Lets talk about Unions

[Vilacom]

Alright, so this is an issue that comes up often on WAN show, has come up a lot in the recent controversies, and there is an incredible amount of...I don't really wanna say misinformation but a very ill informed view of what Union's do, can do, and actual outcomes.

 

I have been a union member in good standing at my job for over 15 years since the day I was eligible to join, I have been on our union's legislative action team and lobbied on behalf of my union brothers and sisters at the highest levels of government.  I believe unions are a workers most important ally in securing fair compensation, benefits, and ensuring a structured workplace relationship with management.

So with that in mind, what do unions actually do.  They advocate on behalf of labor with regards to compensation, benefits, workplace conditions, how labor and management officially interact with regards to grievances and disciplinary action, and stand as advocates for workers when those procedures are brought up to ensure that all parties involved are following what is written in the contract.

What they do not do is change how people behave, prevent things like SA/SH in the workplace, or somehow make a workplace this wonderful fun relaxing place where everyone gets all the time they could ever want to make things as perfect as it is in their dreams.  If writers at LTT feel they are being under compensated for their work on videos, a union could help with that to negotiate for increased compensation.  If they feel that they are being punished for mistakes in videos that are caused by their workload, a union could help with that by negotiating the how disciplinary action is taken for different degrees of mistakes or repeated failures.  If they feel that a grievance they have isn't being acted on fairly or that there isnt a grievance process where they could even reach out, a union could help develop that grievance process and make sure its being followed.

A Union cannot force LTT to stop making however many videos per week, they can make things actually more difficult when it comes to resolving issues between workers because almost never do they want management brought in to resolve anything.  

In the past year the following things have occurred in my local:  

Two 40+ year old men nearly came to blows over a perceived scheduling discrepancy
An employee manipulated brand new union members to become the union rep for the facility and then proceeded to screw them over
A woman was harassed repeatedly who had to turn to management for help because her harasser was the union rep that was supposed to be representing her
Two female trainees were given transfers out of the building due to lawsuits that alleged harassment by trainers and co workers.


That's the quick examples.  Unions aren't magic,  they don't make it so shitty people arnt shitty people.  They are extremely valuable for what they actually CAN do for employees, but dont for a second think that they can or even remotely come close to preventing the kind of stuff we are hearing may have happened.  
 

[Applefreak]

34 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

Alright, so this is an issue that comes up often on WAN show, has come up a lot in the recent controversies, and there is an incredible amount of...I don't really wanna say misinformation but a very ill informed view of what Union's do, can do, and actual outcomes.

 

I have been a union member in good standing at my job for over 15 years since the day I was eligible to join, I have been on our union's legislative action team and lobbied on behalf of my union brothers and sisters at the highest levels of government.  I believe unions are a workers most important ally in securing fair compensation, benefits, and ensuring a structured workplace relationship with management.

So with that in mind, what do unions actually do.  They advocate on behalf of labor with regards to compensation, benefits, workplace conditions, how labor and management officially interact with regards to grievances and disciplinary action, and stand as advocates for workers when those procedures are brought up to ensure that all parties involved are following what is written in the contract.

What they do not do is change how people behave, prevent things like SA/SH in the workplace, or somehow make a workplace this wonderful fun relaxing place where everyone gets all the time they could ever want to make things as perfect as it is in their dreams.  If writers at LTT feel they are being under compensated for their work on videos, a union could help with that to negotiate for increased compensation.  If they feel that they are being punished for mistakes in videos that are caused by their workload, a union could help with that by negotiating the how disciplinary action is taken for different degrees of mistakes or repeated failures.  If they feel that a grievance they have isn't being acted on fairly or that there isnt a grievance process where they could even reach out, a union could help develop that grievance process and make sure its being followed.

A Union cannot force LTT to stop making however many videos per week, they can make things actually more difficult when it comes to resolving issues between workers because almost never do they want management brought in to resolve anything.  

