Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
GC employees unionizing...
- Thread starter chicago_mike
- Start date
I think that if this move succeeds, GS will end up with better-skilled employees but fewer of them. Unionizing also has consequences in terms of increasing benefits for union employees, which raises costs, which in turn probably means fewer employees.
In such a situation, there are winners and losers. And if the financial situation is tight, it does not help.
In such a situation, there are winners and losers. And if the financial situation is tight, it does not help.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Training and hiring new employees is expensive as well. Union employees generally have less turnover, thereby reducing other costs.
No, the point is we have a right to do what we want working for peanuts. Some people think that's a bad idea. We are now succeeding because we have a good work ethic and are passionate. This was in response a previous post suggesting that bands willing to play for free or less money leads to a downward spiral.
I believe that success is all about work ethic and attitude. I believe that I could work anywhere and succeed, because I have, whether it was fast food and retail as a teenager, working as a tech after that to pay my way through college, and so on. Some of my jobs didn't even pay minimum wage--trainee pay. It took me 6 years to get a bachelors degree, and a lot of that time I was working two jobs to get by. The first time I went from a job with higher pay to one with lower, well, it sucked, but after a year I got a $3/hour raise because I told them I had to quit to make more money somewhere else. I just showed up and did what I was asked with a good attitude. Working all those low level jobs opened up lots of opportunities for me, and I learned a lot about life too.
If there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's a co-worker with a bad attitude complaining about the money they make or working conditions, especially when the co-worker sucks at their job. If you don't like it, improve your attitude and performance and get promoted, or *-ing quit and work somewhere else. Sometimes if you need the money, you gotta suck it up and do what you have to do to get by. That's the way I was brought up, not, but so and so is making X...I wanna make that too.
If I were to run a start-up company and struggle in the beginning, that's legal. It's legal for me to short myself for my own time. If somebody is crazy enough to work for me for $2/hour because they want to, they should have the right to do so.
I saw a news story about McDonald's workers striking for $15/hour. First of all, I've worked as an engineer for less pay than that at one point in my life (by choice, because I was hungry, and it led to better things). A lot of guys I went to college with were like, engineers are supposed to get paid X, and they turned down jobs. Those guys never entered the field because they turned their noses up, and now they have other crappy jobs, LIKE RETAIL! Secondly, if you work at a McDonald's for a solid year, you better be a manager and/or running that place, or something is wrong. I look at GC pretty much the same way.
just skimming the thread but I feel moved to say: listen to this guy. He knows what's what
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
No, they did not. You paid a Representation Fee, not dues. And you paid it because you are the beneficiary of the union's past and ongoing toils. You are covered under the agreement. It would be unworkable to allow some co-workers to bargain individually and for others to be covered under the agreement. So.....you are covered under the agreement and you help underwrite the administration of that agreement.
Fortunately for you, there is a solution. Find a non-union employer and go to work there. What? You don't want to do that? You like the wages, benefits and working condition you get under your current labor agreement? In that case.....stop whining.
A local venue in my area pays every band that comes through their door a minimum of $150 for a Sun-Wed gig and $200 for a Thur-Sat gig. It doesn't matter if it's the band's first show and they draw zero people; they will still get paid that minimum (granted, most bands start on a Monday or Tuesday night and work their way up).
Despite that constant cost, the venue does insanely well. Good bands will get asked back, and if you begin drawing crowds your pay will go up. The better bands work the Thur-Sat gigs, and the place is packed every single weekend. By comparison, the venues who allow bands to play for nothing or for peanuts (as you say) can't draw a crowd because they're known for having bad bands play there. These venues change management often or simply go out of business within a year or two. Meanwhile the owner/manager of the venue that actually pays their bands is about to open their fourth music venue in the area.
My good friend LiquidMidnight has an unusually detailed understanding of labor law. He should I guess, being a pro and all. Here's something I think ( and I think he thinks this too) is a bit wacky. As mentioned above, unions are mandated to represent members and non-members. Failure to do so is an Unfair Labor Practice. Why? Because if the union refused to represent people who are not members, it would look like sour grapes. More than that, it would be a marketing ploy. It would be a punishing of workers who chose not to become members.
And yet, employers get away with this ALL THE TIME. In organizing drives, it used to be unlawful for employers to warn workers about unions, to pull them aside and strong-arm them, to require that they attend anti-union indoctrination presentations. Basically, they are getting away with certain forms of this today. Effectively getting away with it. The poster child is, of course, Wal-Mart. The company whose employees' food and transportation and health care benefits YOU PAY FOR WITH YOUR TAXES. Wal-Mart is truly a poster child, because this company has underscored that, in America, despite the plain language of the NLRA, a huge (the world's largest) can simply, and effectively, refuse to allow a union to represent ANY of its workers......even though the workers wish to be represented.
In a way, I kind of applaud Wal-Mart. Go, Wal-Mart! This company very well may cause the NLRB, with the help of elected officials and courts, to resume doing its job for the first time in many years. If Wal-Mart were the only place I could buy strings for my basses, I would learn to make my own strings. But I applaud them for demonstrating how broken our system of labor relations is in America.
As I stated much earlier in this thread, agency shops are illegal, but there may be provisions written into contracts to still cover collective bargaining costs from non-union members. All employees have the ability to exercise their Beck rights with regard to their dues going to things like political candidates in which they do not individually endorse (Disclaimer: As always, this isn't legal advice).
Edit: OF already beat me to the part about the representation fee.
just skimming the thread but I feel moved to say: listen to this guy. He knows what's what
Thank you. I get 'er right every once in a while.
just skimming the thread but I feel moved to say: listen to this guy. He knows what's what
Yes he does.
Good question. Labor (and I) think the number should be small. Business likes a big number. Hungry, desperate people work cheap, and it's especially nice when the government subsidizes employers' poverty-level wages. I guess that's what the conservatives call a "free market."
I think judging from my posts that it's obvious I'm not exactly a fan of right-to-work. That doesn't come down to any philosophical notion of being pro-union or anti-union. I'll defend to my dying breath the right of an employee to vote "No" in an election. My problem with right-to-work is that it was a provision snuck into Taft-Hartley that is ultimately repugnant to the rest of the NLRA and is, in essence, a way - arguably small or large - to contradict the rest of the statute and undermine the institution of collective bargaining that the NLRA purports to protect on a national level.
*Looks up at this user name and sees he's not a supporting member and is actually a free rider*...so, uh...moving right along here.
This is very true. The scope of what constitutes an 8(a)(1) violation has narrowed throughout the years, not only due to statutory amendments but also due to Board interpretation. The original post-NIRA Board, which included J. Warren Madden, Donald Wakefield Smith, and Edwin Smith, was very adamant about enforcing section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Later Boards, particularly Paul Herzog's Board, became much more narrow in their interpretation of 8(a)(1); this was more so for political-bureaucratic than ideological reasons in Herzog's case - the heat brought about by Congress upon the Madden Board in the late 30s was something the subsequent Boards didn't want to experience. Even prior to Taft-Hartley, 8(a)(1) became an issue of employers' free speech rights, so the amount of anti-union rhetoric in which employers could engage became more liberalized.
I was saying it is ridiculous to expect a year working there to equal a management position. It ignores many variables.
Much talk of "Great Depression", "The government made that money" and other BS going on here. It's very clear to me that many of you really do not understand basic economic principles.
The government made Detroit the financial powerhouse it is today, I can promise you that.
The government made Detroit the financial powerhouse it is today, I can promise you that.
