Stupid Unions.

[Produce man]

Good Lord, why do people join unions?

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1950928120071119?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Edit: And is there a way for me to post links like we could on the old forum?

[Clever Login Name]

Who's going to write Katie's journal for her if they go on strike?

[Bureau Chief]

They join unions because sometimes, they are the only protection against abuusive employers and/or abusive managers. We are dealing with one such situation right now. Had it not been for our contract, we would have no other recourse than to quit and look for other work. As it is, the union can grieve the situation for us and be hard nosed about it. Where as if we had to play hardball on a personal level, it could make for an unconfortable work environment during the process where we get canned because we told the ND to drive the unsafe live truck up his a**.

[east coast producer]

Why exactly are you upset that WGA-CBS members voted to authorize a strike? This particular contract between WGA and CBS News expired two years ago and the 500 journalists covered under it haven't seen a pay raise in THREE years. CBS' last offer a year ago covered about half of cost-of-living increases. CBS essentially asked members to accept less money than they currently earned, which is part of why 99% of membership rejected the last offer.

[Obewon]

In the 21st Century Unions are totally the domain of socialist losers. Unions had a purpose a hundred years ago, but today they are simply protection for slackers, morons and idiots who are willing to pay a portion of their salary to keep their miserable jobs while really talented people are moving on with their lives.

You know it is true, although you will never admit it and will attack this like you always do, with no real facts, just emotional, liberal "everyone should be treated the same" drivel.

Well.....bye

[CKMD]

In the 21st Century Unions are totally the domain of socialist losers. Unions had a purpose a hundred years ago, but today they are simply protection for slackers, morons and idiots who are willing to pay a portion of their salary to keep their miserable jobs while really talented people are moving on with their lives.

You know it is true, although you will never admit it and will attack this like you always do, with no real facts, just emotional, liberal "everyone should be treated the same" drivel.

Well.....bye

I actually completely agree with all you say!

[Obewon]

I actually completely agree with all you say!

You go guy, gal!!!!

[CKMD]

guy...

I've always felt that way about unions...especially those you are forced to join.

I understand the people who will say unions are needed to keep employers in check, that majority pressure for the "worker" is the only way to protect yourself. I jsut disagree with that assessment.

I know I can protect myself and do better for myself and I am all about myself and my own family. Should I lose my job here, I will work my ass off to get another job somewhere else. To me, and in my experiences with unions, it only protects the lazy and those who had no business working in this industry to begin with. Unions limit passion and allow for people to say, "That's not my job!" rather than working hard to make something good.

In my experience, Unions have hurt my product, not helped.

Let's see...TVMATT will be here in a few seconds to bash me...as will the other union lovers who I always get into arguments with.
Let me just say, I'm glad unions have worked for you. I don't need them, I guess, because I am better than you.:D

[east coast producer]

Unions do not protect incompetent employees or those who won't work, at least from the WGA contracts I've read. The company always has the right to terminate an employee for poor performance, *without* cause or any other reason. If the union disputes a discharge with cause, it moves to arbitration. Both sides agreed on arbitrators when they entered into the contract. And again, an organized employee can be terminated without cause, but the union agreement typically protects that employee by requiring a severance to provide a cushion since he lost his job through no fault of his own.

With respect, those here who are saying unions exist solely to protect those who do nothing while collecting a check don't appear to have first-hand knowledge of contracts between employers and union members and are speaking from perception.

With regard to the poster who suggested unions are an antiquated institution in the 21st century, I suppose that depends on for whom you're working. Certainly, there are plenty of broadcasters who treat and pay employees fairly. Others do not. For instance, news employees at FOX News (and Business) Channel are not organized, and they earn substantially less than their colleagues at the other networks and NYC local broadcasters. From colleagues who work at FNC/FBC, they've said top managers have made it clear to them that there are plenty of people who are happy to take their job if they're dissatisfied with the pay and hours of unpaid overtime. Corporate philosophies such as that are why unions are just as important today as they were 100 years ago.

Obviously, you've certainly inferred that I'm WGA. I don't have to be. The contract allows me to opt out of membership, but I'd pay five times the minimal dues I pay now for the fair and reasonable work environment that the organization helped create.

[Randy Steinman]

...is there a way for me to post links like we could on the old forum?


Produce,

Posting links is the same as it always was...

[url= (url address)] Your text [(slash symbol) url]

Or did I not understand the question?

RPS

[CKMD]

With respect, those here who are saying unions exist solely to protect those who do nothing while collecting a check don't appear to have first-hand knowledge of contracts between employers and union members and are speaking from perception.

I respect the fact that your union is working for you.

The contract I was involved in with the union I was forced to be in provided me only this: A job if I got removed from my positions.
So, I'm a producer and upset the News Director, or someone, I don't get fired, but I get moved to Camera Operator...or janitor at minimal pay.
You're kidding, right? That's the protection?
This was first hand knowledge. I saw it happen.

But, again...some unions help some people. For many, they are not necessary.

[Gil]

Actually, you are not required to join a union. This is America. You are not required to join a church, a union, or even the Army (there are alternatives for draftees).

Anyone who thinks they are required to join a union should do just a wee bit of research and learn the alternatives.

[CKMD]

When I asked if I could opt out, I was told that if I wanted to work there, I had to pay dues.

[Produce man]

Produce,

Posting links is the same as it always was...

[url= (url address)] Your text [(slash symbol) url]

Or did I not understand the question?

RPSNope, that was what I was asking. I guess I just got spoiled using the "URL" button on the old forum

Thanks!

[east coast producer]

Gil - You're right, if you live in one of 22 right-to-work states (and the state you live in isn't one of them, if I remember your location correctly). Without typing them all in, they're generally red states. The Taft-Harley Act outlaws closed-shops, but permits a "union-shop" in which employees are required to join within a period of time after hire. There's also an "agency-shop" option in which employees don't have to join, but still pay the equivalent of dues to the union.

CKMD - I'm sorry you had a bad experience with what sounds like a weak union that wasn't doing its job. If you're moved into a non-union position, I honestly can't answer that even with respect to my contract. I don't know it that well. I know if I'm asked to fill-in for a person in a non-union position - no matter what it is - I'm still paid my rate based on the scale for my experience level in the position I was hired for. Certainly, you have the grievance mechanism, but it sounds like your union was weak anyway. I'm sure others here could respond to your hypothetical better than I can.

[s'news]

Personally, I've seen and I've been a member of unions that were pretty good and not so good. Like people, unions vary.

[Spike]

Produce,

Posting links is the same as it always was...

Your text [(slash symbol) url]

Or did I not understand the question?

RPS

On the old forum, if you clicked the URL button you got a popup dialog box prompting you to enter the URL. Then you got a second dialog box offering the chance to put a name on the link. It basically did what you describe above for you, so that you didn't have to code the link yourself.

This board only goes halfway. If you hit the link button, it gives you the first dialog box prompting you enter the URL. But you don't get the second dialog box.

What's even more confusing, if you have your editor set to the WYSIWYG interface, you don't get to see the UBB code to edit your own link name into the URL. When you enter a URL using the link button, it automatically turns it into a link in your editor window before you post the message. You can't see the UBB code at all, so you can't edit in your own link name, and any link posted with the http://openline.medialine.com/images/editor/createlink.gif button looks like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1950928120071119?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

If you want to get rid of that, you have to change your Message Editor Interface in the User CP to "Standard Editor - Extra formatting controls." That gives you all the same buttons as the WYSIWYG editor, but it doesn't automatically process links and pictures, so you can go into the link itself and put in a shorter name instead of showing the full URL, like so:

[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1950928120071119?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true"]Stupid Unions ( (url address))

So, Produce, go into your User CP and look under "Edit Options." Once there, change your message editor to the Standard Editor - Extra formatting controls. It's still not as idiot proof as the old board, but it's easier than what the WYSIWYG editor gives you.

[Gil]

When I asked if I could opt out, I was told that if I wanted to work there, I had to pay dues.

As I have been advised by a labor lawyer, you have to pay only the portion of your dues that goes toward negotiating and enforcing the contract on your behalf. Since most unions will not break out how their finances are allocated, it often means you do not have to pay any dues at all.

[Produce man]

Thanks, Spike!

[CKMD]

CKMD - I'm sorry you had a bad experience with what sounds like a weak union that wasn't doing its job.

Oh..it was. 1 year after I left that station, enough people got together and got rid of it.
I will, though, admit, that there are many, many strong unions out there that have protected many people and they do work for those people in most situations.

Gil: I wish I had known what you said earlier!

[Gil]

Gil: I wish I had known what you said earlier!

Well, I think it would take an exceptional amount of courage to take that route.

I do remember in Green Bay years ago we had a photog who discovered that union dues had been deducted from his paycheck without his authorization... his Dad was a labor negotiator for the City of Milwaukee, so he had a strong anti-union bias... the union refunded his dues but put a lot of pressure on him to give them the money. After all, they said, the union was representing him all that time (about six months). He pointed out that the benefits he received were exactly the same as non-union employees, and he had not authorized the deduction (this was an open shop, if I recall correctly).

Union vs non-union stories can be told forever. Having worked on the management side of the table longer than the other, I have my own biases. But I have also worked where the union withdrew its representation of technical employees because none of them attended any meetings, paid dues (the company had negotiated the elimination of dues checkoff), or sought negotiations for an automatically renewable contract. It was clear from the union's decision to withdraw that it was only interested in the financial gain from the contract rather than helping the members.

[McCovey Cove Returns]

I'm in a heavy union area, and city/market for that matter. I didn't have a choice when it came to joining, and boy does my wallet feel the pinch. Dues and initiation fees are not cheap. That said, I'm satisfied I have a union that's actually television oriented as opposed to IBEW. The union actually fights for good causes in the industry. What do I get, well, my health insurance plan is very good and affordable. I get a pension after 5 years. The contract is such that our 401k is through our ownership's company. The contract guarantees I'll get a raise and certain benefits and protections. However, the evolution of television and our newsroom for that matter has outdated our contract. Fortunately it is up for negotiation very soon. Management loves to work around the contract and all the loopholes. Even with a union, employees are not guaranteed things they'd expect for work. For example, a writer doesn't get anything extra for producing a newscast. That's just one example. This goes back to one simple basic principal of TV contracts: GET IT IN WRITING. If it's not in writing, you have no proof or leverage. Am I happy with the union? Somewhat. Am I upset with the union? Somewhat.

If your union is weak or your contract has holes in it, a union really doesn't do you much good. In larger markets, it essentially protects jobs. It keeps video editors in their bays, writers at the computers scripting copy, producers stacking shows, and so on and so forth. Grievances are fun.

[DW]

In the 21st Century Unions are totally the domain of socialist losers. Unions had a purpose a hundred years ago, but today they are simply protection for slackers, morons and idiots who are willing to pay a portion of their salary to keep their miserable jobs while really talented people are moving on with their lives.

You know it is true, although you will never admit it and will attack this like you always do, with no real facts, just emotional, liberal "everyone should be treated the same" drivel.

Well.....bye

^5! :D

[fotofinish]

I've worked in both situations...

It all depends on who employs you. When I worked at a NBC O&O, all new employees were daily hires. No benefits, no sick days, no vacations, no retirement... A lot of turnover. Unfortunately, their product shows it. 3rd or 4th in the ratings. Who would want to stay? Not I. After three months, I had enough and left. The union gave up the language of part time and exchanged it for daily hire. And a lot of people got screwed. NBC saved a couple of bucks in salary, but did they lose more in ad sales?

If I am treated with respect, you will get my best effort. If I am treated like a piece of meat...

I wish all the best to the strikers, but there are no winners.

[TVMattNYC]

As I have been advised by a labor lawyer, you have to pay only the portion of your dues that goes toward negotiating and enforcing the contract on your behalf. Since most unions will not break out how their finances are allocated, it often means you do not have to pay any dues at all.

As a former union director, I can tell you that it's impossible for a union to "break out" how much we pay for negotiating and enforcing the contract on one's behalf. That's like asking General Motors to "break out" a cost/benefit analysis of the HR department. It's a cost of doing business that's impossible to assign to a dollar valuation in any given fiscal period.

[Spike]

As a former union director, I can tell you that it's impossible for a union to "break out" how much we pay for negotiating and enforcing the contract on one's behalf.

NABET does it. This issue came up when we tried to organize my shop, and the president of the NABET local was immediately able to tell us the difference in percentage of income paid by regular members and dues paying objectors when asked.

[TVMattNYC]

NABET does it. This issue came up when we tried to organize my shop, and the president of the NABET local was immediately able to tell us the difference in percentage of income paid by regular members and dues paying objectors when asked.

NABET pulled a random figure out of their a$$ then.

[Pro]

In the 21st Century Unions are totally the domain of socialist losers. Unions had a purpose a hundred years ago, but today they are simply protection for slackers, morons and idiots who are willing to pay a portion of their salary to keep their miserable jobs while really talented people are moving on with their lives.

Ah, the owenrship/management mantra. They've been so successful in selling this canard that they even have many workers buying it. Amazing.

[Clever Login Name]

NABET pulled a random figure out of their a$$ then.

I refuse to use my many talents to make a joke from this post, even though it fairly screams for it.

[NYC Street]

Good Lord, why do people join unions?

Because they need the protections and benefits that unions offer. In the case of most television performers, those protections include (but go far beyond) pensions and health insurance that follow you from job to job, so that you don't have to start over every time you change companies - something we do frequently in this business.

As a former union director, I can tell you that it's impossible for a union to "break out" how much we pay for negotiating and enforcing the contract on one's behalf.

As a current union director and a lawyer, I can assure you that Matt's post is nonsense. Unions are required by law to break out costs for political activities such as lobbying on behalf of legislation, and they do so. What Gil was referring to is so-called financial core participation in unions, also known as dues paying non membership. Typically the savings from this type of freeloading is three to six percent of the dues bill, and the cost is that you lose your vote in how the union is run.

ECP is on the money. And I'd add that unions are invariably only as strong as the participation at the local level. You can't expect that the union is going to do something for you - you ARE the union. People like me who serve as directors and elected officials are volunteers. Companies ignore us unless they know the staff is solidly behind us.

One thing of which you can be certain: those who claim that unions protect those who are undeserving of the protection or that unions are outdated don't actually work in media...or are managers who lack even the most basic intellectual honesty.

[TVMattNYC]

Because they need the protections and benefits that unions offer. In the case of most television performers, those protections include (but go far beyond) pensions and health insurance that follow you from job to job, so that you don't have to start over every time you change companies - something we do frequently in this business.



As a current union director and a lawyer, I can assure you that Matt's post is nonsense. Unions are required by law to break out costs for political activities such as lobbying on behalf of legislation, and they do so.

Street, please re-read what I wrote. I was responding to the notion that unions can break out what it costs *per member* to enforce their particular contract (exclusive of the union's other duties), which is an accounting impossibility. We weren't talking about political activities.

[Spike]

Street, please re-read what I wrote. I was responding to the notion that unions can break out what it costs *per member* to enforce their particular contract (exclusive of the union's other duties), which is an accounting impossibility.

It's not impossible. Actually it isn't difficult at all. You simply divide the total cost of the contract by the number of members. Then you have contract cost per member. Cost per unit is one of the most basic calculations made in cost accounting.

To determine what portion of the dues a non-member should pay, the easiest way would probably be to calculate the union's total cost and the total cost of political activities, then subtract the political activities from the total cost to get the cost of the contract. Then allocate the individual dues based on the percentages of the total. For example, if 10% of the dues are used for political activities and 90% are used for servicing the contract, then the non-member would pay 90% of the dues.


We weren't talking about political activities.

Well, actually, we were, because spending on political activities is the portion that the non-members don't pay. By talking about what they DO pay for, you're making what they don't pay relevant to the conversation, especially when you use what they don't pay to calculate the figure they owe. You could total up everything that gets spent on contract enforcement, but since political activities are so much easier to identify and quantify it makes more sense to arrive at the contract figure as a residual. You would end up at the same figure either way.

Go get that MBA, Matt. This will make more sense after you've had the accounting component hammered into you.

[TVMattNYC]

It's not impossible. Actually it isn't difficult at all. You simply divide the total cost of the contract by the number of members. Then you have contract cost per member. Cost per unit is one of the most basic calculations made in cost accounting.

Cost of WHICH contract? And how do you valuate the cost of any given contract within a union that has a staff of people (attorneys, accountants, administrators) working on multiple contracts simultaneously?

[Spike]

Cost of WHICH contract? And how do you valuate the cost of any given contract within a union that has a staff of people (attorneys, accountants, administrators) working on multiple contracts simultaneously?

You're right, I should have phrased it as activities pertaining to maintenance of contracts. After you get that residual figure, it's an easy thing to divide that by the number of members to get the cost per member for contract activities. You would have an average based on the cost of all contracts, but it would still be a legitimate cost per member figure.

But you don't even need to do that. If you know what percentage of your funds goes toward political activities and what percentage goes toward contract activities, you simply use those percentages to allocate individual membership dues. As I said, if 90% of your funds go toward servicing contracts, then the non-member would pay 90% of the dues.

[JoinUsForCake]

Good Lord, why do people join unions?

Good Lord, why are you such a simpleton?
http://www.bluestatemedia.com/shirt_images/weekend2.gif

[JoinUsForCake]

Actually, you are not required to join a union. This is America. You are not required to join a church, a union, or even the Army (there are alternatives for draftees).

Anyone who thinks they are required to join a union should do just a wee bit of research and learn the alternatives.
Woah now - actually educating oneself on the issue is far too much work for the right wing sloganeers.

[Gil]

Woah now - actually educating oneself on the issue is far too much work for the right wing sloganeers.

It really doesn't matter. I don't think anyone changes sides during these little duels. It seems to me that most people feel strongly on one side or the other and kind of stand their ground.

I grew up in a family where Dad was a union truck driver, and I know he was probably better off for it. I saw my wife forced to join a union (before we were educated) as a part-timer with absolutely no benefits and minimum wage. What was the point of her being a member of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters of America as a part-time pharmacy clerk?

We had the Teamsters represent both reporters and photographers at WOKR-TV. I had a good photog who wanted to do some reporting on weekends, so I gave him a shot at it, and he did pretty well. One of the reporters filed a grievance because the photogs were in a different bargaining unit... and the business agent told me that even though the guy was a union employee, if he wanted to improve his skills, he could "go somewhere else." Huh? This was a member the same agent represented in the photographers unit. Who was he helping?

At WWMT, the IBEW voluntarily withdrew representation of our engineers because none of the employees paid dues or went to meetings. You want to see how much employees want unions - eliminate dues checkoff. My bet is that if there is bad management, members will support the union and pay dues, but if the managers are doing a good job, there will be no need to keep the union. At least, I like to think that is what happened.

When I called the lawyer to tell him the union didn't want to represent our employees any longer, he said, "Congratulations... but don't tell anyone you did it without a lawyer."

At KDLH I had a good relationship with the IBEW but my chief engineer did not. We couldn't get a new contract done until he left the table. We ended up getting a deal that - I think - was more fair to the operators who had been getting smaller increases than the maintenance guys. But it would not have happened if the employees did not trust me to be a fair manager. They were also trusting me to make sure the chief would be fair.

Good working conditions require trust on both sides, and I feel sorry for the folks who work where they don't have that.

[Produce man]

Good Lord, why are you such a simpleton?
http://www.bluestatemedia.com/shirt_images/weekend2.gifI get weekends off, off, an I'm not in a union. They are no longer needed. They're just a crutch for "simpletons" like you who can't handle their own sh!t.

[Bureau Chief]

Produce dude, if you dont like unions, dont join, as for me, my union is going to bat for me to clear up an unfair work situation. As long as NDs and GMs make a substantual portion of their salarys thru budget savings bonuses, there will be a need for unions. "I dont care HOW many shows I add, you will do twice as much work, for even less pay than I gave you last year"....and thats a quote. In my opinion, your direct supervisor, (the ND) should not be the one that makes the $$ decisions on your income. It ruins the work relationship. You become advisaries. I have seen good reporters get ruined time and time again after having a run in with the ND over dollar issues.
The GM ought to be the one to decide on salaries etc. since he/she is not usually involved in the day to day operations of the newsroom.

[NYC Street]

[QUOTE] I'm not in a union. They are no longer needed. They're just a crutch for "simpletons" like you who can't handle their own sh!t.
[\QUOTE]

Really? Tell that to the folks who got NBC 2.0 treatment, and ended up with severance well into six figures. That didn't come from the GE fairy.

Tell that to the folks at NBC News who lost their union protection and then found their workload expanding to 12 hour days working for NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the website. "The worst mistake I ever made," was the quote from one of the architects of the anti-union movement there.

Tell that to the people collecting six figure defined benefit pensions after moving from job to job over a career. They didn't get those pensions because the companies thought it was just a really nice thing to do for ex-employees.

And tell it to the people who still have health insurance even though they've changed or lost their jobs.

They'll believe that unions are no longer needed. At least they will if they're morons.

[LunchPenalty]

The innovative employee knows how to work BOTH the union and the company for the best possible deal. Like, say, making double what the average reporter makes as a photographer/director.

;)

[!]

[QUOTE] I'm not in a union. They are no longer needed. They're just a crutch for "simpletons" like you who can't handle their own sh!t.
[\QUOTE]

Really? Tell that to the folks who got NBC 2.0 treatment, and ended up with severance well into six figures. That didn't come from the GE fairy.Tell that to the people just let go from NBC News.

They didn't get to keep their jobs.

[TVMattNYC]

[QUOTE=NYC Street;324371]Tell that to the people just let go from NBC News.

They didn't get to keep their jobs.

And unfortunately, the clueless lass running the place gets to keep HERS.

[Pro]

[quote=NYC Street;324371]Tell that to the people just let go from NBC News.

They didn't get to keep their jobs.

And I'm sure they got a better severance because of their CBA than the standard two weeks pay.

A union contract can't prevent layoffs. But it can stipulate provisions for those who are laid off as far as severance, benefits, etc.

[NYC Street]

[quote=!;327898]

And I'm sure they got a better severance because of their CBA than the standard two weeks pay.

A union contract can't prevent layoffs. But it can stipulate provisions for those who are laid off as far as severance, benefits, etc.

My point was that some, but not all, of the folks at NBC News had given up their union protections - and their CBA. Thus they got whatever the company decided to give them.

Those who had an AFTRA CBA could have picked up as much as $250,000 in severance.