|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Union Projectionists
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 07-11-2010 05:51 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
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.
Just because YOU want to have absolute dominant control over every aspect of a business you create doesn't mean that all business owners are like that. Hence, why I said his statement was a complete generalization. And I wasn't trying to mischaracterize; I actually consider implementing total domination over your workforce to be "behaving badly."
quote: Steve Guttag
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.
I was considering both statements together even though I only quoted this one. My bad.
Still, I don't really buy the idea that because unions have done past good that this means that they must be doing good today. Whatever union we talk about should be looked at for what good it's doing today, not on what things it got implemented decades ago. I would never join a union solely on the notion that it has helped people in the past. And for what it's worth, I have worked in a union before and it was a perfectly fine experience; at UPS the union and company worked together to benefit each other.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-12-2010 05:58 AM
Same disclaimer as Steve. Nothing in this post is intended to be Political but as Steve said, it's hard to discuss unions without seeming a little political.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the projectionist union is effectively dead, Steve's post is right on the money.
For corporate and management reading this thread, regardless of projectionist or floor staff, I must quote one thing Steve said...
quote: Steve Guttag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't want a union, don't create the environment that causes one to form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That couldn't be more true. If you are someone that has had a union formed (or attempted to form) under your command, the problem is YOU.
Although this is how it would work in an ideal world it is far from true. Delta Airlines is among the least unionized airlines in the world and they have always been known for treating their non-union workers extremely well, compensating them as well if not better than fully unionized airlines. However, a couple of weeks ago, the IAM started the process of trying to unionize Delta's customer service and ramp workers. The workers did not start this process, the union did. It isn't because of poorly treated workers, it's just because the IAM wants to get into another airline and add more people to their ranks.
In general the issue with unions and what they do is how you define "fair" wages and work rules. The way the free market economy is supposed to work is that companies compete for the best workers while also competing for customers. For example, I used to be an engineer for Motorola. After I left, RIM wanted to boost their engineering talent so they hired away a bunch of people I knew and paid them more to get them to leave.
Unions (in general) take away this competition and use their power to force companies to pay what the union thinks is fair. Look at the recent Spirit Airlines pilot strike. All you heard from the Pilots was "The airline made $80 Million profit last year so they should be paying us more." Well, why? The purpose of the existence of the company is to earn profit but the union decides they are making too much. When the pilots took their job they agreed to the pay they received. If they aren't happy with the compensation they are getting then quit and get another job that pays better instead of striking to force the company into concessions.
Of course a union supporter will say "we're in the worst economy in 30 years and there aren't any other jobs that our members can get that pay more." I think that is my point. The union gets in the way of how a free market is supposed to work. Even though the union may "take care" of their members, a big goal of the union is to increase membership to thus increase dues and pay for the union bureaucracy.
Another point that Randy made is one of my biggest issues with unions in general. They don't just use the dues for the benefit of the workers. Millions of dollars of union dues are used for political contributions to candidates of the union's choosing. Even if 40 percent of the membership supports a different candidate or party their money still goes to support the opposition. Of course union support tends to go to one particular political party that is seen as union friendly but honestly even if the contributions went to the other party I'd still have a huge problem with it.
In closing, unions served an important purpose many years ago when working conditions were aweful and in many cases dangerous. The introduction of Federal labor laws has eliminated the need that existed for unions. If you don't feel you are fairly compensated at your current job then go find a better job. If all the good employees leave a particular company then that company will either have to improve their compensation package or will end up failing because they can't get anybody good to work for them. A union shouldn't force them into a "fair" compensation package.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-12-2010 10:12 AM
Come on Chris...this is unbecoming of you. You turned "wanting to control ones business" into
quote: Chris Slycord
...total domination over your workforce...
But be that as it may...I ask you to poll some business OWNERS and ask what they think they should be in charge/control of when it comes to their business. I'd think more than 99% will feel they should have 100% say on all aspects...even if they choose to delegate, the final say would be with them...this includes who and how much to pay folks and what benefits to offer.
quote: Chris Slycord
Still, I don't really buy the idea that because unions have done past good that this means that they must be doing good today.
Again, a jump on your part...it is a fact that they have done good in the past and, clearly, it is a matter of opinion as to what good they are doing today. Depending on the circumstance, they are doing quite good!
Oh Lyle...you just don't understand. You want to impress your ideals (clearly "free-market") onto how the laws currently are written
quote: Lyle Romer
Although this is how it would work in an ideal world it is far from true. Delta Airlines is among the least unionized airlines in the world and they have always been known for treating their non-union workers extremely well, compensating them as well if not better than fully unionized airlines. However, a couple of weeks ago, the IAM started the process of trying to unionize Delta's customer service and ramp workers. The workers did not start this process, the union did. It isn't because of poorly treated workers, it's just because the IAM wants to get into another airline and add more people to their ranks.
Lets get some facts...a UNION CAN NOT UNIONIZE A WORKPLACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS AGREEING TO IT! There is a whole process to unionization...it starts with pledge cards...if enough workers sign on with pledge cards (majority), the union will then submit said cards to the NLRB seeking recognition. There will then need to be a vote to form a union at said work place...again, if they don't get a majority, the union doesn't form. Thus, the only way Delta or any other employer gets a union is if the workers vote for it...very fair, you would have to admit.
The fact that a union may approach a workforce to organize them is not necessarily a wrong thing...one of the union's jobs is to organize the unorganized for the more members they have, the greater their strength. One in a union often feels that a worker is better off being in said union and thus wants to improve the status of like workers. It is no different than any other organization, religion or company that is trying to "sell" you on what they have to offer. There is nothing legally or morally wrong with it.
quote: Lyle Romer
In general the issue with unions and what they do is how you define "fair" wages and work rules.
That is what negotiations are for...to define what is fair to both parties...typically, if there is no union...it is a take it or leave it proposition that often leads to less for the worker...especially when one looks at the entire job class.
quote: Lyle Romer
The way the free market economy is supposed to work is that companies compete for the best workers while also competing for customers.
Yes that is how it is supposed to work...and if this was a class in economics we could go on...and any real study of economics and the "free market" system will lead one to find substance level living. The free market will self-correct to the point it always finds the lowest price for the demand...the point where supply/demand truly find their equilibrium is at the point where all are at subsistence. But really this is another discussion in economic theory...I went with it to point out:
This is NOT a totally free-market system! There are already outside forces that alter the ideal free market. Lets begin with minimum wage. This is a government created force that limits just how low one can pay for a job. There are limits on hours/day too. In a free-market, one doesn't have limits/controls on environmental factors either since they add to the cost of the business but as a community we have laws governing that too.
Well guess what...our community (USA) provides for having unions and just like the other laws, be they labor, environment or whatnot, if a union forms, it is something a business has to contend with. And yes, just like the other items, it is a skewed result from a pure free-market. Get over it or change the laws. That said, it does not skew the free market model within a locality since all entities have the same rules to contend with.
quote: Lyle Romer
a big goal of the union is to increase membership to thus increase dues and pay for the union bureaucracy.
While that may be your perception... The goal of a union to increase membership is not to pay for the bureaucracy but to increase the strength of the union in order to obtain more favorable results from their negotiations. It is true, the larger the union, the larger the overhead to run said union but that is true of most entities. As a percentage of dues, as the union increases in size, the portion of the dues that goes to the overhead becomes less and less. In fact, many locals don't pay their executive board...which I can state from personal experience.
quote: Lyle Romer
They don't just use the dues for the benefit of the workers. Millions of dollars of union dues are used for political contributions to candidates of the union's choosing.
Why do you think those campaign contributions are not for the purpose of benefiting the workers? They contribute to to politicians in an attempt to obtain more favorable labor legislation which should benefit the workers. It is part of the overhead. Personally, I'm all for banning campaign contributions from ALL entities. However, if big business entities have their lobbyists, then all the legislature will hear are about the needs/wants of big business...not surprisingly, that is how the laws will form.
quote: Lyle Romer
All you heard from the Pilots was "The airline made $80 Million profit last year so they should be paying us more." Well, why? The purpose of the existence of the company is to earn profit but the union decides they are making too much. When the pilots took their job they agreed to the pay they received.
While I don't know this specific case...if it is like any negotiation I've heard...it would be at the conclusion of the contract and it is renegotiation. You make it sound like they are in the middle of a contract term and are wanting to change the rules. It sounds more like to me that they are back at the table at the end of a contract and are asking for a pay raise. If the company is crying "poor" for the reason not to grant said pay raise, they will point out the profits to prove why that is not a valid reason. Who knows, neither of us are in those meetings. You also don't discuss if the pilots took pay cuts during less profitable time or if there was a clause that allowed a fluctuating pay based on company profits. There is nothing inherently sinister your "point." The workers want more compensation...it is part of negotiation.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Once a union forms, and the owners who were real butt heads in the first place have moved on, and all of the original employees have moved on, and there are new people working there from top to bottom and everyone is happy, how do they get rid of the union?
Simple...decertify the union. Again, that has to be worker based...if you don't want the union, vote to decertify. Note...workers can even change union affiliations (switch unions entirely yet remain the same workforce working for the same employer). A union represents employees.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 07-12-2010 12:17 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Come on Chris...this is unbecoming of you. You turned "wanting to control ones business" into
That is absolutely not what the original statement said.
"It is about control...business owners want all of it"
That's a little different than just saying they want to control their business. This is implying that the business owners want absolute, total control. And it's just not true for lots of owners.
quote: Steve Guttag
Again, a jump on your part...it is a fact that they have done good in the past and, clearly, it is a matter of opinion as to what good they are doing today.
That's exactly my point. I'm not arguing that unions haven't done good things in the past. I'm arguing that those past good things have no bearing on a discussion on whether unions serve their purpose today. And I'm *not* arguing that unions *aren't* doing good. I'm arguing that it depends.
quote:
Depending on the circumstance, they are doing quite good!
You say this as if I'm arguing otherwise. Strange, considering that I've explicitly stated here that unions can be good depending on circumstances.
quote: Steve Guttag
Simple...decertify the union. Again, that has to be worker based...if you don't want the union, vote to decertify. Note...workers can even change union affiliations (switch unions entirely yet remain the same workforce working for the same employer). A union represents employees.
Seems easy. But not neccessarily so. For instance (and I know this is anectdotal), I recall my grandfather telling us that several times they went on strike against Maytag were where the workers consistently voted against striking and the union representatives started helping new people get hired who supported them and eventually they got enough votes to strike.
If something like that happens, it becomes a bit harder to decertify since a fair number of people feel extra loyal to the union guy (esp if they got them hired during a time where it's really hard to get a job at all).
edit: Typo
| 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
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic