Why join a union?

[Omega Man]

The recent AFTRA thread got me thinking about this. How many broadcasters are members? If you already have good benefits through your station what's the point in joining and paying those dues? Not trying to start a war here, I'm genuinely interested in why you would want or need to join.

[Sir Dropham Pants]

I've worked at union and non union stations. My experience has shown very little difference between the two. In fact, employees at the non-union station were probably better off. Again, that's just what I've seen - and I know others have had different experiences.
I've never joined the union. Nothing against the people who do, it's just not for me.

[NYC Street]

They're good questions - not war starting...

There are approximately 60,000 AFTRA members nationwide, of which the newscasters make up about 11%, and disc jockeys and announcers make up another 2-3%.

Members tend to be clustered in larger markets.

You don't gain many benefits from joining unless you're working in a shop that has a union contract. Most of the union benefits, including pension and health insurance, only kick in when the company makes contributions - which they're required to under almost all contracts (there are some contracts that allow members to elect to remain in company health and/or pension plans).

What the union offers, in my view, is more than just the pension and health plans. It's an organization that does the basic negotiating, that sets the floor for things like vacation, comp time, working conditions - and provides a built in layer of protection with grievance procedures and arbitration, should they ever be needed. And for some, they are needed...

The dues aren't exhorbitant - averaging about 1.5%, capped at a reasonable level, and the union is pretty careful about how it spends the members' money.

Net-net, it's a big plus, from my perspective.

One of the most important reaons: since we don't stay at one station or network for our full careers, it's good to have benefits - particularly our pensions - that continue to accrue as long as you're in a union shop.

[ April 30, 2007, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: NYC Street ]

[Spike]

The biggest advantage of a union is that it gives the employees a bigger say in their employment terms and usually keeps management from being able to change things and renege on promises. For example, if your vacation or scheduling policies aren't fair in some way, you can get it brought up at the next negotiation. The union contract gives management a framework under which to operate, so that everyone is on the same page. Managers are not then as free to make up new rules as they go.

In the markets in which I've worked where there were union and nonunion shops, the union shops tended to pay better, usually more than enough to offset the dues. I can't understand why people cry about paying dues of less than 2%, when they are making 10% more than they would without the union. Granted, that's not the way it is in every union shop, but my experience has been that most do pay better than their nonunion rivals.

And the other big advantage of unions, which some people consider a disadvantage, is that with a union you have some protection. If you have a crazy boss who arbitrarily blames something on you that you didn't do and tries to punish you for it, you usually have a grievance procedure in place to settle the dispute. Most of us have probably worked in places at some point or other where we wished we had some kind of outside authority to which we could appeal when something the company was doing wasn't fair. A union usually provides that. The disadvantage from many people's perspective is that the union also protects people who really need to be fired; but that's necessary from a fairness standpoint, because if the union didn't try to protect everyone equally they would be just as bad as management.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Omega Man:
The recent AFTRA thread got me thinking about this. How many broadcasters are members? If you already have good benefits through your station what's the point in joining and paying those dues? Not trying to start a war here, I'm genuinely interested in why you would want or need to join.Spike and NYC nailed it, but to address your question of "if you already have good benefits through your station, what's the point in joining and paying those dues?"

Just ask any CBS staffer (at the network OR the O&Os) and they'll tell you. 20 years ago, CBS, Inc.'s benefits were so far and away better than anything ANY of its unions could offer, *everyone* went for the company benefits.

Of course, those company benefits are offered to you ONLY at the COMPANY'S discretion. Fast-forward 20 years ... CBS' medical benefits now suck a$$, and they've completely phased out its pension and retiree health benefits. Now the union staffers are scrambling back to their respective unions, but (at least in the case of the WGA) are getting a rude awakening: if you want a UNION penion you should have chosen that option YEARS ago, during which the company would have been contributing REAL DOLLARS on your behalf to the union pension fund, and not the "funny money" it paid to itself and subsequently raided and gave to Larry Tisch, Mel Karmazin, and Les Moonves.

Those company benefits can be taken away at any time. If it can happen at the "Tiffany Network", it can happen anywhere (and is).

And therein lies the fundamental benefit of joining a union. UNION members have at least SOME control over their workplace. If they don't like something management is doing, management is bound by law to negotiate.

If the non-union employees don't like what management is doing, they have only two options: get used to saying, without question, "Yes, sir" and suck it up ... or leave.

[ April 30, 2007, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: TVMattNYC ]

[Union Label]

With the exception of government employers, you will generally find organized workplaces in businesses that are poorly managed, have low pay and hazardous conditions.

In broadcasting, you tend to find the majority of union represented employment concentrated in the top 50 markets. These tend to be the stations that are owned by the networks and major ownership groups. The odds of the employee getting a bigger piece of the pie when it comes to negotiating better compensation are much better when the rank and file march into the boss's office in unison than you'd have on your own.

In general, employees working under a collective bargaining agreement earn better compensation and benefits. Here is a good link (http://labor.about.com/od/laborunions/tp/whyunionize.htm) that explains the pluses of union membership.

Before the nay-sayers start piling on with their negative spin on unions, here are a few points I'd like to make:
</font> Some will claim that unions protect poor employees by making it difficult to fire them. In my many years as a union member, I've never seen any contract language that limits management's ability to fire a union represented employee for just cause. I've seen managers use union contracts as a scapegoat for not doing their jobs because they claim that "it is almost impossible to fire a union member". Most of us who've spent more than a day on the job in a large market station know this is not the case. A contract does provide job protection and due process for employees who management might target for frivolous or capricious discipline up to and including termination.
</font> Some will claim that unions limit an employee's ability to earn compensation over and above the base pay set forth in a collective bargaining agreement and in turn breeds mediocrity in the workplace. I've never seen any contract language that limits management's option to pay over and above union scale. The vast majority of the on-air employees at my station make well over union scale. Several of the folks behind the camera also are paid above union scale.
</font> As someone already pointed out above, the dues structure is pretty minimal in comparison to the increased compensation and security a collective bargaining agreement brings. Considering the fact that union dues are tax deductible for those who itemize, the impact of dues is a very small drop in the bucket.
</font> If this thread gets going in a direction I suspect it will, somebody is bound to make accusations about union leadership being corrupt and heavy handed. In my many years as a member, I've yet to see an example of this. I've seen some union office holders elected by members who frankly had no business being in a leadership position. By and large, these types have been quickly weeded out.</font> I'm sure that somebody will also make the claim that unions make contributions to political candidates and causes that don't necessarily reflect the political views of individual members. I've got news for you, most of the companies we work for make donations to candidates and causes that often times do not have our best interests at heart and we have no choice in that matter. Employees in non right-to-work states working in organized workplaces with union security clauses can opt out of paying dues earmarked for political causes by resigning their membership and becoming agency fee payers or so-called financial core. Agency fee payers are still obligated to pay any and all dues to negotiate and enforce a collective bargaining agreement.
</font> The folks who tend to do the most griping about unions not looking out for their best interests are the ones who never participate in the union, volunteer to run for office or even vote on important matters. The best unions are made up of empowered, active members who are on the same page. They understand that they are the union rather than believing that the union is a third party. As in any democracy the union is only as strong as its weakest link.
</font>

[ April 30, 2007, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Union Label ]

[Diplomat]

At least UL is admitting that businesses AND unions sometimes endorse candidates that "don't have our best interests at heart."

[WalMartNation]

I have had plus-minus experience with unions. When I was in high school and college I worked at a grocery store and was in a UCFW Local. Health bennys were, to this day, the best I've ever had.

Only one TV shop I've been at was union, it was CWA... and other than the 24 bucks a paycheck.. it did nothing for me at the time. Benefits were still through the station (sucked too) and I don't every remember getting any info on savings plans or pensions. Maybe our shop steward just sucked though.

My Dad was a shop steward for a while... he's worked numerous trucking jobs over the past 30 years... some Teamsters... some not. He got in the pension plan way back when... worked some non-union jobs but is now a Teamster again. He's not worried about his retirement.

But I tell him to worry about these types of guys
http://i.rollingstone.com/assets/rs/103/74337/images/00110791.jpg

[NYC Street]

AFTRA does not endorse candidates. For any political office. Period.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
AFTRA does not endorse candidates. For any political office. Period.Neither does the WGA.

Several years ago the issue was brought up during a board meeting, and ironically board members were split down the middle ... Democrats versus Republicans!

The issue was dropped.

[Tripe Face]

Unions were so good at accomplishing their mission that's they've nearly worked themselves out of a job.

If you ever had:
-a 2-day weekend
-2 weeks of paid vacation.
-employer contributions to health insurance
-not gotten killed or severly injured on the job
-not seen your 10 year old child march off to work instead of school everyday
-if you've earned a decent day's pay for a decent day's work....

it's because a Union fought hard for those things and many more.

But now companies are EXPECTED (Even legally required) to give employees those things... so the unions don't have as much truly important stuff to fight for.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
Unions were so good at accomplishing their mission that's they've nearly worked themselves out of a job.

If you ever had:
-a 2-day weekend
-2 weeks of paid vacation.
-employer contributions to health insurance
-not gotten killed or severly injured on the job
-not seen your 10 year old child march off to work instead of school everyday
-if you've earned a decent day's pay for a decent day's work....

it's because a Union fought hard for those things and many more.

But now companies are EXPECTED (Even legally required) to give employees those things... so the unions don't have as much truly important stuff to fight for.In what jurisdiction are companies "required" to provide a 2-day weekend, 2 weeks of paid vacation, health insurance, or "decent pay"?

Not in the United States.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tripe Face:
Unions were so good at accomplishing their mission that's they've nearly worked themselves out of a job.

If you ever had:
-a 2-day weekend
-2 weeks of paid vacation.
-employer contributions to health insurance
-not gotten killed or severly injured on the job
-not seen your 10 year old child march off to work instead of school everyday
-if you've earned a decent day's pay for a decent day's work....

it's because a Union fought hard for those things and many more.

But now companies are EXPECTED (Even legally required) to give employees those things... so the unions don't have as much truly important stuff to fight for.In what jurisdiction are companies "required" to provide a 2-day weekend, 2 weeks of paid vacation, health insurance, or "decent pay"?

Not in the United States.</font>[/QUOTE]I should have been more clear.. SOME of those examples companies are required by law.

[CKMD]

Good Question!
Seriously...why join a union?
All of the answers submitted here don't have me wanting to hop in.
But, I've made my own deals and have come a long way and done well for myself without it...so, to each his own... If you want to join a union, join it.
If not, don't force me...that's the problem I have.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
Good Question!
Seriously...why join a union?
All of the answers submitted here don't have me wanting to hop in.
But, I've made my own deals and have come a long way and done well for myself without it...so, to each his own... If you want to join a union, join it.
If not, don't force me...that's the problem I have.Yeah yeah yeah "I've made my own deals" blah blah blah.

If you don't want to work in a union shop, don't take a job there.

[CKMD]

Yep! I've only had to work at one closed shop, still made my own deal which was better than the normal unions schmoes...they filed a grievance...of course, they took my money first.

But....your "blah, blah blah" comment is really telling. Sounds like you can't cut your own deal.
Sucks for you!

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
Yep! I've only had to work at one closed shop, still made my own deal which was better than the normal unions schmoes...they filed a grievance...of course, they took my money first.

But....your "blah, blah blah" comment is really telling. Sounds like you can't cut your own deal.
Sucks for you!Actually I have, and I did.

SWEET for me!

But at least I respect the fact that the union provided a much higher "minimum" than would have been in place without the union.

And my union health and pension plans are the best in the entertainment industry.

[NYC Street]

I've made my own deals and have come a long way and done well for myself without it...A number of people take that position, and, I suppose, that's fine. But I'd question it.

When you say you've done well for yourself, do you have a pension? Is it one that can be cancelled by a company if they run into financial trouble?

When you say you've made your own deals, on what do you think those deals are based? Chances are it's the floor established by union members negotiating with management.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I've made my own deals and have come a long way and done well for myself without it.Additionally ... as a shop steward at the network level ... I've seen quite a few fellow union members who've also "made their own deals" considerably over and above union scale, and who for years looked DOWN on the union, not wanting to get involved, even pooh-poohing our national contract talks every three years, reminding me about their own "deals" they've made (most not realizing I'd made my own "deal" myself, but that's beside the point).

Fine. But ... when the company (with its legions of attorneys and cash reserves that rival small nations) chooses to simply *ignore* that "deal" ... who do you you think that "overscale" member who "cut his own deal" runs to first to fight the company's violation of his contract?

That's right. The UNION. Over the years, as the gravy trains at the networks and O-and-O's continue to run leaner and leaner, more and more of these overscale union members are seeing their "deals" not only erode, but in most cases evaporate altogether.

And they're ALL thanking their lucky stars that at the very least, there's a union minimum. That is, those who ARE union.

What do you think happens to the NON-union producers when the axe starts to fall? Either their "deal" is severely lowballed at contract renewal time ... or it gets tossed out altogether. And who's going to fight for you? Well, let's see ... on one side of the table, you have a row of company attorneys who have all the time and money in the world to spend staring you down ... and on the other side, you with whatever attorney you can afford. Paid by the hour.

The meter's running.

Good luck.

[Tripe Face]

I pity the management stooge who has to sit across from TVMatt come negotiating time.

I've never been in a TV union, though years ago I was in the United Steelworkers... but only as vacation relief. They all thought I was a managment spy... so they abused the sh!t out of me (ever seen a lunch box filled with industrial epoxy... while the sandwich was still in it?)

But in the end, I earned a healthy respect for unions... and some of their shortfalls.

They had a grievence system that was totally *****ed up. If they didn't agree with the guy who got 4 hours of overtime, they would insist on a hearing that required the employee who worked, the employee who thought he should have gotten the OT, the shop steward, the Local president, plus several managers to sit around and argue until the matter was settled. If that took two hours, that meant more than 15 company man hours were wasted arguing over 4 hours of OT. It was ridiculous. However, that was 25 years ago... since then I think Unions, especially the UAW, have become very conscious of their responsibilty to helping keep their company and their industry going... and they've gotten rid of the bullsh!t like that grievence system.

[2:30]

Ask the crew at NBC what happened when they lost union protection. One of the leaders of that move to save dues has called it "the worst mistake" he ever made.

[Clubbeat]

Worked for a union station once...It was o-k other than the fact that when it came time to attend the monthly meetings, they didn't allow you to park your foreign-made car on the lot of the union hall. (you could park across the road).

Otherwise, it was good for what it was. Unfortunately, more and more companies are concerned with the 'business' of journalism...making a profit is clearly what is driving the business and has for quite a while.

[Signature on File]

Unions keep you from getting screwed out of your off-days without the Company paying dearly.

[Produce man]

Why join a union? Because you unable to broker a deal on your own.

[Mr. Rugen]

Originally posted by Produce man:
Why join a union? Because you are unable to broker a deal on your own.Hey, Produce Boy, I had to fix this post. Just wanted you to know. Seeing as you're the king of fixing people's posts and all.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Produce man:
Why join a union? Because you unable to broker a deal on your own.Apparently you missed my post on those of us who DO broker deals on our own ... with and without unions ...

[NYC Street]

Produce-

You're saying that you have a pension that follows you from station to station? That you have guaranteed severance and protections against unfair disciplinary action?

That's some deal you negotiated...you'll have to explain to us how you did it.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I've made my own deals and have come a long way and done well for myself without it...A number of people take that position, and, I suppose, that's fine. But I'd question it.

When you say you've done well for yourself, do you have a pension? Is it one that can be cancelled by a company if they run into financial trouble?

When you say you've made your own deals, on what do you think those deals are based? Chances are it's the floor established by union members negotiating with management.</font>[/QUOTE]I have a 401K where I work now that will travel with me and I have my own IRA that I've been putting money in for myself. Yes, I'll grant that a union would've given me THAT option, but I am still saving for retirement without paying union dues.

My deals have always been higher than the union floor/base salary. That's why the union grieved my hiring for more money.

I also have a severance deal worked into my contract. How did I do that? I proved my worth!

I know that unions do help some people. More power to them. I just don't believe they are good for everyone and I believe if you have the ability to get a better deal, and you can prove that you are better than some of the union schmoes who rely on the union to protect them, you shouldn't have to join the union.

TVMatt's, right....don't work at a closed shop. My point is that it should be an option. It's ironic that unions FORCE people to pay them for protection when those people MAY have been able to get better deals and protect themselves on their own! It's the truest form of irony there is!

And this just goes for broadcasating unions...I firmly believe blue collar work needs help in the form of unions. We don't, IMHO.

[ May 01, 2007, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Produce man]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Produce man:
Why join a union? Because you unable to broker a deal on your own.Apparently you missed my post on those of us who DO broker deals on our own ... with and without unions ...</font>[/QUOTE]No, I read it. I was just answering the original question.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by NYC Street:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I've made my own deals and have come a long way and done well for myself without it...A number of people take that position, and, I suppose, that's fine. But I'd question it.

When you say you've done well for yourself, do you have a pension? Is it one that can be cancelled by a company if they run into financial trouble?

When you say you've made your own deals, on what do you think those deals are based? Chances are it's the floor established by union members negotiating with management.</font>[/QUOTE]I have a 401K where I work now that will travel with me and I have my own IRA that I've been putting money in for myself. Yes, I'll grant that a union would've given me THAT option, but I am still saving for retirement without paying union dues.

My deals have always been higher than the union floor/base salary. That's why the union grieved my hiring for more money.

I also have a severance deal worked into my contract. How did I do that? I proved my worth!

I know that unions do help some people. More power to them. I just don't believe they are good for everyone and I believe if you have the ability to get a better deal, and you can prove that you are better than some of the union schmoes who rely on the union to protect them, you shouldn't have to join the union.

TVMatt's, right....don't work at a closed shop. My point is that it should be an option. It's ironic that unions FORCE people to pay them for protection when those people MAY have been able to get better deals and protect themselves on their own! It's the truest form of irony there is!

And this just goes for broadcasating unions...I firmly believe blue collar work needs help in the form of unions. We don't, IMHO.</font>[/QUOTE]Can't ...

You apparently don't understand the fundamental difference between pensions and 401k plans. Even the worst *pension* blows out the best-funded 401k, hands down. Yes, 401k plans are a great idea ... everyone, union and non-union, should have one. But expecting to survive SOLELY on 401k money during your retirement WITHOUT a pension is like trying to make a meal out of gravy without the turkey and potatoes.

Also, you apparently don't understand the dynamics of union protection in the workplace versus a personal services contract. Sure, you might THINK you've hammered out some "protection" of your own in your personal contract, but when push comes to shove, that contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Unless, of course, in the event of a contract dispute, you have sufficient financial reserves to pay for your legal defense and (possibly) living expenses while you fight the company that has unjustly fired you.

But good luck with that.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
Produce-

You're saying that you have a pension that follows you from station to station? That you have guaranteed severance and protections against unfair disciplinary action?

That's some deal you negotiated...you'll have to explain to us how you did it.Sure. I started an aggresive portfolio right out of college, and have since been pouring between 25-30% of my net earnings into it. I don't worry about SS or pensions. It just takes discipline.

[ May 01, 2007, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Produce man ]

[2:30]

Can't Keep-

I don't believe you for a minute. A union grieved your being hired for HIGHER wages? That has the clear ring of BS. No union ever cares if someone makes MORE than scale...it's only less that's a problem.

And you have a severance deal? Great...what? Two weeks? Four? At NBC the severance was approximately $250,000 for someone who'd been there for a long time. Somehow I don't think you have that in your contract.

But thanks for playing...

[CKMD]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC: But expecting to survive SOLELY on 401k money during your retirement WITHOUT a pension is like trying to make a meal out of gravy without the turkey and potatoes.

Also, you apparently don't understand the dynamics of union protection in the workplace versus a personal services contract. Sure, you might THINK you've hammered out some "protection" of your own in your personal contract, but when push comes to shove, that contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Unless, of course, in the event of a contract dispute, you have sufficient financial reserves to pay for your legal defense and (possibly) living expenses while you fight the company that has unjustly fired you.

But good luck with that.[/QB]I don't need luck. Apparently, you don't understand that there are many ways to survive retirement without a pension. My father is doing it right now.
You are so union blinded that you think it's a necessity to survive. That's funny.

As for your other comments, I won't need it because I have proven my worth. I have broken all of my own contracts myself...not the other way around. And there's no MIGHT HAVE PROTECTION. Seeing as my lawyers look and change contracts and they get accepted with equal protection for me, I'm OK...

But keep on believing the brainwashed crap the union has forced down your throat into your small brain all these years.

I'm happy I did all this for myself, by myself.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by 2:30:
Can't Keep-

I don't believe you for a minute. A union grieved your being hired for HIGHER wages? That has the clear ring of BS. No union ever cares if someone makes MORE than scale...it's only less that's a problem.

And you have a severance deal? Great...what? Two weeks? Four? At NBC the severance was approximately $250,000 for someone who'd been there for a long time. Somehow I don't think you have that in your contract.

But thanks for playing...OK.
Contact the now defunct NABET union in Wilkes-Barre, PA and ask them about grieving my hiring in 2000. Ask them why.

Of coruse my severance pkg isn't as high as the union has forced employers at the NET level to pay. But it's enough to support me and my family while a find a new job...SHOULD THAT EVER HAPPEN, but won't.

Thanks for playing.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
[QUOTE]As for your other comments, I won't need it because I have proven my worth.Right.

Until your employer decides you're not "worth it" anymore.

[CKMD]

And it could happen. But I'm ready, prepared and will get another job somewhere else should it happen...and all that without a Union!

Hasn't happened in my 17 years - knock on wood!

[Produce man]

Hmm, I learn something new every day here. I had no idea paperboys had a union. graemlins/eusa_doh.gif

[2:30]

Contact the now defunct NABET union in Wilkes-Barre, PA and ask them about grieving my hiring in 2000. Ask them why.
How would one contact a "now defunct" union? And somehow I suspect that the grievance had nothing to do with your being overpaid... do you have a copy of it?

[CKMD]

It would be easy to call WBRE, talk to Bill D., the AM editor who was President of the union and ask him.
And the grievance was given to my ND at the time...not me. I doubt he still has it seeing as he doesn't work there anymore.

The grievance was over my signing a contract seperate from the union that gave me more than base. They were mad that I had gotten a better deal than the other producers who had been there for so many years, wasting away.

[Lazlo Toth]

I don't want to get into the middle of "my deal's bigger than your deal."

But I belong to AFTRA and have for 20+ years. The pay is better. And it helps keep management from acting unilaterally on work rules. I also have found the health plan to be as good or better than companies for which I've worked. As well, I have a pension that will travel with me should I change to another AFTRA employer.

[CKMD]

I agree, Laz. Unions are good for some...not for others.
I just don't like being told by Union Members that I'm dumb for disagreeing and not being pro-union.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I agree, Laz. Unions are good for some...not for others.
I just don't like being told by Union Members that I'm dumb for disagreeing and not being pro-union.No.

We just don't like the implication that because we're union, we're losers who aren't pulling our weight.

[CKMD]

And I made that implication? Interesting you think that....like a redheaded step-child sho feels picked on because someone disagrees with them.

[Desert Rat]

As for our own personal situation...

A pension...
2 Roth IRA's
2 401 K's...
Plus various investiments...

I'm not in a union but my opinion is that I will end up just fine. The impression that I'm drawing from this thread is that I'm doomed in the end if I get layed off.

Nope, not doomed at all, just will do something else.

As for my pension, I've been with my company for 21 1/2 years and I've read the company's annual statement about how the pension is funded every year after I qualified. It usually is between 175-200 million dollars..in fact last year was the first year that they had to put money into the pension fund in 7 years.

Between that and The Pension Protection Act Of 2006, I'm not too worried about it.

I have nothing against unions but if you do manage your money well the world won't end if the rug is pulled from underneath you.

[ May 01, 2007, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Desert Rat ]

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Desert Rat:
As for our own personal situation...

A pension...
2 Roth IRA's
2 401 K's...
Plus various investiments...

I'm not in a union but my opinion is that I will end up just fine. The impression that I'm drawing from this thread is that I'm doomed in the end if I get layed off.

Nope, not doomed at all, just will do something else.

As for my pension, I've been with my company for 21 1/2 years and I've read the company's annual statement about how the pension is funded every year after I qualified. It usually is between 175-200 million dollars..in fact last year was the first year that they had to put money into the pension fund in 7 years.

Between that and The Pension Protection Act Of 2006, I'm not too worried about it.

I have nothing against unions but if you do manage your money well the world won't end if the rug is pulled from underneath you.Good for you.

If you can manage, in this industry in this day and age, to remain at the same company for 21 years.

[Desert Rat]

TVMatt...

Same station too. I've only worked for two stations in my career...26 years total..in a market where, when I started, it was 23rd..will end up a top 10 by the time I retire, if I leave when I want to....due to just population shift.

Love the city and state too...

Sometimes I ask myself, how the hell did I ever luck out.

My station has always valued my contributions, that has a lot to do with it.

[ May 01, 2007, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Desert Rat ]

[2:30]

I've read the company's annual statement about how the pension is funded every year after I qualified. It usually is between 175-200 million dollars..in fact last year was the first year that they had to put money into the pension fund in 7 years.

Between that and The Pension Protection Act Of 2006, I'm not too worried about it.
That's a laugher. Haven't you been reading anything for the past two years?

Verizon, IBM, any number of companies have billions in their pension funds. And they cancelled pensions anyway, to improve their financial statements. And the "Pension Protection Act" (sic) - do you have any clue as to what it actually says?

In the finance industry it's known as the pension destruction act, because it sets up accounting rules that provide heavy incentives for companies to eliminate pensions.

[Desert Rat]

As I said 2:30...I'm not worried at all.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Desert Rat:
As I said 2:30...I'm not worried at all.Hey! Me neither...let's start out own union! tongue.gif

[WalMartNation]

Okay... lets say I'm in a union shop and I'm an anchor. I have a contract with the station for two years. I pay union dues to CWA for two years... my contract comes up and it's not renewed.

Now, some of you might respond with "if you were good, you'd GET re-signed blah blah blah." The simple fact is... you can be good, harding working, all that b.s. and the station manager might want a "different type of person" for the job.

Even if I was AFTRA instead of CWA, what could my union due for me then? Serious question... just asking.

[NYC Street]

Walmart-

The facts are that no union could help you in that situation. AFTRA - and other performers' unions - recognize that hiring decisions, ultimately, are management's to make.

This business just isn't like a factory, where seniority and experience are all that matters.

What AFTRA would do is make sure you get a decent severance benefit, and that your termination wasn't for an improper reason. And if there were a problem, AFTRA would be doing the legal work to insure that you get what you're entitled to, rather than you having to hire a lawyer and fight the battle on your own.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
What AFTRA would do is make sure you get a decent severance benefit, and that your termination wasn't for an improper reason. And if there were a problem, AFTRA would be doing the legal work to insure that you get what you're entitled to, rather than you having to hire a lawyer and fight the battle on your own.A severance benefit for not getting renewed?
Termination wasn't for improper reason?

Your contract is up, you get the boot...plain and simple. In my mind, you've wasted your union dues because what did they help you with? Nothing.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by NYC Street:
What AFTRA would do is make sure you get a decent severance benefit, and that your termination wasn't for an improper reason. And if there were a problem, AFTRA would be doing the legal work to insure that you get what you're entitled to, rather than you having to hire a lawyer and fight the battle on your own.A severance benefit for not getting renewed?
Termination wasn't for improper reason?

Your contract is up, you get the boot...plain and simple. In my mind, you've wasted your union dues because what did they help you with? Nothing.</font>[/QUOTE]You're SO missing the point of being in a white-collar union.

Re-read Street's last paragrph, please.

In addition a union PENSION and HEALTH INSURANCE follows you wherever you go (working in union shops, of course).

[CKMD]

So does my 401K and I can get Health Insurance wherever I work...or I wouldn't take a job there!

You're missing the point. You feel the need to have a union.
I don't feel like I need one.
I want people to stop trying to force me to be in a union.
If you want to be in one great.
If you don't, super.
Let me decide.

[ May 03, 2007, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Lazlo Toth]

Can't:

I see your points. But I also see the benefits generally of being in a union shop.

The traveling benefits . .health and pension .. are particularly valuable for freelancers.

I freelanced for more than a decade and could not have done it without the AFTRA health plan.

[ May 03, 2007, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Lazlo Toth ]

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
So does my 401K and I can get Health Insurance wherever I work...or I wouldn't take a job there!

You're missing the point. You feel the need to have a union.
I don't feel like I need one.
I want people to stop trying to force me to be in a union.
If you want to be in one great.
If you don't, super.
Let me decide.Thank you. This is what freedom is about. Not letting employees who want to vote on a union is bad. Forcing anyone to join is also bad. It's an individual choice.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
You're missing the point. You feel the need to have a union.
I don't feel like I need one.
I want people to stop trying to force me to be in a union.I believe it's actually illegal to force you to be a union member. You can opt out. If you do, you still have to pay dues, but they are reduced to just your pro rata share of the cost of collective bargaining for your company.

So I'm assuming it's not actually membership that you oppose, but being forced to pay dues to an organization you don't support. I understand your frustration, but here's the problem. Suppose your management turns really bad, and your station really does need a union. I'm sure you would simply pick up and leave. But there are people who can't simply pick up and leave, for a variety of reasons. And why should you have to leave because your managers suck, if you can do something about it?

So your station needs a union, but you don't want to be a member. The problem is that without EVERYONE's support, the union doesn't have power to stand up against the bad management. The strength of the union is that the workers act as a cohesive unit. Having people around who are not part of the union undermines the union's power in dealing with management, and it will fall apart. It's like having cracks in the armor; management will work at them until the protection is gone.

Not to mention the problem of free riders. If the union members are paying dues to support the union's efforts on their behalf, is it fair that a non-member get the benefits of the union's efforts for free? If there's no requirement that the workers pay dues, then nobody will pay them, and the union will not be able to function; or some will pay them and subsidize the rest, who don't deserve the benefits.

Then the question becomes: Why not just exclude those non-paying members from union coverage? The problem is that you can't. For example, the last place I worked, we sometimes had no idea what our in time was for the next day until 9pm the night before. Some of us would find out at 9pm that we had to be in at 4am. We wanted to negotiate an earlier deadline for the schedule to come out, or a set lead time (say, ten hours notice of the next day's call time), with a hefty penalty for missing it to be paid to those workers who had to be in early in the morning.

So suppose we had gotten our union and negotiated such a contract, but not everyone was covered under it. Management would simply have shifted the nonunion workers to the early shifts, so that they would always be the ones being screwed, while the company wouldn't have to pay the penalty. So what would those workers do in response? Many of them would join the union, or threaten to do so, forcing the company to then treat everyone the same. But if the company treats everyone the same and abides by the scheduling deadline, then the nonunion members would be benefitting from union negotiation without paying for it. That same thing would happen on nearly every issue, so that all the nonunion workers would become free riders.

So, it might not seem fair to you that you have to pay dues for something you don't really want. But is it fair to get a free ride on everyone else's dues?

And finally, if you don't like unions, getting one anyway is no different from any other employment terms that might be forced on you. If management treats you badly in the nonunion shop, you have the option of leaving for a better place. If you really don't want to be part of a union, you also have the option of leaving for another employer. Both would be terms of your employment that would mostly be out of your control. I fail to see why leaving would be the obvious choice for one situation and not for the other.

[CKMD]

Great stuff, Spike. Thank you for the considerate post.
But...you have a lot of "what ifs" in your post.
What if management goes bad.
What if you get laid off.

That can happen anywhere, anytime and even with a union. And yes, you'll get a severance deal and can sit around and look for a job rather than being hand to mouth while looking.

But, there's also things that YOU can do for yourself to protect yourself rather than rely on OTHER PEOPLE to do it for you.

Again...unions might be good for some people...I say, more power to you.
But, there are people who disregard you if you don't like unions, as seen by several in this thread, and union people who will do all they can to make your life harder at work if you show dislike for unions....and that's just wrong.

As for opting out of the union and paying dues....think about that for a second. So, I'm forced to be in a union, but can opt out...yet pay dues for collective bargainin after I bargained a better deal for myself? It's somewhat oxymoronic.

[TVMattNYC]

Most union shops are "closed shops". There's no "opting out" of the union.

Don't like it? Don't take the job. It's as simple as that. It's a condition of employment at that particular employer.

If you balk and your employer wants you badly enough, he will create a whole new job category for you outside the jurisdiction of the union.

If you're not worth it, he won't.

Get over it.

[CKMD]

every post from you reinforces my views on unions and a vocal minority within them.
sadly, you don't see how your retorts here damage the positives of unions.

[Union Label]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Most union shops are "closed shops". There's no "opting out" of the union.

Don't like it? Don't take the job. It's as simple as that. It's a condition of employment at that particular employer.

If you balk and your employer wants you badly enough, he will create a whole new job category for you outside the jurisdiction of the union.

If you're not worth it, he won't.

Get over it."Closed Shops" were banned in the United States by the Taft Hartley Act back in 1947.

</font> In non right-to-work states, employees working under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) can "opt out" of union membership but still are required to pay dues, fees and assessments used to negotiate and enforce the CBA. These employees are known as "Agency Fee Payers" or "Financial Core".
</font> Unions are required by U.S. law to represent employees who are non-members in the same manner as they would a member when it comes to enforcing rules set forth in the CBA, representing them in disciplinary situations, and resolving grievances.
</font> Employees who "opt out" of union membership obviously can't run for office, can't vote in elections for union officers and can't vote on referendums placed before the union's members. Non members also have no say on union bylaws or policy.
</font>

[Spike]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Most union shops are "closed shops". There's no "opting out" of the union.Jesus, Matt, get your facts straight.

As Union Label mentioned, closed shops were outlawed in 1947 by the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA), also known as the Taft Hartley Act. But I'm not sure you even meant to write "closed shop." A closed shop is a company in which you have to be a union member before you can be hired.

You were probably talking about a union shop, where the collective bargaining agreement stipulates that any new hires must begin paying dues to the union within a certain period of time. Notice that I didn't say they had to join. Because they don't. They just have to pay dues.

The NLRA says that you cannot be forced to join a union to keep your job, but you can be required to pay dues if you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. In Communications Workers of America vs. Beck (1988), the Supreme Court further clarified the NLRA when it ruled that nonunion workers working under a collective bargaining agreement were not required to contribute to causes with which they disagree by way of their union dues. In other words, if your union contributes to political candidates or causes that you don't support, you don't have to pay that portion of the dues. (I bet Diplomat's head is about to asplode upon learning that.)

Such an employee is called an Agency Fee Paying Objector. That employee is not a union member. But the company and union are still required to give that employee all the benefits of collective bargaining, even including union arbitration if you have a dispute with your employer.

Further, Executive Order 13201 from 2001 requires that all union companies inform their employees of their right not to join a union and to pay only the agency fee. Employers are required to display a poster outlining these rights. This poster is often called a "Beck poster," because it outlines your rights as clarified by CWA vs. Beck. You might want to go find the one at your network and read it.

So yes, you CAN opt out of the union. That takes care of the objection so many have to unions' support of political activities they don't like. The rest is just the problem of free riders.

[ May 04, 2007, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[WalMartNation]

Originally posted by NYC Street:
Walmart-

The facts are that no union could help you in that situation. AFTRA - and other performers' unions - recognize that hiring decisions, ultimately, are management's to make.

This business just isn't like a factory, where seniority and experience are all that matters.

What AFTRA would do is make sure you get a decent severance benefit, and that your termination wasn't for an improper reason. And if there were a problem, AFTRA would be doing the legal work to insure that you get what you're entitled to, rather than you having to hire a lawyer and fight the battle on your own.Street, Thanks for the honest reply... it was kind of what I figured. Luckily I haven't been in that situation yet.

And as far as "getting the boot"... a few of the people I've worked with got it because they just weren't doing well at the job (in reality they never should've been hired in the first place) but most have been because their salary was high after years of working there and mgmt. wanted to save money.

[TVMattNYC]

Sorry. I stand corrected.

[rootboyslim]

Unions are great. They stand up for those who don't want to work real hard, but hide behind the unions' tactics. They are wonderful. The breeding of mediocrity in America, tonight's union profile at 11!

[ May 07, 2007, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: U of Md Terps--Let's go Maryland ]

[Union Label]

Originally posted by U of Md Terps--Let's go Maryland:
Unions are great. They stand up for those who don't want to work real hard, but hide behind the unions' tactics. They are wonderful. The breeding of mediocrity in America, tonight's union profile at 11!I've seen plenty of mediocrity from employees who weren't represented by unions in the workplace during my years in the business. They worked under the premise of kissing management's a$$ and reaping the rewards of nepotism. Hardly a productive work environment.

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by Union Label:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by U of Md Terps--Let's go Maryland:
Unions are great. They stand up for those who don't want to work real hard, but hide behind the unions' tactics. They are wonderful. The breeding of mediocrity in America, tonight's union profile at 11!I've seen plenty of mediocrity from employees who weren't represented by unions in the workplace during my years in the business. They worked under the premise of kissing management's a$$ and reaping the rewards of nepotism. Hardly a productive work environment.</font>[/QUOTE]Kissing a$$ is not nepotism. No, not a productive work envirnoment, nor is the union shop that has the same mentality hundred fold.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Union Label:
[QUOTE]I've seen plenty of mediocrity from employees who weren't represented by unions in the workplace during my years in the business.As have I...but I've seen alot more in closed union shops.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Union Label:
I've seen plenty of mediocrity from employees who weren't represented by unions in the workplace during my years in the business.As have I...but I've seen alot more in closed union shops.</font>Then you must be pretty old. As has been repeated several times now, closed shops have been illegal for sixty years.

[Produce man]

Pwned!

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Union Label:
I've seen plenty of mediocrity from employees who weren't represented by unions in the workplace during my years in the business.As have I...but I've seen alot more in closed union shops.</font>Then you must be pretty old. As has been repeated several times now, closed shops have been illegal for sixty years.</font>[/QUOTE]OK...shops where I HAD TO JOIN the union TO WORK THERE, pay dues and was told to attend meetings at midnight to discuss how "the man" was destroying our lives.
There...feel better?

Produce: How's your mom feeling after the session she provided all of us this afternoon?

[ May 07, 2007, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
OK...shops where I HAD TO JOIN the union TO WORK THERE, pay dues and was told to attend meetings at midnight to discuss how "the man" was destroying our lives.
There...feel better?Again, as has been repeated, under the NLRA and the Beck decision, you cannot be compelled to join a union to work in a union shop, nor can you be compelled to attend union meetings.

[CKMD]

I never went to a meeting, but had to pay dues...which you did explain already.
Since I was FORCED to pay dues to have my position, I see that as being forced to be part of the union that grieved my hiring.

[2:30]

As someone who's been union and who's worked with many union crews, I'd suggest there's a distinction between the various unions, and the types of protections they offer.

There isn't a producer or reporter who hasn't complained about a union cameraperson or editor who can't be touched, but who no longer seems to want to do the job. But rarely did that person go sour just because he or she could.

Those folks aren't union failures (although they may be union people who cause us failures), they're management failures who cause nightmares. Almost always you can at least form a decent working relationship with that person, by showing that you're not just another in a long line of suits who regards them as a button pusher.

Then there's the talent side. AFTRA's protections certainly don't extend to what one would call mediocrity. They do provide a portable pension and health plan, and basic minimums for both on air and off air members.

Those who claim unions promote mediocrity are generally bitter middle managers with limited interpersonal skills.

--

And about that grievance of the hiring - I don't believe that happened the way you describe. I'd want to see something besides an anonymous post to ever believe that a union grieved someone being paid MORE than scale.

[ May 07, 2007, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: 2:30 ]

[CKMD]

Spoken like someone who can't manage!
Nice, 2:30! Says alot.

[2:30]

That's bizarrely obscure. Consistent, though.

[CKMD]

I also gave you a name of the former union President aat WBRE to prove my hiring was grieved. It's not anonymous. Call them and ask for Bill D. If not, ask for Lonnie M...he's also there and was a huge union guy and a friend. He will confirm it!

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
So does my 401K and I can get Health Insurance wherever I work...or I wouldn't take a job there!

You're missing the point. You feel the need to have a union.
I don't feel like I need one..Of course you don't NEED a union. You are benefiting from the work, struggle and negotiation of unions long before you ever graduated from high school. Pensions and 401k plans exist because UNIONS fought for them for rank and file workers (not just the top white collar managers) HEALTH INSURANCE is part of most large company benefit plans because UNIONS fought, and sometimes died, for these "benefits" years ago.

So, as I said earlier...

If you've ever enjoyed:

-a 2-day weekend
-2 weeks of paid vacation.
-employer contributions to health insurance
-not gotten killed or severly injured on the job
-not seen your 10-year-old child march off to work instead of school everyday
-if you've earned a decent day's pay for a decent day's work....

...thank a Union member, they got it for you before you were a gleem in your daddy's eye.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
[QUOTE]...thank a Union member, they got it for you before you were a gleem in your daddy's eye.Really...the 40 year old union stewards in my shop now...they were aprt of that movement?
:rolleyes:

Yah...unions USED to mean something. Not anymore.

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tripe Face:
...thank a Union member, they got it for you before you were a gleem in your daddy's eye.Really...the 40 year old union stewards in my shop now...they were aprt of that movement?
:rolleyes:

Yah...unions USED to mean something. Not anymore.</font>As I mentioned in my original post on this thread:</font> The folks who tend to do the most griping about unions not looking out for their best interests are the ones who never participate in the union, volunteer to run for office or even vote on important matters. The best unions are made up of empowered, active members who are on the same page. They understand that they are the union rather than believing that the union is a third party. As in any democracy the union is only as strong as its weakest link.

[McCovey Cove Returns]

There was no option at my current shop, I had to join the union. While they nail you with an initiation fee and dues, it certainly has it's benefits. I don't get screwed on my schedule, otherwise, the employer pays for it. Short turnaround? Paid for. Overtime? Sign off on it. There's no monkeying with work hours. If you work overnights, you get 10% shift differential. So I have my protections from having my employer running me into the ground. The health plan is solid, and is on equal ground with the one offered by our owners. We have a nice pension plan, no 401k through the union so we go through the company. There are guaranteed raises built in and they kick in when they are supposed to. You don't have to wait for a bunch of paperwork to go up the ladder before you get your raise.

The downside in being union, there are certain things you can't touch because someone will raise hell over it. Being a jack of all trades, I like having the ability to do just about any job in the newsroom. A union really keeps you in check. However, it also protects you so someone else in the building doesn't start doing your job.

[ May 08, 2007, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: McCovey Cove Returns ]

[Tripe Face]

The thing that bugs me the most is when people say the laziest, least talented people in the company are the union members, and all the hardest working, most creative people in the shop are NON-union. That's horse-sh!t. I've worked in union shops and non-union shops. And in both places most of the people were great, hard working, smart employees, regardless of their union membership. And the no-good bums, there were a few... and the were gone soon... even if they were in a union.

Being in a union doesn't change your work ethic, your skills, your attitude. It just gives you a slice of the pie that's a little closer to fair.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
The thing that bugs me the most is when people say the laziest, least talented people in the company are the union members, and all the hardest working, most creative people in the shop are NON-union. That's horse-sh!t. I've worked in union shops and non-union shops. And in both places most of the people were great, hard working, smart employees, regardless of their union membership. And the no-good bums, there were a few... and the were gone soon... even if they were in a union.

Being in a union doesn't change your work ethic, your skills, your attitude. It just gives you a slice of the pie that's a little closer to fair.And I never said that was true.
What angers me is the idea that union members push that you are worthless unless you agree with them.

[Pro]

Originally posted by WalMartNation:
Okay... lets say I'm in a union shop and I'm an anchor. I have a contract with the station for two years. I pay union dues to CWA for two years... my contract comes up and it's not renewed.That happened in a shop I worked in years ago. What happened was the anchor's personal service contract was not renewed, but they couldn't terminate his employment without cause.

So the anchor was kept on staff albeit at the prevailing contract wage, rather than the salary called for in his personal services contract, and was re-assigned to anchoring on weekends.

The CBA stated that management had the right to determine the M-F 5, 6 and 10 PM anchors based on any criteria they wanted and could sign those people to a personal service contract. However those people were still members of the bargaining unit and if the PS contract was not renewed, they would still be considered a bargaining unit employee. They could be re-assigned, but not fired (without cause).

[CKMD]

Yah...so the anchor stays at the station as a camera op?
:rolleyes:

[2:30]

The folks who tend to do the most griping about unions not looking out for their best interests are the ones who never participate in the union, volunteer to run for office or even vote on important matters. The best unions are made up of empowered, active members who are on the same page. They understand that they are the union rather than believing that the union is a third party. That's exactly right. You want to change the way your union operates? Run for office. Work with a committee- even your own bargaining committee.

If you see something wrong, fix it. Stand around and complain about "the union" - all that means is you're not doing your part.

[Pro]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
Yah...so the anchor stays at the station as a camera op?
:rolleyes: No, if you have read my post, he was assigned to another news position.

Could they have assigned him to be a, say, producer? Yes. And he could have grieved this and it could have got nasty. Instead, all parties ivolved (management, the union and the employee) worked out a compromise, and although it was awkward at first, eventually it worked out.

And the last time I checked my old station's web site, he was still there, 17 or so years later.

[CKMD]

Great for that guy. Great for unions that work.
Unfortuantely, the union I was in was not great, made work harder, made life suck and left a bad taste in my mouth about the whole process.

Again...unions for some are good. Unions for others, not so good.

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by 2:30:


Those who claim unions promote mediocrity are generally bitter middle managers with limited interpersonal skills.

--

You unabashed, hypocritical buffoon! Who are you to stereotype those with opinions? Oh, my, they don't agree with your leftist ideologies. They must be bitter. Screw you, you elitist slob.

Now off that soapbox. Reporter, never in middle management. I have seen more shooters and editors hide behind the union walls than I care to discuss. A union editor wanted to have me fired from an unpaid internship because I popped a tape of an important game I was logging. All this after I gave her a 10 minute warning the tape was running out. What a lazy jacka$$. That is one of a thousand stories and run ins with the mediocre of our society.

Also loved the time the non-union shooter was not allowed to plug hius equipment in at Madison Square Garden. WTF is that? A way to get lazy a$$ paid $150/hour? YEah, no impediment there.

[facts]

I have never worked in a union shop, but I visited one once in the 80's when I was working out of town and stopped into the affiliate to edit/feed tape.

I couldn't log the tape on my own, because the editors were union. So I was required to have someone hit play.. stop.. play.. stop.. as I logged tape.

Complete waste of everyone's time.

[Another side]

I didn't raise my children with a sense of entitlement, and I sure didn't conduct my own life as if someone owed me something. You get what you work for, and if you don't, you go where you're better appreciated. You stand on your own two feet.

Unions were necessary once upon a time but now, in my view, they're primarily safe harbors for the emotionally immature, the scared, and the insecure.

And if 2:30's surprising comments -- and I'm a huge fan of her writing, by the way -- are indicative of her true beliefs -- the arrogant.

[2:30]

Who am I to "stereotype" with my opinions. Someone with a long career's experience that formed those opinions. Sure, some reporters who think themselves incapable of body odor and are often overly impressed with their own abilities rail against the inequities of the division of labor among the unions. But when they're threatened with nonsense like the VJ experiments - the ultimate in breaking down the division of labor, those with unions are grateful that there's someone looking out for their interests, and they don't have to have the battles as individuals.

I have seen more shooters and editors hide behind the union walls than I care to discuss. You're hardly alone. But my point is that they probably didn't get to be recalcitrant, bitter jerks because of the union. And, when you get through the BS and bitterness, chances are you'll find someone who actually is pretty good at their job.

My choice (and it's *my* choice) is to deal with these folks by working with, not against them. Doesn't always work, I'll admit, but I'm comfortable enough with the success/failure ratio.

It's not perfect, but it's real world.

Also loved the time the non-union shooter was not allowed to plug hius equipment in at Madison Square Garden. WTF is that? A way to get lazy a$$ paid $150/hour? YEah, no impediment there. Happens all the time, and not just at MSG. Why? Because the guys who set up the plugs *are* union, and don't have to allow non union shooters to plug into their gear. If the non union shooter had wanted to, he could have run on batteries, no problem. But you want to enjoy the benefits of union work, there they're organized enough to keep the freeloaders out.

[5w40]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also loved the time the non-union shooter was not allowed to plug hius equipment in at Madison Square Garden. WTF is that? A way to get lazy a$$ paid $150/hour? YEah, no impediment there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Happens all the time, and not just at MSG. Why? Because the guys who set up the plugs *are* union, and don't have to allow non union shooters to plug into their gear. If the non union shooter had wanted to, he could have run on batteries, no problem. But you want to enjoy the benefits of union work, there they're organized enough to keep the freeloaders out.

Hey, a sports arena is just like any large building, especially in the northeast and midwest.
There be unions there as soon as one crosses the building line. And the union guys should know the power [volts/amps] distribution ... as any broadcaster knows, our edit decks [yes even computers) and our lights take a good amount of juice. Who wants to take the Big East tournament off the air so some idiot from market 150 thinks he can plug into THIS outlet ... oops, the fuse blew.

[LunchPenalty]

Non-union shops will be the first to go VJ...in our last collective bargaining negotiations the company tried to slip provisions for it in under the radar.
We sniffed it out immediately and saved half the jobs in our shop.

Say what you will about unions having outlived their effectiveness, but there are a lot of us in this business that owe their jobs to their union. The declining level of respect for technical jobs makes union membership essential in this day and age if you want a decent living and the ability to put food on the table.

The days of a company paying you what you are worth or according to talent, awards, loyalty, education, or experience are long gone.

[Paper Trail]

In the midst of sweeps, KOMO/4 management abruptly fires three respected reporters.

Fisher Communications-owned KOMO/4 stunned its newsroom by pink-slipping three of its veteran reporters Monday morning.

Kevin Reece, Joe Furia, and North Puget Sound reporter April Zepeda were let go without warning and, curiously, in the middle of the May ratings-sweep period.

"I'm blown away by it," said Furia, who had been with KOMO for more than a decade. "I thought they were happy with my work, and I had no reason to believe otherwise... Things do evolve. I was just used to evolving with them."

Zepeda echoed Furia's surprise. She was called into the station general manager's office from her Edmonds home on what was supposed to be her day off.

"I kept asking 'Why, why, why?'" she said. "And they just kept answering, 'We're reorganizing.'"

Zepeda had been with KOMO for 11 years.

Reece, who was a weekend anchor for KSTW/11's newscast until it went dark in 1998, has been the face of KOMO's late breaking news for most of his eight years with the station.

By Monday afternoon, their biographies and photos had been purged from KOMO's Web site.

The firings came days after Furia and Zepeda volunteered to assist the newsroom's bargaining unit. KOMO's newsroom is part of the Seattle chapter of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. Employees reached an agreement for a new contract in mid-March, but station management has not signed off on it.

"This stinks to high heaven," said John Sandifer, executive director of the Seattle local of AFTRA. "The union takes special note that one employee, April Zepeda, had just volunteered to serve as the shop steward, and Joe Furia had just agreed to assist her only two days before they were fired."

Furia confirmed that, in response to volunteering to help Zepeda, he received an e-mail from management he described as "unnerving." He and Zepeda said they do not know if their union-related actions had anything to do with their dismissals.

News director Holly Gauntt declined to comment beyond saying the station does not discuss personnel issues. A spokesman added that KOMO intends to continue covering the North Puget Sound region using other reporters.

In separate interviews, Zepeda, Furia and Reece said management informed them the station was going in a direction that did not include them.

Reporters frequently come and go at local news operations, but firing three in one stroke during May is unusual. Sweeps, the months during which Nielsen Media Research measures ratings data in local markets, are the most important periods in the programming year. Stations use the information collected during November, February, May and July to set ad rates.

During May, prime-time programming finales on the networks – KOMO is the area's ABC affiliate – have the potential of boosting ratings for late-evening newscasts. Newsrooms usually beef up their coverage and extend their resources to maximum capacity.

Over the past year KOMO has changed its management from top to bottom. President and CEO Colleen Brown arrived in 2005 and named Jim Clayton, a former executive with Fox's New York owned-and-operated station, vice president and general manager in July 2006. Gauntt became news director in February of this year.

A transformation on that scale almost inevitably means reorganizing and cost cutting. Ridding the ranks of three mid-career reporters may strike outsiders as the height of folly, especially since two of them, Zepeda and Reece, are up for regional Emmys next month. Reece racked up a whopping seven nominations for his work.

But the miserable reality is that when a TV station's management bases its decisions on the bottom line as opposed to valuing the work of seasoned journalists, awards don't count for diddly.

Even if these layoffs were planned well in advance of their execution, the timing from a public relations standpoint could not look worse.

Sandifer said the firings "send a chilling message to everyone in the bargaining unit. Therefore, we have begun an investigation into the totality of the circumstances, and the union plans to act appropriately based on those results."

In spite of the abrupt dismissal, Furia refuses to say anything negative about his former employers, emphasizing that he still respects his good friends working there.

Zepeda said, "It has been a joy. I have absolutely loved it." Of the three, only Zepeda was working under a contract that binds her to a non-compete clause, which could potentially bench her for several months before she can appear on another station's local newscast.

"I don't know if this is it for me," she said. "That was the hardest part, waking up this morning and realizing, 'I'm not in news anymore.'"

Reece said he was surprised by how cavalierly it was handled.

"I worked there for more than eight years, and they give you 15 minutes to get out of the building. That's a bit of an insult," he said, "but that's the way it is, and you move on, I guess."

[CKMD]

Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
The declining level of respect for technical jobs makes union membership essential in this day and age if you want a decent living and the ability to put food on the table.
And that's where the unions should stay!!!!
The Tech jobs.
Reporters, Anchors and Producers do not need nor should they have to be in a union!
But, Lunch, we've had this talk before. I'm with you on your union fight. I just don't want one to represent me because I know I can do it better.

[LunchPenalty]

I'm with you bro, 100%. But realize, it starts with the tech jobs; once they've bastardized those positions with $8/hr 22 year olds, then they'll go after everyone else.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Another side:
I didn't raise my children with a sense of entitlement, and I sure didn't conduct my own life as if someone owed me something. You get what you work for, and if you don't, you go where you're better appreciated. You stand on your own two feet.

Unions were necessary once upon a time but now, in my view, they're primarily safe harbors for the emotionally immature, the scared, and the insecure.

And if 2:30's surprising comments -- and I'm a huge fan of her writing, by the way -- are indicative of her true beliefs -- the arrogant.You must not work in broadcasting.

Unions are every bit as necessary, if not more so, in today's economy, particularly in this industry.

McCovey nailed it when he posted: "The downside in being union, there are certain things you can't touch because someone will raise hell over it. Being a jack of all trades, I like having the ability to do just about any job in the newsroom. A union really keeps you in check. However, it also protects you so someone else in the building doesn't start doing your job."

Yes, that's true. But the union also keeps the EMPLOYER in check, preventing him from forcing you to do double and even triple work once he finds out how "flexible" you are.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
Reporters, Anchors and Producers do not need nor should they have to be in a union!The reporters at the station on the hill above my house (where I once worked, many years ago) might disagree with you. They have worked for a series of tyrants since the current owners bought the place in the mid-90s. Their contracts specify that they do not get overtime. However, they are expected to work 10+ hour days AND make public appearances on weekends. Meanwhile, they're treated like dirt.

It's a high-story-count run and gun station, where they normally turn three stories a day. Once, when I was there, one of the reporters was assigned live shots in different locations for different shows. He did the first one, dropped the microphone and drove to the next one (mine) where he walked into the shot with literally seconds to spare (the producer was screaming obscenities in my ear at the time), then jumped back in his car and went back to the first location again for the next show. When I commented on how insane that was, he said, "Oh, I've done this several times before."

Any reporter who complained was branded as a troublemaker and sent on the worst stories. But reporters who tried to get out actually had problems with the ND calling the stations to which they had applied and wrecking their negotiations. Suddenly the ND at the new station would simply stop returning phone calls, and I know of two actual offers that were rescinded AFTER they were accepted because of the ND's tampering. In one case, he called a station that had offered one of our reporters a job and threatened them with a lawsuit for contract interference. I can't prove it, but based on some ominous things that were said by the ND's secretary ("Don't think we don't know where you've been interviewing"), I strongly suspect he tried to tamper with my own job search as well.

So when you have *******s in management trying to wreck your career, there's no need for a union? When you are required to work overtime without getting paid for it, there's no need for a union? When the ND cancels your vacation, and the HR lady refuses to do anything about it, you don't need a union?

I could go on for pages and pages about the way things run up there. Some of you have been really lucky not to have worked at some of the places I have. But there comes a point in which you say, "Why should I have to leave a town I like just because these people are *******s?"

[Spike]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
You must not work in broadcasting.AS was a news director, and apparently a bad one. That should explain his attitude toward unions.

Now he's a bail bondsman on an overnight shift.

[Clever Login Name]

I've never worked in a union shop, and don't believe I want to. I think they long ago outlived their usefulness. Between bad employees and bad management, I'd have to choose the latter ... because I believe the station with bad management will ultimately pay the price in the marketplace if they're a sh!thole to work for. That's the way business should work ... and too often I see unions that have killed businesses because they extract unrealistic salaries, protect bad employees and promote workers' rights to the detriment of the business itself ... all while ignoring the reality that if you kill the business, there won't be any jobs to protect. And don't get me started on the political donations from union dues ...

[Spike]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
And don't get me started on the political donations from union dues ...Which you don't have to pay for, as has been REPEATEDLY said here.

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
And don't get me started on the political donations from union dues ...Which you don't have to pay for, as has been REPEATEDLY said here.</font>[/QUOTE]This wouldn't be an issue if business lobbying in Washington and state houses weren't so out of control. Business donations to political causes are a major cash cow.

IMHO unions get a much better bang for the buck. Business tends to spend $$ on advertising and perks while union dollars are used for the most part on getting the vote out for politicians who might make a difference when it comes to passing legislation to help the working stiffs. Call it leveling the playing field for lack of better terminology.

Trust me, union dollars spent on lobbying is often a sore subject among union membership but once they are enlightened on how you need to sometimes fight fire with fire, they tend to understand.

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by 2:30:
Who am I to "stereotype" with my opinions. Someone with a long career's experience that formed those opinions. Sure, some reporters who think themselves incapable of body odor and are often overly impressed with their own abilities rail against the inequities of the division of labor among the unions. But when they're threatened with nonsense like the VJ experiments - the ultimate in breaking down the division of labor, those with unions are grateful that there's someone looking out for their interests, and they don't have to have the battles as individuals.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I have seen more shooters and editors hide behind the union walls than I care to discuss. You're hardly alone. But my point is that they probably didn't get to be recalcitrant, bitter jerks because of the union. And, when you get through the BS and bitterness, chances are you'll find someone who actually is pretty good at their job.

My choice (and it's *my* choice) is to deal with these folks by working with, not against them. Doesn't always work, I'll admit, but I'm comfortable enough with the success/failure ratio.

It's not perfect, but it's real world.

Also loved the time the non-union shooter was not allowed to plug hius equipment in at Madison Square Garden. WTF is that? A way to get lazy a$$ paid $150/hour? YEah, no impediment there. Happens all the time, and not just at MSG. Why? Because the guys who set up the plugs *are* union, and don't have to allow non union shooters to plug into their gear. If the non union shooter had wanted to, he could have run on batteries, no problem. But you want to enjoy the benefits of union work, there they're organized enough to keep the freeloaders out.</font>[/QUOTE]More hypocritical BS from the limousine liberal herself. Get off your high horse. You have no idea the experience I have, yet you condemn with this elitist professorial like better than thou attitude.

No one has the right to stereotype, no matter the long bitter years one has spent living or dying.

The fact that a union worker can tell someone else what they can or cannot do is BS in and of itself.

The breeding of mediocrity, leading 2:30's show tonight at 11. Be sure to watch!

[Pro]

Originally posted by U of Md Terps--Let's go Maryland:
The fact that a union worker can tell someone else what they can or cannot do is BS in and of itself. The owner of Madison Square Garden - Cablevision - signed a CBA giving the union jurisdictional rights. They signed it freely, no law forced them to. And since this is a privately owned facility, anybody entering it is subject to the owner's regulations, including the union jurisdiction that the owner agreed to.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
I've never worked in a union shop.So then you really don't have a truly INFORMED opinion on this topic.

[Another side]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
You must not work in broadcasting.

Unions are every bit as necessary, if not more so, in today's economy, particularly in this industry.Really, Matt? How so? If they're so damned "necessary" why has union membership, across the board, been falling year after year after year?

I'll take a poke: Because most, yes, most, workers today snicker at the prospect of paying someone to fight their battles for them ... to get out of most employers what he/she was already willing to give.

I HAVE worked in union shops -- never been a member -- and from that experience I'll offer this observation: Unions rob the workplace of the espri de corp, the thought that everyone -- management and labor alike -- is in it together, committed to the same goal of producing a good product -- be it a news show or a ball peen hammer -- for the American consumer.

The union is about rules, procedures, and crazy minutea and meetings and who is or isn't a member and why the hell aren't they?

I don't believe union members are, as a species, anymore incompetent or anymore lazy than non-union workers ... but they're a hell of a lot more distracted. You can only serve one master, and if you're in a union, that master is generally NOT your boss. It's your union. Divided loyalties are never a good idea, in my book.
Yes,

(T)he union also keeps the EMPLOYER in check, preventing him from forcing you to do double and even triple work once he finds out how "flexible" you are.Right. That's when you get 100 of your closest coworkers, throw your tantrum, toss your Gerbers in the air, and threaten to stomp out en masse unless you get your way.

And some of the union folks I know actually grin and boast about that. I hope you're not one of them.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Spike:
[QUOTE] Some of you have been really lucky not to have worked at some of the places I have. But there comes a point in which you say, "Why should I have to leave a town I like just because these people are *******s?"I'm of the belief if you can't take the crap, then get out.
I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel about the work we do.
I work 10 hour days.
My cell phone is always on and I get calls at all hours of the day.
I am REQUIRED to come in on days off if severe weather is threatening.

And you know what...I don't get paid the big bucks that a person in my position should. But I never, for one instant, think it should change.

We work in a 24 hour business. News happens at any time, at all times. That's what we chose. That's what we do.

Either you want to do this, if you are passionate enough about this, and you feel like you are doing a duty for the people in the town that you live, then you do it. What I am hearing is that we need unions to protect us from working too much.
Damnit....we chose this business!!!! Why ruin it like the Teamsters have destroyed the auto workers? How great is that union doing? The union may have made sure they were well compensated and got pensions...but now, the companies are broke...bye-bye jobs! Gee...the union could help them when they had jobs...what now?

Again...if you can't take the crap that runs downhill in this business, then maybe it's not for you.
Who said you have to leave town? GO FIND ANOTHER JOB!

[ May 09, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I'm of the belief if you can't take the crap, then get out.That works both ways. If you don't like the union, get out.

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I work 10 hour days.
My cell phone is always on and I get calls at all hours of the day.
I am REQUIRED to come in on days off if severe weather is threatening.

And you know what...I don't get paid the big bucks that a person in my position should. But I never, for one instant, think it should change.It's sad that people will work for free and actually feel glad about it. You're actually part of the problem. If people like you actually had balls and didn't take whatever management dished out with an enthusiastic "Yassah!" in response, a lot of shops wouldn't even need unions.

You deserve what you get. Some of us know we deserve better.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
You must not work in broadcasting.

Unions are every bit as necessary, if not more so, in today's economy, particularly in this industry.Really, Matt? How so? If they're so damned "necessary" why has union membership, across the board, been falling year after year after year?
</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the reason for that is the erosion of labor laws over the past generation. Never in the history of the modern labor movement has the employer had more power, even WITH union contracts in place. Despite the actual BLOOD shed in labor's early years, it's actually harder now to organize than ever before.

The conspicuous consumption movement of the go-go '80s brought America a newfound obsession not only with wealth, but with SELF. Everyone started chasing the Almighty Dollar only for HIMSELF, and screw everyone else.

Cue the "Greed is Good" speech by Gordon Gekko.

The most significant rollbacks in labor laws and worker protection came during the Reagan Era. And guess what? Nobody cared! Why worry about unity, parity, and fairness in the workplace when it's easier to go it on your own, brownnosing and backstabbing your way to the top without having to drag everyone else up with you?

During the Reagan and Bush I years, this nation also suffered a major judicial sea change, particularly at the NLRB ... as Republicans dutifully filled benches with pro-business, anti-labor judges -- which dovetailed nicely with the new pro-business legislative agenda that was slipped to us like a drugged cocktail, as Americans blissfully toasted the New Economy.

Well, here it is. The New Economy. Not at all like that OLD Economy, where employees lazily worked only 8 hours a day ... where one income could not only support a household, but save money for college AND retirement ... where there actually WAS such a thing as "retirement".

But hey ... who needs unions?? We have our laptops, cell phones, and blackberrys that keep us "connected" to work 24/7!

Who needs a life, anyway?

[ May 09, 2007, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: TVMattNYC ]

[2:30]

Twerp-

I don't judge your experience. I merely relate my own, which, obviously, differs from yours.

And sorry you missed the sarcasm font when I used the word stereotype - in quotes, because it was a quote from your post. There is nothing in any of my posts that constitutes stereotyping. Again, I related my experience.

What you're prattling on about with your "hypocritical" and "high horse" comments, I can't imagine. And I doubt anyone else can, either.

As to me being a "limosine liberal," it's wrong on both counts. I'm a) not a liberal, and b) drive - at least most of the time - a Prius.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I'm of the belief if you can't take the crap, then get out.That works both ways. If you don't like the union, get out.

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I work 10 hour days.
My cell phone is always on and I get calls at all hours of the day.
I am REQUIRED to come in on days off if severe weather is threatening.

And you know what...I don't get paid the big bucks that a person in my position should. But I never, for one instant, think it should change.It's sad that people will work for free and actually feel glad about it. You're actually part of the problem. If people like you actually had balls and didn't take whatever management dished out with an enthusiastic "Yassah!" in response, a lot of shops wouldn't even need unions.

You deserve what you get. Some of us know we deserve better.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, jackass....my big balls got me into management. And, now that I am in management, I do what I can to destroy unions.

I'm not part of the problem. I am the solution. One day, this business will be free of unions and union crap like yourself; things will get done faster, easier and without the "that's not my job, don't touch that, give me free shi$" mentality you union pukes have.

I'm proud that I am committed and passioante about what I do. You're proud that you make it difficult to get things done, make it harder for companies to survive, and think we work in an 8 hour a day job. I hope I can destroy your union one day.

Sucks I had to get so harsh, but, that's the truth. I think I'll change my name to Union Buster!

[ May 09, 2007, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Another side]

It probably should be noted, among all the Hail the Union! stuff ... that there's another thread detailing the political infighting in which the Screen Actor's Guild wants the ragtime broadcasting folks in AFTRA out of its spiffy little group.

I'm not sure that's the text-book example of the union soidarity that some here boast about, but it's out there, nonetheless.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
[QUOTE]I'm proud that I am committed and passioante about what I do. You're proud that you make it difficult to get things done, make it harder for companies to survive, and think we work in an 8 hour a day job. I hope I can destroy your union one day.
So what do you have against an 8-hour day (and proper spelling)?

[ May 09, 2007, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: TVMattNYC ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
You're proud that you make it difficult to get things done, make it harder for companies to survive, and think we work in an 8 hour a day job. I hope I can destroy your union one day.It doesn't bother me to work a ten hour day. It bothers me to work two of those hours for free.

If you're willing to work for free, your work obviously isn't worth anything. As I said, you get what you deserve. Some of us know we deserve better.

[CKMD]

I get comp days, honey. Thanks for playing. My work would blow yours out of the water.

Hey, TVMatt...phuck your spelling police...oh wait...you probably would take that too literally.

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by 2:30:
Twerp-

I don't judge your experience. I merely relate my own, which, obviously, differs from yours.

And sorry you missed the sarcasm font when I used the word stereotype - in quotes, because it was a quote from your post. There is nothing in any of my posts that constitutes stereotyping. Again, I related my experience.

What you're prattling on about with your "hypocritical" and "high horse" comments, I can't imagine. And I doubt anyone else can, either.

As to me being a "limosine liberal," it's wrong on both counts. I'm a) not a liberal, and b) drive - at least most of the time - a Prius.Well, you really do not get the sarcasm one bit. So those who live in glass houses....

And stereotype? What the hell do you thnk you did when you described those who think unions breed medicrity? You did just that, buffoon!

And yes, twerp---how original! You still use the "not" term when trying to accentuate the opposite?

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by Pro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by U of Md Terps--Let's go Maryland:
The fact that a union worker can tell someone else what they can or cannot do is BS in and of itself. The owner of Madison Square Garden - Cablevision - signed a CBA giving the union jurisdictional rights. They signed it freely, no law forced them to. And since this is a privately owned facility, anybody entering it is subject to the owner's regulations, including the union jurisdiction that the owner agreed to.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and those shop owners don't have to pay the mob either!
:rolleyes:

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I get comp days, honey. Thanks for playing. My work would blow yours out of the water.

Hey, TVMatt...phuck your spelling police...oh wait...you probably would take that too literally.Well good for you!

The non-union producers where I work also get "comp days" ... but only at the manager's "discretion". And it's not hour for hour, either ... more like ONE comp day for every 16 *extra* hours worked.

And as an additional bonus ... those comp days may also only be taken at the manager's "discretion".

And gosh golly gee ... believe it or not ... not all managers are FAIR! Some are total a$$holes. Sucks to be you if you get one of those managers.

THAT'S why unions are necessary.

[Another side]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
So what do you have against an 8-hour day (and proper spelling)?If I may interrupt uninvited ... I think that question illustrates perfectly the differences in thinking between many union and non-union folks.

As a young beat reporter, my view was always, the story comes first. If, for example, I had to meet someone in a coffee shop at 11 p.m. because he was critical to a story I was working on,I would. I didn't expect to get paid for it -- I would likely be told either to find a way to conduct the interview within the 8-hour day or forget about it. Which didn't help further the story. But it was my story, and I wanted to do it right. I didn't care whether I was paid -- I just wanted a good story.

It's my opinion that people who put their work first are rewarded for it down the line, and it certainly paid off for me.

But I'll add two things: I might have felt differently about it if I had to lug around a 50-pound camera ... and as I moved further and further into management -- newspapers and TV -- I discovered today's younger reporters didn't share "the story comes first" mentality -- their pay, hours and personal life did. And I think our business and our product has suffered for it -- and for that, I blame, not necessarily the unions, but the union mentality.

[Desert Rat]

Spike,

I think that the reporters and yourself, to some degree, who had problems leaving your previous shop really had nothing to do with the union perse.

I do think it had everything to do with a very evil and vindictive news director.

[CKMD]

AS: We're talking to brick walls here. There's no point really.
They'll realize the errors of their ways when the unions the love end up destroying this biz like the auto unions.
Hopefully...we will have destroyed them first.

[Desert Rat]

We have our laptops, cell phones, and blackberrys that keep us "connected" to work 24/7!

TVMatt...

My cellphone has only 60 minutes a month...never go over either.
I don't own a blackberry nor will I ever get one.
I don't own a laptop.

You can choose not to play that game. Before you say "Well I work in news" ABC did a story when the blackberrys went down for a day. Charlie Gibson, when interviewed for the story, said he didn't own a blackberry nor will ever get one.
Last I checked, he's doing pretty well in the profession.

[Desert Rat]

2:30..

You say you're not a liberal.

Your cut and pastes and your opinions show differently, in my opinion.

I have nothing else to base my opinion on but your responses here. Perhaps if I knew you personally, I might have a different opinion.

But I don't.....and what I've seen only points to one direction...the left.

[ May 09, 2007, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Desert Rat ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Desert Rat:
I think that the reporters and yourself, to some degree, who had problems leaving your previous shop really had nothing to do with the union perse.

I do think it had everything to do with a very evil and vindictive news director.We didn't have a union. That was my point. The reporters in that shop really needed one, to protect them from that very evil and vindictive news director.

[LunchPenalty]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
AS: We're talking to brick walls here. There's no point really.
They'll realize the errors of their ways when the unions the love end up destroying this biz like the auto unions.
Hopefully...we will have destroyed them first.Television unions have been around a lot longer than the both of us brother. If they were going to destroy tv news, they would have done so a long time ago.

Department heads in my shop get a pro-rated year end bonus according to how far they come in under budget. That translates into broken equipment, broken morale and low ratings. Meanwhile the VJs are coming...promising more profit margins for the stockholders.

THAT my friend is what is going to destroy this business. Not an organizing group that makes sure my salary and working conditions are on par with the rest of working society.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
[QUOTE]Department heads in my shop get a pro-rated year end bonus according to how far they come in under budget. I wish that were true for me! tongue.gif

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
So what do you have against an 8-hour day (and proper spelling)?If I may interrupt uninvited ... I think that question illustrates perfectly the differences in thinking between many union and non-union folks.

As a young beat reporter, my view was always, the story comes first. If, for example, I had to meet someone in a coffee shop at 11 p.m. because he was critical to a story I was working on,I would. I didn't expect to get paid for it -- I would likely be told either to find a way to conduct the interview within the 8-hour day or forget about it. Which didn't help further the story. But it was my story, and I wanted to do it right. I didn't care whether I was paid -- I just wanted a good story.

It's my opinion that people who put their work first are rewarded for it down the line, and it certainly paid off for me.

But I'll add two things: I might have felt differently about it if I had to lug around a 50-pound camera ... and as I moved further and further into management -- newspapers and TV -- I discovered today's younger reporters didn't share "the story comes first" mentality -- their pay, hours and personal life did. And I think our business and our product has suffered for it -- and for that, I blame, not necessarily the unions, but the union mentality.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, those of us UNION professionals ALSO believe that the story comes first.

There isn't a single one of my union colleagues who'll leave early during breaking news, simply because his "shift" ended.

During 9-11 ... the start of the Iraq War ... and many, many other huge national stories, we ALL pulled long hours, union and non-union, to get the story told. And on a lesser scale, we do it on a day-to-day basis ... union AND non-union.

The only main difference is in the paychecks. The non-union staff still get their flat "salaried" rates, regardless of how many extra hours they worked, while the union staff is paid extra for their extra efforts.

The other difference is how management treats the union versus non-union staff. Non-union producers are routinely piled with extra work, particularly when people are on vacation, quite often forcing them to work 12, 14, 16, even 20-hour days. But the company has a built-in financial disincentive to abuse the union staff that way.

[ May 09, 2007, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: TVMattNYC ]

[2:30]

Rat-

Your characterization, is, well, your characterization. No big deal. It's just wrong, in my view.

I'd call myself much closer to libertarian than liberal, and really not either.

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by 2:30:
Rat-

Your characterization, is, well, your characterization. No big deal. It's just wrong, in my view.

I'd call myself much closer to libertarian than liberal, and really not either.You should stop kidding yourself and admit it. It's not hard.

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
So what do you have against an 8-hour day (and proper spelling)?If I may interrupt uninvited ... I think that question illustrates perfectly the differences in thinking between many union and non-union folks.

As a young beat reporter, my view was always, the story comes first. If, for example, I had to meet someone in a coffee shop at 11 p.m. because he was critical to a story I was working on,I would. I didn't expect to get paid for it -- I would likely be told either to find a way to conduct the interview within the 8-hour day or forget about it. Which didn't help further the story. But it was my story, and I wanted to do it right. I didn't care whether I was paid -- I just wanted a good story.

It's my opinion that people who put their work first are rewarded for it down the line, and it certainly paid off for me.

But I'll add two things: I might have felt differently about it if I had to lug around a 50-pound camera ... and as I moved further and further into management -- newspapers and TV -- I discovered today's younger reporters didn't share "the story comes first" mentality -- their pay, hours and personal life did. And I think our business and our product has suffered for it -- and for that, I blame, not necessarily the unions, but the union mentality.</font>[/QUOTE]Pardon me, I'm not quite sure about the utopian world you describe but the people I know who work in non-exempt hourly wage jobs expect to be compensated whether they are working under a collective bargaining agreement or not. Whether they be a plumber, police officer, fireman, emergency room nurse or whatever, they all expect compensation for their toil. Anyone who doesn't is doing it for charity. Last time I checked, most of us aren't working for non-profit stations.

Television news is a 24 hour job, not some sort of exercise created to validate your self esteem. Maybe you feel some sort of special satisfaction when your mug is bathed in the soft glow of the tally light. Maybe you enjoy a feeling of self importance but in the end, you're really just earning a living. Many of us joined up with this circus feeling that we could make a difference in the world by producing television that grabbed the viewer and told him or her something compelling and important and be paid a decent wage to practice our chosen craft.

Expecting to be paid for our task is not some sort of generational feeling of entitlement that has suddenly taken root as of late. I salute the younger folks for finally putting a foot down and saying enough is enough. The so-called sudden change you note in the younger reporter's attitude are more a reflection of rebellion against management's desire to get something for nothing. Who can blame them when they have someone like yourself taking the attitude that you'll run out in the middle of the night for free and to do your job? You need to ask yourself if you trust your management enough to expect them to cover you insurance-wise if you are involved in some sort of accident while traveling to or from your ''off the clock" meeting in the coffee shop? Good luck on that one.

Station management aren't airing commercials because they want to feel good about themselves, they are making money for their owners and shareholders.

[ May 10, 2007, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Union Label ]

[5w40]

Originally posted by Desert Rat:
We have our laptops, cell phones, and blackberrys that keep us "connected" to work 24/7!

TVMatt...

My cellphone has only 60 minutes a month...never go over either.
I don't own a blackberry nor will I ever get one.
I don't own a laptop.

You can choose not to play that game. Before you say "Well I work in news" ABC did a story when the blackberrys went down for a day. Charlie Gibson, when interviewed for the story, said he didn't own a blackberry nor will ever get one.
Last I checked, he's doing pretty well in the profession.Yeah, but you know damn well sure that the producers umbilically connected to Chas. Gibson have blackberries, laptops, and cell phones.
They're Gibson's human blackberries.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Union Label:
Pardon me, I'm not quite sure about the utopian world you describe but the people I know who work in non-exempt hourly wage jobs expect to be compensated whether they are working under a collective bargaining agreement or not. Whether they be a plumber, police officer, fireman, emergency room nurse or whatever, they all expect compensation for their toil. Anyone who doesn't is doing it for charity. Last time I checked, most of us aren't working for non-profit stations.

Television news is a 24 hour job, not some sort of exercise created to validate your self esteem. Maybe you feel some sort of special satisfaction when your mug is bathed in the soft glow of the tally light. Maybe you enjoy a feeling of self importance but in the end, you're really just earning a living. Many of us joined up with this circus feeling that we could make a difference in the world by producing television that grabbed the viewer and told him or her something compelling and important and be paid a decent wage to practice our chosen craft.

Expecting to be paid for our task is not some sort of generational feeling of entitlement that has suddenly taken root as of late. I salute the younger folks for finally putting a foot down and saying enough is enough. The so-called sudden change you note in the younger reporter's attitude are more a reflection of rebellion against management's desire to get something for nothing. Who can blame them when they have someone like yourself taking the attitude that you'll run out in the middle of the night for free and to do your job? You need to ask yourself if you trust your management enough to expect them to cover you insurance-wise if you are involved in some sort of accident while traveling to or from your ''off the clock" meeting in the coffee shop? Good luck on that one.

Station management aren't airing commercials because they want to feel good about themselves, they are making money for their owners and shareholders.I think you detailed the union position -- and illustrated my point -- perfectly.

[ May 10, 2007, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Union Label:
Pardon me, I'm not quite sure about the utopian world you describe but the people I know who work in non-exempt hourly wage jobs expect to be compensated whether they are working under a collective bargaining agreement or not. Whether they be a plumber, police officer, fireman, emergency room nurse or whatever, they all expect compensation for their toil. Anyone who doesn't is doing it for charity. Last time I checked, most of us aren't working for non-profit stations.

Television news is a 24 hour job, not some sort of exercise created to validate your self esteem. Maybe you feel some sort of special satisfaction when your mug is bathed in the soft glow of the tally light. Maybe you enjoy a feeling of self importance but in the end, you're really just earning a living. Many of us joined up with this circus feeling that we could make a difference in the world by producing television that grabbed the viewer and told him or her something compelling and important and be paid a decent wage to practice our chosen craft.

Expecting to be paid for our task is not some sort of generational feeling of entitlement that has suddenly taken root as of late. I salute the younger folks for finally putting a foot down and saying enough is enough. The so-called sudden change you note in the younger reporter's attitude are more a reflection of rebellion against management's desire to get something for nothing. Who can blame them when they have someone like yourself taking the attitude that you'll run out in the middle of the night for free and to do your job? You need to ask yourself if you trust your management enough to expect them to cover you insurance-wise if you are involved in some sort of accident while traveling to or from your ''off the clock" meeting in the coffee shop? Good luck on that one.

Station management aren't airing commercials because they want to feel good about themselves, they are making money for their owners and shareholders.I think you detailed the union position -- and illustrated my point -- perfectly.</font>[/QUOTE]You're quite welcome, however it isn't just a union position, it is how things work in a capitalistic society where you come to terms with an employer whether it is a gentleman's agreement, personal services contract or collective bargaining agreement. If your job entails 11 p.m. trips to a coffee shop in order to do the work you were hired to do, I pity you if you feel a burden of not being entitled for compensation.

[ May 10, 2007, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Union Label ]

[CKMD]

There's that word again..."entitlement". YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO ANYTHING! That's really the point.

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
There's that word again..."entitlement". YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO ANYTHING! That's really the point.My "entitlement" comes in the form of a bi-weekly deposit to my bank from my employeer. It helps put food on our table, a roof over my family's heads, transportation, some pocket change and hopefully a little money to salt away when I'm no longer "entitled". If my entitlement isn't reliable, my employment attendance would no doubt reflect it.

[ May 10, 2007, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Union Label ]

[Lazlo Toth]

I can see both sides of this discussion.

Can't Keep Me Down: I believe you when you say have cut good deals, deals you believe are better than a union would have gotten you.

But not everyone is good at that sort of thing. Some people in unions are, and cut deals above the minimums. Some people outside unions are not and get screwed.

You have to allow for the possibility that there are instances where a group of people are able to get more from management by acting collectively than they would by acting individually. That's a good reason to join a union.

That might not be the case for you, but it is for many others.

If you're not willing to concede that the circumstances can exist where collective bargaining can obtain more than individual bargaining, the discussion is over because it will pretty much go in circles after that.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Lazlo Toth:
IBut not everyone is good at that sort of thing. Some people in unions are, and cut deals above the minimums. Some people outside unions are not and get screwed.

You have to allow for the possibility that there are instances where a group of people are able to get more from management by acting collectively than they would by acting individually. That's a good reason to join a union.I do agree with that, Laz. I beleive unions can work for some. Unfortuantely, many have let the unions get out of control...and they don';t realize that the unions will consume them and will force them out of work...ie, the Auto Workers unions.

Yes, unions are for some. If you need that help...go ahead. I just have issues with places that make you pay a due to be a part of a union to work there because the union has bargained that ALL employees must be part of the bargaining unit. I don't care what SPIKE says about "closed" shops.
He's arguing semantics.

[Clever Login Name]

I'll admit it. I'm anti-semantic.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
Unfortuantely, many have let the unions get out of control...and they don';t realize that the unions will consume them and will force them out of work...ie, the Auto Workers unions.I keep seeing UAW held up as an example of why we shouldn't have unions in television, but the two industries bear very little similarity.

Why has auto manufacturing left Detroit and gone to more union friendly environments? Because it can. You can move a factory to Mexico.

But Mexicans can't shoot and report your local news.

The situations are entirely different. Auto manufacturers can go elsewhere for labor. Where will television go? Are you going to outsource your reporting to India? It'll be hard for your shooters to cover that apartment fire on the west side of your city when they're in Mexico. Sinclair tried to centralize its news and do it all from outside the markets it served; what a success THAT was. Even at the national level, it's nearly impossible to outsource your news.

The fact is that unions in broadcasting will NOT ruin the business and drive away jobs, because there's nowhere for the jobs to go.

[Pro]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I just have issues with places that make you pay a due to be a part of a union to work there because the union has bargained that ALL employees must be part of the bargaining unit.Wrong.

Federal labor law says that. Membership in a bargaining unit is determined by the NLRB, when a petition to organize is filed. The NLRB determines who votes in the election.

And all members of the bargaining unit - union members or non-union members - must, by federal law, get the same benefits. The union MUST include them in contract negotiations and represent them in greivences. In short, the union cannot, by law, discriminate against non-union members in a federally determined bargaining unit.

That's why unions insist that everyone in a bargaining unit remit dues (or an amount of money equal to dues). Because everyone gets the same services, whether they are a member of the union or not. That's the law.

So-called "right to work" states have laws prohibiting contracts that say that all members of a bargaining unit have to be (or become) union members. But no state has a law prohibiting contracts mandating that all bargaining unit employees pay dues (or a fee equal to union dues).

[Another side]

Originally posted by Union Label:
You're quite welcome, however it isn't just a union position, it is how things work in a capitalistic society where you come to terms with an employer whether it is a gentleman's agreement, personal services contract or collective bargaining agreement. If your job entails 11 p.m. trips to a coffee shop in order to do the work you were hired to do, I pity you if you feel a burden of not being entitled for compensation.Ah, yes, traditional union arrogance. In the old days if someone didn't buy their me-first-at-all-costs shtick, they'd send out the thugs and a couple of baseball bats. (Where IS Jimmy Hoffa buried, anyway?)

Today they're more civilized about it -- they talk like a hell-and-damnation revival tent preacher and accuse you of having a "burden" and graciously extend you "pity."

Don't bother. I've done alright for myself and never paid a cent in union dues.

By the way, I assume you're still in the business so I'm curious: what's your immediate career goal: a better position in your union, or a better position in your workplace? Which master are you most dedicated to?

[Tripe Face]

Maybe THIS is a good reason to join a Union: From the AP

Calif. News Site Outsources News Coverage To India
(AP) PASADENA The job posting was a head-scratcher: "We seek a newspaper journalist based in India to report on the city government and political scene of Pasadena, California, USA."

A reporter half a world away covering local street-light contracts and sewer repairs? A reporter who has never gotten closer to Pasadena than the telecast of the Rose Bowl parade?

Outsourcing first claimed manufacturing jobs, then hit services such as technical support, airline reservations and tax preparation. Now comes the next frontier: local journalism.

James Macpherson, editor and publisher of the two-year-old Web site pasadenanow.com, acknowledged it sounds strange to have journalists in India cover news in this wealthy city just outside Los Angeles.

But he said it can be done from afar now that weekly Pasadena City Council meetings can be watched over the Internet. And he said the idea makes business sense because of India's lower labor costs.

"I think it could be a significant way to increase the quality of journalism on the local level without the expense that is a major problem for local publications," said the 51-year-old Pasadena native. "Whether you're at a desk in Pasadena or a desk in Mumbai, you're still just a phone call or e-mail away from the interview."

The first articles, some of which will carry bylines, are slated to appear Friday.

The plan has its doubters.

"Nobody in their right mind would trust the reporting of people who not only don't know the institutions but aren't even there to witness the events and nuances," said Bryce Nelson, a University of Southern California journalism professor and Pasadena resident. "This is a truly sad picture of what American journalism could become."

It is a shaky business proposition as well, said Uday Karmarkar, a UCLA professor of technology and strategy who outsources copy editing and graphics work to Indian businesses. If the goal is sophisticated reporting, he said, Macpherson could end up spending more time editing than the labor savings are worth.

This is not the first time media jobs have been shipped to India.

The British news agency Reuters runs an operation in the technology capital of Bangalore that churns out Wall Street stories based on news releases.

Macpherson appears to be the first to outsource community journalism -- work that by definition has been done by reporters who walk the streets they cover.

Macphersons said his Web site, which he runs out of his house, gets about 45,000 unique readers per month but is not yet profitable. Up until now, his main help has consisted of his wife and an intern.

Macpherson posted the help-wanted ad Monday on the Indian edition of craigslist.com. Within days, he said, he had hired two Indian reporters, one a graduate of the journalism school at the University of California at Berkeley.

He wants them to broaden pasadenanow.com's content from news releases and event listings to analyses of issues before the council, and perhaps eventually to investigative reports.

Projected annual cost: $20,800 for the pair. Not bad wages for an Indian journalist and cheap by U.S. standards, especially if each one produces the expected 15 weekly articles.

Pasadena city spokeswoman Ann Erdman said coverage from afar shouldn't pose problems if the articles are well-edited. In any case, she said, "Local government is certainly not in the practice of dictating to local business who they can hire and where those employees should live."

[Clever Login Name]

Golly, maybe he did this as a publicity stunt for a website that's "not yet profitable"? :rolleyes:

And any other time, the "real" media would be treating a local blog as the red-headed stepchild with a dirty diaper of the journalism world ... but now, by golly, this is a scary portense of things to come! Gimme a break ...

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Pro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I just have issues with places that make you pay a due to be a part of a union to work there because the union has bargained that ALL employees must be part of the bargaining unit.Wrong.

Federal labor law says that. Membership in a bargaining unit is determined by the NLRB, when a petition to organize is filed. The NLRB determines who votes in the election.

And all members of the bargaining unit - union members or non-union members - must, by federal law, get the same benefits. The union MUST include them in contract negotiations and represent them in greivences. In short, the union cannot, by law, discriminate against non-union members in a federally determined bargaining unit.

That's why unions insist that everyone in a bargaining unit remit dues (or an amount of money equal to dues). Because everyone gets the same services, whether they are a member of the union or not. That's the law.

So-called "right to work" states have laws prohibiting contracts that say that all members of a bargaining unit have to be (or become) union members. But no state has a law prohibiting contracts mandating that all bargaining unit employees pay dues (or a fee equal to union dues).</font>[/QUOTE]And, again, I shouldn't have to pay dues to a union that didn't help me negotiate, didn't help me get the job, doesn't halp me when I have the job, doesn't care if I work there or not, but just wants my dues and initial fee.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
[QUOTE]And, again, I shouldn't have to pay dues to a union that didn't help me negotiate, didn't help me get the job, doesn't halp me when I have the job, doesn't care if I work there or not, but just wants my dues and initial fee.The union has already negotiated the collective bargaining agreement in place. It's up to YOU to get the job.

This is NOT a blue-collar industry.

[ May 10, 2007, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: TVMattNYC ]

[CKMD]

And I got the job, got better pay than scale and the other producers there and had a grievance filed against my hiring...but, they were certainly happy to take my dues!

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
And I got the job, got better pay than scale and the other producers there and had a grievance filed against my hiring...but, they were certainly happy to take my dues!So why was the grievance filed?

There's more to this story that you aren't sharing.

[Spike]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
There's more to this story that you aren't sharing.I have to agree with Matt. That they would grieve your hiring just because you made more than scale just doesn't seem plausible. What else was involved?

[CKMD]

Let's see.
I was hired in January 2001.
I paid my initial fee in February.
My dues started getting taken out ASAP.
I was informed of the grievance by my boss. My own union didn't even have the decency to tell me.

That's about it.

Here's WBRE's number - 1-800-358-WBRE.
Call and ask for Bill D. or Lonnie M. to tell you why the grievance was filed.

Edited to add: at the time, I didn't care because I knew the union was a joke anyways.

[ May 10, 2007, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
Let's see.
I was hired in January 2001.
I paid my initial fee in February.
My dues started getting taken out ASAP.
I was informed of the grievance by my boss. My own union didn't even have the decency to tell me.

That's about it.

Here's WBRE's number - 1-800-358-WBRE.
Call and ask for Bill D. or Lonnie M. to tell you why the grievance was filed.

Edited to add: at the time, I didn't care because I knew the union was a joke anyways.You know perfectly well that no station is going to answer a question like that to any random caller.

And I'm thinking that based on your attitude, the union had a very good reason for filing the grievance ... and it had nothing to do with your being "overscale" either (which would be irrational on the part of the union anyway, since your dues are based on your total gross earnings, meaning MORE money going to the union).

[ May 10, 2007, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: TVMattNYC ]

[Pro]

If you are determined (by the NLRB) to be a member of a bargaining unit and the CBA does not cover you...or the union fails to represent you in a greivence...that that union is in violation of federal labor law. Report them to your local Department of Labor office.

But, mind you, unions are NOT responsible for negotiating individual personal services contracts. Only for CBA's that cover ALL members of the bargaining unit.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
[QUOTE]And I'm thinking that based on your attitude, the union had a very good reason for filing the grievance 1. They filed a grievance towards the company not me
2. they did it after I was there for 1 month...my attitude? Please? This refers back to #1, where it was the station, not me, that was grieved.

and...here's the best part, jackass...The council asked me to run for the President slot when Bill wanted to step down.

Again...you're not asking the station...you are asking the former Union members.

But, hey...believe what you want. I know the truth, they know the truth and I've given you all the info proving I'm not lying.

You, though, are proving to be a bad reporter or producer since you won't call when given information.

I'm guessing it goes against some lame union rule of yours.

[ May 10, 2007, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[LunchPenalty]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
And, again, I shouldn't have to pay dues to a union that didn't help me negotiate, didn't help me get the job, doesn't halp me when I have the job, doesn't care if I work there or not, but just wants my dues and initial fee.But here is the difference:

If the union has already negotiated a base salary level, you are having the advantage of negotiating FROM that base.

Say the base for producers at a shop is $35,000. You can then negotiate your deal from that number.

Without a CBA in place, you negotiate from 0.

As far as the initiation fee and the union dues go...I think I paid $200 8 years ago for an initiation fee. Barely remember it. I put more than that into my 401k each week. Dues are 2% and tax deductible. Now when I worked for a ND with the initials "AZ" in a non-union shop for $12,000/year I might have missed 2%.
I certainly don't miss it now.

[ May 11, 2007, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: LunchPenalty ]

[CKMD]

Now, Now, lunch...you've come along way from those days.

On your base pay theory...that's not always true. For non-union shops I've worked with, the pay range depended on experience...not on a scale negotiated...and I always got the high end of that start. Not everyone does...and that sucks, but life isn't fair.
And, that's what I think might be the unerlying issue here.
Some people want life to be fair across the board. Others believe you should work harder and produce more to make more.
It's the difference between capitalism and communism, really.
I didn't know you were a communist! ;)

[LunchPenalty]

I don't think the argument is about making sure everyone makes the same amount of money regardless of output.

It's about making the employer do the right thing. Sure, you have a sweetheart deal and work for a caring and understanding boss. A lot of us don't.

I make a good salary. I am able to provide my family of four with everything they need. I'm not wealthy by any means but we are comfortable.

I don't care if I mowed the station's lawn and shot 3 Emmy winning packaged each day while doing the GM's drycleaning. I'm not getting this standard of living if left to them. They don't care about employees and their personal lives. Left up to them I'd make $8 an hour.

And as far as being a communist...only when I'm "Rollin' down Rodeo with a shotgun...."

[CKMD]

Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
It's about making the employer do the right thing. Sure, you have a sweetheart deal and work for a caring and understanding boss. A lot of us don't. If people knew who you're calling a caring and understand boss, they'd throw you out of your union! ;)

And, that's true...there are bad companies out there...and, I'm all for unions for the jobs that need those protections...photog, engineer, production.
I do not see how someone that can get a personal services contract with their own sweet deal should have to pay a bargaining unit.

[Pro]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
I do not see how someone that can get a personal services contract with their own sweet deal should have to pay a bargaining unit.Because, under federal law, they still are members of that bargaining unit. Therefore, the union must provide them the same services as any other member of the bargaining unit.

Have a problem with that? Go change federal labor law.

[ May 12, 2007, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Pro ]

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
It's about making the employer do the right thing. Sure, you have a sweetheart deal and work for a caring and understanding boss. A lot of us don't. If people knew who you're calling a caring and understand boss, they'd throw you out of your union! ;)

And, that's true...there are bad companies out there...and, I'm all for unions for the jobs that need those protections...photog, engineer, production.
I do not see how someone that can get a personal services contract with their own sweet deal should have to pay a bargaining unit.</font>[/QUOTE]Because, like it or not, the bargining unit provided the base upon which that personal services contract was formed.

Either you're refusing to finally *get* this or you're really not that bright.

[ May 12, 2007, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: TVMattNYC ]

[CKMD]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
[QUOTE]Because, like it or not, the bargining unit provided the base upon which that personal services contract was formed.

Either you're refusing to finally *get* this or you're really not that bright.BS. Because, if the barganing unit in Wilkes-Barre actually started a base pay of a producer at 20-grand, then how crappy is that bargaining unit? It was market 50!!!!I secured more than 10 grand above that! Base pay was 20 and the union is proud?

If that's why you love your unions, then, that's pretty phucking sad.

I do get it, *******...I don't like it and am trying to change it by busting unions!
;) You're not bright because you think unions are necessary.
Pro: thanks for the thoughtful conversation.

[ May 12, 2007, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Because, like it or not, the bargining unit provided the base upon which that personal services contract was formed.

Either you're refusing to finally *get* this or you're really not that bright.BS. Because, if the barganing unit in Wilkes-Barre actually started a base pay of a producer at 20-grand, then how crappy is that bargaining unit? It was market 50!!!!I secured more than 10 grand above that! Base pay was 20 and the union is proud?

If that's why you love your unions, then, that's pretty phucking sad.

I do get it, *******...I don't like it and am trying to change it by busting unions!
;) You're not bright because you think unions are necessary.
Pro: thanks for the thoughtful conversation.</font>You aren't going to gain too much support to begin with by having a chip on your shoulder like that. The name calling and attitude are a turnoff to all but the most ardent anti-union proponents. Not many people are going be very supportive of your quest to bust unions regardless of whether or not they are in an organized workforce. It is an issue that is pretty low on the list of priorities in most people's lives. They'd much rather avoid confrontation on the matter than take a side.

Just ask the grocery shoppers that avoided shopping at the stores that locked out their employees in Southern California a few years ago. The customers stayed away in large numbers and took their business elsewhere. Breaking a grocery shopping habit is not the easiest task but the lockout accomplished it. The stores involved have just started to see a recovery in the volume of customers and sales figures they had prior to that dispute. Now that the successor contract has recently expired, the grocery store management is treading very lightly.

I'd like to let you in on a little secret that isn't really promoted by upper management but on several occasions throughout my career, mid-level managers have taken me aside and told me how appreciative they are of the union's efforts because their pay and benefits are based on the collective bargaining agreement. Maybe you do work in a place where everyone in management has unionism in its cross-hairs but I seriously doubt it.

It's a proven fact that time and time again, employees working under a collective bargaining agreement earn higher wages and collect better benefits. I know your case may be different, but it is by no means the norm.

You've also failed to provide a very compelling case given the fact that you haven't said how far the grievance that the union filed got in the process. Was it resolved in a grievance settlement? Did the grievance go before an arbitrator? Was there an arbitration award? Give us some facts, not just "call so and so who used to be in the union and still works at the station."

To answer a questions asked by "Another Side"
-Yes I'm still in the business. My immediate career goal is the same as my long term goal and that is to stay up to speed on changing technology, take advantage of every learning opportunity I can from my employer and my union in order to maintain my value. My ultimate goal is to retire with a decent pension provided under my union's CBA along with a nice nest-egg in my 401K plan which my union also negotiated for.

I have no inclination to join the ranks of management because I've seen very few instances of people going into management and either enjoying it or being all that effective. I've seen a handful who've gone into management and made a difference for the better but I can probably count the success stories on one hand.

I also have no plan to go gain any higher office in my union. I've been on the executive board of my local for several years and plan to serve as long as the membership elects me to office. I enjoy my job, family and extracurricular activities too much to dedicate the amount of time I'd have to use to go into a higher union position.

[ May 12, 2007, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Union Label ]

[TVShootist.]

I think I can sum this up in one sentence. This is your typical management versus workers battle.

I am a union member, am I proud of it? Not really. While I get certain guarantees and benefits for being a card-carrying member, I have to pay a pretty good price for it. Dues are not cheap. The initiation fee wasn't exactly a drop in the bucket. In exchange, I do get the guarantee I won't get worked to death and abused by my employer. My benefits are pretty solid, I can't complain about paying $105 a month for health insurance. Dental/vision are separate. I would say our salaries are pretty fair, but the contract sucks. Management takes advantage of all sorts of loopholes. Am I bitter about this? Toward management, no. Toward the union, yes. Fortunately our contract expires soon and hopefully some of this things will be patched up. I'm part of an actual broadcast union, not IBEW. Unions are a plus in places where they are strong. If your union is weak, or if a decent chunk of them members at your station aren't exactly thrilled about being in a union, then you're pissing away money on dues and everything else you have to pay for.

[ May 12, 2007, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Launching Pad ]

[2:30]

Launching Pad-

That's a pretty interesting post. I'm curious as to why a) you think your union became weak, b) why you blame the union rather than management, c) whether you think you, and those in your unit, have a responsibility to strengthen the unit, and d) what you're doing, if the answer to C was yes.

I'm not asking to be hostile...I'm genuinely interested in your response.

[TVShootist.]

My union is not weak, no where did I state that. However, the holes in our contract have been clearly exposed by management. They are not minor things either. A union represents a group of employees and as a collective, negotiates the contract for those people. I wasn't here for the last round of negotiations, but I find it laughable when I have fellow union members who were all complaining about the same issues. If these issues are not resolved in the next contract, the old saying "actions speak louder than words" will ring true.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Launching Pad:
My union is not weak, no where did I state that. However, the holes in our contract have been clearly exposed by management. They are not minor things either. A union represents a group of employees and as a collective, negotiates the contract for those people. I wasn't here for the last round of negotiations, but I find it laughable when I have fellow union members who were all complaining about the same issues. If these issues are not resolved in the next contract, the old saying "actions speak louder than words" will ring true.Launching Pad, YOU ARE THE UNION.

So what are YOU going to do about closing those loopholes in YOUR contract?

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Union Label:
[QUOTE]

You've also failed to provide a very compelling case given the fact that you haven't said how far the grievance that the union filed got in the process. Was it resolved in a grievance settlement? Did the grievance go before an arbitrator? Was there an arbitration award? Give us some facts, not just "call so and so who used to be in the union and still works at the station."
To answer this question, nothing came of it. I heard about the grievance, stayed away from union activities, flew under the radar and nothing happened. WHy? Because the union was weak. If something did happen, the union never told me. WHy? Because they grieved my hiring to begin with! How was I supposed to join them loyally? So, to me, it was a lot of hot air for nothing...no gain. And that's supposed to make me an avid supporter of unions?

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I did learn some things...which is not a regular occurance on these pages.

[TVShootist.]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Launching Pad:
My union is not weak, no where did I state that. However, the holes in our contract have been clearly exposed by management. They are not minor things either. A union represents a group of employees and as a collective, negotiates the contract for those people. I wasn't here for the last round of negotiations, but I find it laughable when I have fellow union members who were all complaining about the same issues. If these issues are not resolved in the next contract, the old saying "actions speak louder than words" will ring true.Launching Pad, YOU ARE THE UNION.

So what are YOU going to do about closing those loopholes in YOUR contract?</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not THE UNION, but I'm part of it. Let's see, I can raise hell with my shop steward, and make sure my fellow co-workers are aware of the issues we need resolved. That's the extent of it. I'm not the one at the negotiating table.

[Union Label]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Union Label:


You've also failed to provide a very compelling case given the fact that you haven't said how far the grievance that the union filed got in the process. Was it resolved in a grievance settlement? Did the grievance go before an arbitrator? Was there an arbitration award? Give us some facts, not just "call so and so who used to be in the union and still works at the station."
To answer this question, nothing came of it. I heard about the grievance, stayed away from union activities, flew under the radar and nothing happened. WHy? Because the union was weak. If something did happen, the union never told me. WHy? Because they grieved my hiring to begin with! How was I supposed to join them loyally? So, to me, it was a lot of hot air for nothing...no gain. And that's supposed to make me an avid supporter of unions?

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I did learn some things...which is not a regular occurance on these pages.</font>At the risk of being repetitive, let me re-post the following from my first reply on this thread:

-The folks who tend to do the most griping about unions not looking out for their best interests are the ones who never participate in the union, volunteer to run for office or even vote on important matters. The best unions are made up of empowered, active members who are on the same page. They understand that they are the union rather than believing that the union is a third party. As in any democracy the union is only as strong as its weakest link.

My decision to become active in my union by becoming an officer was mainly driven by a curiosity about where my dues were being spent. After becoming involved, I discovered that I could achieve a level of satisfaction by helping others that I work with. I took the time to educate myself in the role that my union plays in my employment.

Since becoming involved, I've helped start a member's assistance program to help members deal with financial hardships, drug and alcohol treatment, and family problems. The program is totally anonymous and has helped several members before their problems became an issue at work. I've also helped to support training programs in new technology in order to help members get easy access to knowledge that they need to continue their value as employees.

Time and time again I've made it a point to introduce myself to a new employee, welcomed them, handed them a copy of the contract and told them how to get answers to questions they may have only to have them disappear into the woodwork. The next time I hear from them is when they've gotten into hot water; often after being called into an investigatory meeting with management not knowing that they have the right to union representation (aka: Weingarten Rights (http://homepages.uhwo.hawaii.edu/~clear/wein.html)).
Being a member of a union shouldn't be something that comes to mind just when they are facing discipline or a contract comes up for renewal. It should be a daily positive influence on the employee's outlook at work. In order to achieve a positive experience as a union member you've got to fly above the radar and take an active role in how your local is run. People who are in so-called "weak unions" really have nobody to blame except themselves. You aren't going to become an agent of change unless you become involved. The union is what you as a member make of it.

[ May 13, 2007, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Union Label ]

[CKMD]

I think that's great! You are a great asset to your union.
BUT, the union I was involved only had one thing they loved to do...grip about the company and managers. there was no attempt to do anything to actually become stronger. The "leaders" of the union did nothing but gripe and expected the other union members to join their little griping clique.

It's unfortunate that that was my experience with a union. But...put a bunch of producers, reporters and photogs in an electrial engineering union that is weak...and that's what you get.

But, good for you. Sounds like your union actually does something. Mine didn't. And, if the leaders themselves didn't give a crap other than to annoy, as well as grive my hiring, what gives me any incentive to help that union? NOTHING.

Luckily, enough members disbanded that union....after I was long gone.

[ May 13, 2007, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
And, if the leaders themselves didn't give a crap other than to annoy, as well as grive my hiring, what gives me any incentive to help that union? NOTHING.Just like when your local, state or national government does things you don't like or agree with, you don't vote or voice your opinion. I guess we can count on seeing no political posts from you from here on.

[CKMD]

Your analogy is ridiculous. Want to know why?
Politicians didn't get upset when I was hired and made more than them.
These union leaders didn't support me. Why should I support them. I guess you missed that part.
Or, you're aprt of the crowd that doesn't beleive me.
That's fine...but your analogy is wrong. Even if I did voice my opinion, nothing would've changed. These were "lifers" who were going to stay in crappy Wilkes-Barre PA the rest of their lives. They didn't like someone coming in who was better than them, made a better deal than them and was liked by management...but they sure loved my dues!

And, I will post wherever, whenever and however I want.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
That's fine...but your analogy is wrong. Even if I did voice my opinion, nothing would've changed.It's not wrong.

Your congressman represents you. If your congressman does something you don't like, you have opportunities to change it. You can vote for somebody else. You can campaign for somebody else. You can run for office yourself.

Your union also represents you. If your union does something you don't like, you have opportunities to change it. You can vote for other officers. You can campaign for changes. You can run for office yourself. You can sit at the negotiation table yourself.

In fact, union membership is MORE democratic than government politics, simply because you have so many more opportunities to get involved and steer the organization in a direction you prefer. But you just don't want to be bothered with it. It seems strange to me that you would be so interested in government politics but not interested in employment politics, where you have a much greater opportunity to make changes.

You don't like the way your union experience has gone, so your solution isn't to get involved and change it, but to do away with unions altogether. That's similar to saying that if you don't like what your government is doing, you should do away with it altogether. Personally, I despise my local city government. I guess we should just get rid of it and let everyone negotiate directly for police, fire and utility service. I'm sure I can make a good deal on my own that's better than what the city gives me. I don't even use police and fire service, so why should I pay for it?

So I expect that from now on we won't see any political commentary from you, since you either agree with what the government is doing or simply want to do away with it altogether.