In the past year the following things have occurred in my local:  

Two 40+ year old men nearly came to blows over a perceived scheduling discrepancy
An employee manipulated brand new union members to become the union rep for the facility and then proceeded to screw them over
A woman was harassed repeatedly who had to turn to management for help because her harasser was the union rep that was supposed to be representing her
Two female trainees were given transfers out of the building due to lawsuits that alleged harassment by trainers and co workers.


That's the quick examples.  Unions aren't magic,  they don't make it so shitty people arnt shitty people.  They are extremely valuable for what they actually CAN do for employees, but dont for a second think that they can or even remotely come close to preventing the kind of stuff we are hearing may have happened.  
 

Union laws and definitions vary country by country. Many countries allow for unions, some even force you into one, which then takes part of your money for their profit. Sadly many larger unions have become the enemy by working for profit. So there are up and downs and it really depends on what country you are in an the circumstances around it. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

Alright, so this is an issue that comes up often on WAN show, has come up a lot in the recent controversies, and there is an incredible amount of...I don't really wanna say misinformation but a very ill informed view of what Union's do, can do, and actual outcomes.

 

I have been a union member in good standing at my job for over 15 years since the day I was eligible to join, I have been on our union's legislative action team and lobbied on behalf of my union brothers and sisters at the highest levels of government.  I believe unions are a workers most important ally in securing fair compensation, benefits, and ensuring a structured workplace relationship with management.

So with that in mind, what do unions actually do.  They advocate on behalf of labor with regards to compensation, benefits, workplace conditions, how labor and management officially interact with regards to grievances and disciplinary action, and stand as advocates for workers when those procedures are brought up to ensure that all parties involved are following what is written in the contract.

What they do not do is change how people behave, prevent things like SA/SH in the workplace, or somehow make a workplace this wonderful fun relaxing place where everyone gets all the time they could ever want to make things as perfect as it is in their dreams.  If writers at LTT feel they are being under compensated for their work on videos, a union could help with that to negotiate for increased compensation.  If they feel that they are being punished for mistakes in videos that are caused by their workload, a union could help with that by negotiating the how disciplinary action is taken for different degrees of mistakes or repeated failures.  If they feel that a grievance they have isn't being acted on fairly or that there isnt a grievance process where they could even reach out, a union could help develop that grievance process and make sure its being followed.

A Union cannot force LTT to stop making however many videos per week, they can make things actually more difficult when it comes to resolving issues between workers because almost never do they want management brought in to resolve anything.  

In the past year the following things have occurred in my local:  

Two 40+ year old men nearly came to blows over a perceived scheduling discrepancy
An employee manipulated brand new union members to become the union rep for the facility and then proceeded to screw them over
A woman was harassed repeatedly who had to turn to management for help because her harasser was the union rep that was supposed to be representing her
Two female trainees were given transfers out of the building due to lawsuits that alleged harassment by trainers and co workers.


That's the quick examples.  Unions aren't magic,  they don't make it so shitty people arnt shitty people.  They are extremely valuable for what they actually CAN do for employees, but dont for a second think that they can or even remotely come close to preventing the kind of stuff we are hearing may have happened.  
 

I too am in a Union and agree with all of your points.

 

I think many of the people jumping on Linus and LMG about unionization really do not know how they work, what they can and cannot doe etc... Like you said they aren't magic and cannot do everything. Especially when it comes to bargaining about wages, etc.. Its all give and take and often times Unions act like politicians and promise the moon, when in reality there are limits.

 

The biggest problem I have in all of this is the constant repetitive comments on "rights". Yes they do have the right to unionize, there are laws in Canada and BC to protect those rights and there's nothing Linus, or LMG can do about it...plain and simple. With that being said the thing about rights is that you do not have to exercise those rights. You have them, doesn't mean you need to use them and it's the same with Unions. There's a time and place for them, they aren't the answer in every situation IMHO, they are not magic. So really it's up to the LMG employees if they want to, or not.  If they want to, they can, no one can stop them. What I really think is going on and what is probably more accurate is the fact that they don't want one, or feel like they need it.

 

Its like having the right to protest, some people will exercise the right, others won't. Taking guns in the US as another example (ignoring various state laws etc..) US citizens by in large have the right to own a firearm. That doesn't mean every single American is going to, or wants to own one. Having rights and exercising those rights are two different things IMHO

 

Also when it comes to unionization you need the majority of support of your fellow peers. It's a vote. If 2 people want it and the other 98 don't guess what no union. You don't just say were unionized now, there are actual steps and procedure that have to be followed before you can form a union. And the first basic step is ensuring that's what the majority of your co-workers want. Just because you want it, doesn't mean others do.

 

13 minutes ago, Applefreak said:

Union laws and definitions vary country by country. Many countries allow for unions, some even force you into one, which then takes part of your money for their profit. Sadly many larger unions have become the enemy by working for profit. So there are up and downs and it really depends on what country you are in an the circumstances around it. 

Sorry saw your post after mine.

 

This is a very good point and one often ignored in general. Many people think that they laws they have in their respective countries, states, provinces, etc... are exactly the same around the world, when in fact they are not.

 

Another thing about Unions that rub me the wrong way is that while it is good they help fight and protect their members from unjust firing etc... there are often times people do need to be fired, however the unions fight so hard companies are either scared, or give up. You see it in policing where there is evidence of officers abusing their powers and hurting people and it all get swept under the rug. I've seen stories of a nurse who actually harmed and/killed people because of constant malpractice, but guess what, the union did everything in their power to keep this person employed, even if it meant going to another facility. Ev though they kept harming  more people. It took a whole public inquiry to bring this to light. Sadly many people died, when this shouldn't have been something a union was trying to protect.

[hassam222]

Linus can neither force or prevent his staff from unionizing. It is a decision entirely up to them. 

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to Off Topic

 

While this discussion might be sparked by LMG, main subject is not about LMG or tech. Also, unions and worker rights go really close to politics which is under full site-wide ban.

[I Just Want Ram Drives]

6 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

-> Moved to Off Topic

 

While this discussion might be sparked by LMG, main subject is not about LMG or tech. Also, unions and worker rights go really close to politics which is under full site-wide ban.

Rights are never political, though.

10 minutes ago, hassam222 said:

Linus can neither force or prevent his staff from unionizing. It is a decision entirely up to them. 

He actually can. It's not legal, but he can. Even just a workplace that is hostile to the subject of unionization is problematic.

[LogicalDrm]

32 minutes ago, I Just Want Ram Drives said:

Rights are never political, though.

Rights are always political... Only assigning laws can any rights be concreted.

[andre_medina]

Linus never said he would do any union busting. He just said if his employees felt like they did have to unionize, he'd feel like a failure for letting them down. 

[artkingjw]

Just wanted to echo agreement on OP's opinion. This thread has been reasonable so far. 

 

I feel like unions have been romanticized too much in the recent past. I am a member of a union. They can be good for certain things, but IMO are often bad for many others. 

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

5 hours ago, Applefreak said:

Union laws and definitions vary country by country. Many countries allow for unions, some even force you into one, which then takes part of your money for their profit. Sadly many larger unions have become the enemy by working for profit. So there are up and downs and it really depends on what country you are in an the circumstances around it. 

That's a very US view on the matter, that ain't how unions work in most countries. But let's not get into how that came to be. I think the growing anti-union sentiment is quite strongly related to the global rise of neoliberal ideology, which is problematic in itself due to various reasons - it's the source of many of the antisocial harsh policies that don't stroke with reality. And reversing that rise in ideology is quite important for us as a society if we don't wish to regress to the social structure of the 19th century in the long run.

 

But overall, a union done right is a good thing for the workers, but it will also only act if the entire group of employees perceives a problem. I saw this well enough during my academic career, the union pretty much threw us under the bus because they only represented a particular subgroup of the employees. Which is to say, it's not a magical bullet that'll stop all abuses.

[Applefreak]

3 minutes ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

That's a very US view on the matter, that ain't how unions work in most countries. But let's not get into how that came to be. I think the growing anti-union sentiment is quite strongly related to the global rise of neoliberal ideology, which is problematic in itself due to various reasons - it's the source of many of the antisocial harsh policies that don't stroke with reality. And reversing that rise in ideology is quite important for us as a society if we don't wish to regress to the social structure of the 19th century in the long run.

