many, if not most legislated "minimums" and worker laws came from unions.
quote: Chris Slycord
Generalize much? Not all businesses have owners that behave badly
A business owner wanting control is not "behaving badly" it is natural. If I create and own something...I tend to want to control it. Your post, however mis-characterizes Mike's statement. Regardless if the business owner (or more likely manager) is power crazy or not, a union is a powerful means for the worker to have a say in their work environment when it comes to conditions and rules.
Mr. Goucher...
quote: Michael Goucher
...courts and judges have fallen over themselves to create "supervisors" who cannot join unions, who are vaguely defined, and maybe get to wear a white shirt instead of a blue one and are no more supervisors than the lowest person on the staff...
There is some truth in this but it has more to do with how the laws currently stand. There is this distinction between laborer and supervisor that has, in more recently history, been one of semantics. What unions should be doing is applying all the pressure they can with Randy's dues (if he were paying them) is trying to get the labor laws changed to allow a much higher level of employee to be represented by a union. That is, in our industry...theatre managers on down should have the option of unionizing. Imagine if this whole "supervisor" argument went out the window of who can/can't be in a/the union? Management effectively used the rules for unions to prevent management from taking control of a union (by stuffing the union with managers) and redefined employees to exclude quasi-supervisors from the unit by mere semantics. It has been very effective and goes against the spirit of the law.
From what I've seen...theatre managers are some of the most abused people on the planet (definitely in this industry) in terms of pay/hour, insult to injury, rules changing on them to keep their jobs...etc...they should have the option of forming a union to improve their lives/working conditions. Currently, it doesn't seem like the laws allow it. The AFL-CIO should strive to change that in the laws.
So...for those that are awake still...I think unions are a necessary evil...that if the world worked right all of the time would not be necessary or desired. But, as the hand has been dealt, they can be very effective at improving the life of workers and the industries they are involved in. There are definitely cases in point of good and bad but that is true in ANY GROUP. It has been my experience that if you take a trade where unions are involved...like up a group of 100 non-union and 100 union from that trade...throw away the top 10% and the bottom 10% from both groups...the remaining 80% will likely get you a better worker from the union group in terms of skill and quality.
I think laws should be changed to allow more unionization but I also think regulation should be stricter to prevent unions from becoming or staying a "good ol boy" club. The government should set up the rules to keep the balance of power better balanced between management and unions so they are forced to get along together better.
I think management needs to do a better job of documenting their problems with workers (either type) to avoid the "perceptions."
If you don't want a union, don't create the environment that causes one to form. It can be done!
If you don't like someone for following the rules...it is YOU that is the problem. If you don't like the rules...either get them changed or don't complain about having to follow them....we all have rules to live by.
And there is no need for animosity between management and unions...both can work and live in very good harmony.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic