GC employees unionizing...

[Old Fart]

Few people have a compete grasp of this 'privileged' concept. If you take a billionaire's money away, he'll probably be a millionaire again within a couple of years. He knows the language. He knows the clothes to wear. He knows where the people are who can partner with him, and he knows what resonates with them. He knows how to present a business plan.

There are people in our society who understand how to be 'successful' about as well as I understand neurosurgery. Sure, they can learn it, but the people who could help him.....are not inclined to accept him into their group.

This business of 'everybody can be a millionaire and if they're not, that means they're lazy' thing betrays a complete social and psychological ignorance. Sure, it's possible. Just like it's possible for you to become chums with Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. But you don't know the first thing about how to enter those guys' social group. Do ya? So yeah, it's possible. Theoretically. But it sure ain't gonna happen.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Few people have a compete grasp of this 'privileged' concept. If you take a billionaire's money away, he'll probably be a millionaire again within a couple of years. He knows the language. He knows the clothes to wear. He knows where the people are who can partner with him, and he knows what resonates with them. He knows how to present a business plan.

There are people in our society who understand how to be 'successful' about as well as I understand neurosurgery. Sure, they can learn it, but the people who could help him.....are not inclined to accept him into their group.

This business of 'everybody can be a millionaire and if they're not, that means they're lazy' thing betrays a complete social and psychological ignorance. Sure, it's possible. Just like it's possible for you to become chums with Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. But you don't know the first thing about how to enter those guys' social group. Do ya? So yeah, it's possible. Theoretically. But it sure ain't gonna happen.

 

[Old Fart]

I've helped severely underprivileged kids earn careers in construction. They might need to learn about hygiene. Brushing teeth, showering. Showing up on time. Speaking English (even for the non-foreign candidates). Yeah, if they are determined, they can do it. But they have to learn EVERYTHING. College degree? A hard stretch for some. Literally out of reach for some.

The gubmit shouldn't have to take care of these people. There should be a reasonable 'market' for them. I honestly, sincerely, after somewhat extensive review over nearly a quarter-century in this business, believe almost nobody should get less than $12 per hour and the better figure is probably $15. Consumers and businesses would adjust and the sky would not fall. Government could get largely out of the business of plugging such a huge hole. A great many more people would be working. If it was worth it.

 

[Benjamin Strange]

As this thread has gotten seriously derailed into the merits of unionizing at large, allow me to put my two cents in to try to reel it back in to the more specific issue of GC.

One of the biggest complaints that GC employees have is that the expectations from management are not comiserate with the pay offered. Employees are often expected to work long hours (no set schedule sees them regularly working every day for upwards of 10 days or more before having a single day off), they're put under enormous pressure to perform, some have to teach clinics (with no additional pay), must become certified on various fields of knowledge, have to maintain the merchandise and displays, are required to attend soul sucking weekly meetings (even on their days off), have to put up with tons of noise, etc., etc., etc. And worst of all: they are required to "fade" their hourly wages.

The fading system is essentially a way for GC to make their employees work for free. Their sales people are expected to sell, and receive a percentage of the profit and a smaller percentage of the gross. They are paid an hourly wage AGAINST their commission, which means that they have to sell a ton of gear just to cover their own wage before they start to see any addition money from their commissions. This might be ok, if their ONLY job as to sell - but they're required to do a ton of other work that takes them off the sales floor, and which cuts directly into their ability to make any money above their minimum wage. If GC gives them a raise, it just means they've got a higher number to fade against - it's a way to give somebody a raise without actually giving them a raise. To make matters worse, GC has made their entire game about low prices - but the salespeople depend on that small percentage of profit to go against their fade. The salespeople have absolutely no control over prices (anymore), so they have no leverage to attempt to earn a higher profit on an item. Every time GC lowers the sale price of something, that cuts directly into the employees paycheck. Not that an employee has any real knowledge of what those profits are: most aren't even allowed to see the screens that show the cost of an item to determine how much profit could be made, and there's no guarantee that those cost screens would be showing the actual cost of the item anyway (there's tons of accounting tricks to reduce actual costs). Basically they're told to be amazing sales people, but then GC removes all the tools available to actually be so. It seems like a scam to me.

GC employees unionizing isn't just about getting more money, it's about changing their horrible working conditions. GC is oftentimes rated as one of the worst companies to work for in the country, and it's not hard to see why if you do a little research. Just look at their turnover rate: at the time they were a public company, it was 400%! They've gone through around 60,000 employees in just the last ten years or so. Perhaps it's fair to guess that not every employee quit strictly because of the money - maybe it was because the job expectations were grossly unfair.

I, for one, hope that all the GCs successfully unionize. Upper management has been cutting their employees off at the knees for a long time, and a lot of very intelligent, hardworking employees have gotten royally screwed. Perhaps if their new union can manage to make it a better working environment, they could retain employees, which could lead to longer lasting relationships with customers, which could then lead to more sales and more profits. A tall order, perhaps - and maybe it's too late to fix a problem that's gotten so far out of hand.

 

[Old Fart]

I hope (and think) this is on topic: The most fundamental element of unionization is 'collective' bargaining. Some folks imagine that 'market forces' are thwarted when workers are represented by a union. I see it differently. "Market forces" come into play when workers are represented. GC currently, basically, sets the rules without input from workers. Sure, they can vote with their feet. However, within the employer/employee relationship, they have no voice. GC bargains with each worker individually which, is pretty simple. GC dictates. Because they can. Individual workers have zero clout.

When workers are represented, they speak with one voice. This gives them a voice they didn't have individually. Represented, the workers have some clout and the employer cannot always simply dictate.

The concerns you describe can get some discussion, if the workers are represented. If not, there is no discussion. I'm not sure why anybody would support eliminating the voice of workers in business/corporate behavior. The workers are the ones doing the business of the employer.

 

[Stewie26]

Is it fair for certain people to have a genetic predisposition that will allow them wealth thousands of times more? access to education is clearly not equal either. Should those with parents who could afford quality schools be permitted to continue to have a lopsided advantage over others?

Answer: YES.
The world is not fair. Nature is not fair. Deal with it and rise above. That's how the system works.

 

[64jazzbass]

I hope (and think) this is on topic: The most fundamental element of unionization is 'collective' bargaining. Some folks imagine that 'market forces' are thwarted when workers are represented by a union. I see it differently. "Market forces" come into play when workers are represented. GC currently, basically, sets the rules without input from workers. Sure, they can vote with their feet. However, within the employer/employee relationship, they have no voice. GC bargains with each worker individually which, is pretty simple. GC dictates. Because they can. Individual workers have zero clout.

When workers are represented, they speak with one voice. This gives them a voice they didn't have individually. Represented, the workers have some clout and the employer cannot always simply dictate.

The concerns you describe can get some discussion, if the workers are represented. If not, there is no discussion. I'm not sure why anybody would support eliminating the voice of workers in business/corporate behavior. The workers are the ones doing the business of the employer.

Someone once said that unions "hold the gun under the bargaining table" ...when costs of goods are driven up and when laborers willing to work for a certain wage are denied jobs, this definitely thwarts market forces. This can't be argued.

 

[skychief]

The saddest thing about working in a union shop was even tho I opted to not be in the union, they (IBEW) still [DEL]took[/DEL] stole the dues from my paychecks. That really pissed me off.

I wonder if the GC employees would be subject to that abuse.

 

[fmoore200]

The saddest thing about working in a union shop was even tho I opted to not be in the union, they (IBEW) still [DEL]took[/DEL] stole the dues from my paychecks. That really pissed me off.

I wonder if the GC employees would be subject to that abuse.

A union needs steady funds to operate, and if people decide they don't want to pay dues until they get into trouble (not saying you particularly) they won't be able to operate at full strength.

 

[sloasdaylight]

A union needs steady funds to operate, and if people decide they don't want to pay dues until they get into trouble (not saying you particularly) they won't be able to operate at full strength.

A union collecting funds from someone who is not a member of their union is (or at least should be considered) theft, plain and simple. If that person later decides to join the union for whatever reason, they can start collecting dues at that point, or deny them services, or any number of other things to keep things fair.

 

[Unrepresented]

Answer: YES.
The world is not fair. Nature is not fair. Deal with it and rise above. That's how the system works.

If you are genetically limited to a certain caste there is no rising above. Unions help to ensure that everyone gets a fair day's pay for a fair day's work regardless of whether you have the genes to be a business tycoon or not.

You're arguing for a capitalist brand of eugenics that went out of fashion a century ago.

Someone once said that unions "hold the gun under the bargaining table" ...when costs of goods are driven up and when laborers willing to work for a certain wage are denied jobs, this definitely thwarts market forces. This can't be argued.

They're only "market forces" when they're top down? I disagree.

The saddest thing about working in a union shop was even tho I opted to not be in the union, they (IBEW) still [DEL]took[/DEL] stole the dues from my paychecks. That really pissed me off.

I wonder if the GC employees would be subject to that abuse.

I am sorry that your above grade pay and guaranteed representation was provided for you whether you wanted to actively support it or not.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

A union collecting funds from someone who is not a member of their union is (or at least should be considered) theft, plain and simple. If that person later decides to join the union for whatever reason, they can start collecting dues at that point, or deny them services, or any number of other things to keep things fair.

OTOH, is it fair that the union still has an NLRA-mandated requirement to fairly represent that employee if he or she is still part of the bargaining unit and that employee may enjoy the fruits of a well-negotiated CBA? They can't deny that employee services. That's an unfair labor practice.

Edit: I should clarify my last two sentences. Unions do have wide discretion in representing employees. For instance, a union doesn't have to push a termination to arbitration if it's obvious an employee was fired due to incompetence. However, discriminatory reasoning behind not representing an employee is not okay. Failing to render services to a bargaining unit member because he or she is not a union member in a right-to-work state? You bet your breeches that's a ULP.

 

[Unrepresented]

A union collecting funds from someone who is not a member of their union is (or at least should be considered) theft, plain and simple. If that person later decides to join the union for whatever reason, they can start collecting dues at that point, or deny them services, or any number of other things to keep things fair.

I find it ironic that when employees want to unionize the response is "Don't like it? Get another job freeloader!"

When a person wants to work in a union shop and get all the advantages that come with the hard work and organization the union has provided but doesn't want to contribute to maintaining it, the response isn't to "get another job," but to bash the union more.

 

[fmoore200]

I am sorry that your above grade pay and guaranteed representation was provided for you whether you wanted to actively support it or not.

+100

 

[BbbyBld]

In the part of the country I live, average rate for a SKILLED worker is about $10/hour. Median income is $25K/year. The cost of living is lower than most other places. As a result, lots of manufacturing has moved into the area, especially automotive. As the minimum wage has been increasing over the last several years for unskilled workers, the wages for skilled workers and professionals have been either locked, or decreasing. The minimum wage rates that people are pushing for in some parts of the country are in the range of professional salaries here.

I don't believe in a set minimum wage. I think anyone should have the right to pay what they want, and anyone should have the right to accept what they want.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I don't believe in a set minimum wage. I think anyone should have the right to pay what they want, and anyone should have the right to accept what they want.

You ever see the threads in Band Management about groups who are willing play gigs for free or for pennies on the dollar? These are typically unskilled and uneducated groups who are eager to play out and will undercut (whether intentionally or not) the skilled pros and semi-pros who are working the same circuits.

In some cases, businesses can even convince these bands to pay them just for the chance to play. This process has degraded music scenes across the country and has made it so that very few bands can actually make real money gigging. Actual talent leaves these scenes (or simply stops playing out) because the job doesn't pay a reasonable wage for the work provided, and the unskilled bands begin to run things like Lord of the Flies.

Sooner or later the venues start doing horribly because their product is inferior. These businesses often go belly up because their owners played the proverbial 'race to the bottom' game and were only interested in cutting costs wherever possible. After awhile no one can play out anymore because the industry in the city has died.

That's essentially what you're asking for whether you realize it or not.

 

[sloasdaylight]

I find it ironic that when employees want to unionize the response is "Don't like it? Get another job freeloader!"

When a person wants to work in a union shop and get all the advantages that come with the hard work and organization the union has provided but doesn't want to contribute to maintaining it, the response isn't to "get another job," but to bash the union more.

The response isn't "get another job" because I don't think the union has a right to take his money when he's not a part of it.

If it's built into the rules/laws surrounding the company/industry that all employees are required to pay union dues if they want to work in that industry regardless if they're in the union or not, then my response would be tough cookies/get another job/move/whatever. It's a matter of giving the employee the freedom to do what he wants with his money and whether or not he wants to be a member of said union.

 

[Unrepresented]

The response isn't "get another job" because I don't think the union has a right to take his money when he's not a part of it.

If it's built into the rules/laws surrounding the company/industry that all employees are required to pay union dues if they want to work in that industry regardless if they're in the union or not, then my response would be tough cookies/get another job/move/whatever. It's a matter of giving the employee the freedom to do what he wants with his money and whether or not he wants to be a member of said union.

But he is a part of it. That's like me renouncing my citizenship and wanting to pay the lower taxes of Barbados while still wanting to live here.

You pay for my roads, my public education, my law enforcement, and my military, because I don't agree with certain aspects of them, even if I do use them both directly and indirectly.

If he's paying the dues, he should enroll in the union and become active in it. He's paying for the vote, he might as well take advantage of it.

 

[BbbyBld]

You ever see the threads in Band Management about groups who are willing play gigs for free or for pennies on the dollar? These are typically unskilled and uneducated groups who are eager to play out and will undercut (whether intentionally or not) the skilled pros and semi-pros who are working the same circuits.

In some cases, businesses can even convince these bands to pay them just for the chance to play. This process has degraded music scenes across the country and has made it so that very few bands can actually make real money gigging. Actual talent leaves these scenes (or simply stops playing out) because the job doesn't pay a reasonable wage for the work provided, and the unskilled bands begin to run things like Lord of the Flies.

Sooner or later the venues start doing horribly because their product is inferior. These businesses often go belly up because their owners played the proverbial 'race to the bottom' game and were only interested in cutting costs wherever possible. After awhile no one can play out anymore because the industry in the city has died.

That's essentially what you're asking for whether you realize it or not.

My town actually has a pretty good music scene. I'm one of the few bassists in town, so I get a lot of work in all types of bands, rock, blues, jazz, country, reggae, metal, etc... A lot of the established, well known (locally) bands I've played with have a sort of a union mindset similar to what you're talking about. Most musicians in town know each other and play together in different groups all the time. For a given venue, there is an attitude of, we will accept X amount of money for X type of gig, insert bar, club, private party, wedding. For a given venue, there is also we will play sets of x length and take breaks of x length. There is even a sort of standard "pace" of sets, which means that you only need to know a certain number of songs to make it through the night. For a given venue, there is also a set standard of demanded comps on alcohol or food. This has lowered the standard across the board.

On the other hand, I started a band with some friends who had never taken it to the next level and played in bands. Me and the guitar player had lots of live experience, but we were nobody's as a band in the local scene, so we had to beg to play starting out, and we played a lot of shows for free. I had to beg bar and club owners to give us a chance for less pay as personal favors because I had been working for them for years in multiple bands. When we finally got paying gigs, we were making less than the other bands (some of them mine), but we played longer sets with less dead space between songs, we took short breaks, and as a result we started drawing larger crowds. We got lots of compliments from owners and patrons about it. We still get payed less in some venues, but things are improving. One owner who normally pays by the door gives us extra for our efforts. This is partly because we actually have a growing fan base who come to see us every time, and they stay the night. We have been slowly setting a new standard.

 

[fmoore200]

My town actually has a pretty good music scene. I'm one of the few bassists in town, so I get a lot of work in all types of bands, rock, blues, jazz, country, reggae, metal, etc... A lot of the established, well known (locally) bands I've played with have a sort of a union mindset similar to what you're talking about. Most musicians in town know each other and play together in different groups all the time. For a given venue, there is an attitude of, we will accept X amount of money for X type of gig, insert bar, club, private party, wedding. For a given venue, there is also we will play sets of x length and take breaks of x length. There is even a sort of standard "pace" of sets, which means that you only need to know a certain number of songs to make it through the night. For a given venue, there is also a set standard of demanded comps on alcohol or food. This has lowered the standard across the board.

On the other hand, I started a band with some friends who had never taken it to the next level and played in bands. Me and the guitar player had lots of live experience, but we were nobody's as a band in the local scene, so we had to beg to play starting out, and we played a lot of shows for free. I had to beg bar and club owners to give us a chance for less pay as personal favors because I had been working for them for years in multiple bands. When we finally got paying gigs, we were making less than the other bands (some of them mine), but we played longer sets with less dead space between songs, we took short breaks, and as a result we started drawing larger crowds. We got lots of compliments from owners and patrons about it. We still get payed less in some venues, but things are improving. One owner who normally pays by the door gives us extra for our efforts. This is partly because we actually have a growing fan base who come to see us every time, and they stay the night. We have been slowly setting a new standard.

So what you're saying is the owners are not likely to treat an individual employee very well, but if individual employees join together and support one another in getting a fair wage and equitable treatment from the owners they are more likely to get it?

That sounds kind of familiar