 

But overall, a union done right is a good thing for the workers, but it will also only act if the entire group of employees perceives a problem. I saw this well enough during my academic career, the union pretty much threw us under the bus because they only represented a particular subgroup of the employees. Which is to say, it's not a magical bullet that'll stop all abuses.

There are plenty of examples where unions made it worse. The premise of higher wages ist often the reason for clashes between unions and companies rather than improving actual working conditions. Why, because unions tend make money off it (by unions I am referring to the ones running them, not the members). Many take a percentage off the top, which would be fine but if they cannot achieve their goal of x amount they simply ask for employees to lay down work until a settlement has been reached. Most times a company will then agree to some terms but lay off said personal later on only because the union was insisting on increasing wages by very small amount per month (still millions for them). For many unskilled workers that is a horrible scenario. Not something a union leader like that would care about. While the general idea is great and recommendable, many larger ones are just in for themselves and actually earn their living from it, living a quite wealthy lifestyle (the leaders that is). I am neither anti union nor pro union and I am certainly not from the US either (check my profile) nor do I have extensive knowledge on union proceedings there.  

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

1 minute ago, Applefreak said:

There are plenty of examples where unions made it worse. The premise of higher wages ist often the reason for clashes between unions and companies rather than improving actual working conditions. Why, because unions tend make money off it (by unions I am referring to the ones running them, not the members). Many take a percentage off the top, which would be fine but if they cannot achieve their goal of x amount they simply ask for employees to lay down work until a settlement has been reached.

An interesting take on the matter. My union contribution hasn't really changed in over a decade, and it's a yearly flat fee. At this point it's literally something along the lines of 0.5% of a single monthly net salary in my case.

 

3 minutes ago, Applefreak said:

Most times a company will then agree to some terms but lay off said personal later on only because the union was insisting on increasing wages by very small amount per month (still millions for them). For many unskilled workers that is a horrible scenario. Not something a union leader like that would care about.

White and blue collar actually have separate representatives in our case, and said representatives are just regular employees as well. But generally we tend to go along with the "other side" and demand equal benefits up to the point where the legal employment status of each employee permits it. Like it's not practical for factory workers to have flexible hours like folks in the office.

 

9 minutes ago, Applefreak said:

While the general idea is great and recommendable, many larger ones are just in for themselves and actually earn their living from it, living a quite wealthy lifestyle (the leaders that is). I am neither anti union nor pro union and I am certainly not from the US either (check my profile) nor do I have extensive knowledge on union proceedings there.  

Sad for you, but that ain't how unions work here. Here you do usually have some political movement attached to it that's hijacking the name of the union, but no one actually listens to them or cares about them.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

But overall, a union done right is a good thing for the workers, but it will also only act if the entire group of employees perceives a problem. I saw this well enough during my academic career, the union pretty much threw us under the bus because they only represented a particular subgroup of the employees. Which is to say, it's not a magical bullet that'll stop all abuses.

This is the main point that I think if often missed/ignored when this comes up. You don't form a union just because 1 or 2 people want one, it has to be something the vast majority of your co-workers want and/or feel is necessary. Like I said above, have a right to unionize and using that right are two different things and no one should assume that because a particular group of workers are not unionized, their boss/employer is preventing them from doing so...especially in places where there are very tough laws to protect against that.

 

To you your other point, these are things that unless you have experience in a union you don't know. It's why my blood boils a bit when I see this brought up, because I can tell right away that many people arguing have little to no clue what a union does, as, well as their pros and cons. From my perspective having a collective agreement between the union and employer can be great. It sets certain rules and expectations, however it can make the workplace very ridged. You can't just make changes on the fly, even if they are for the better because its not part of the agreement, etc... It may be hard for some to comprehend, but sometime not being in a union has it's benefits as well and can make the workplace more flexible and I mean that in a good way. What is also not discussed/known to many is that being in a union can sometimes make working with your co-workers harder. You see this fighting, hatred, bickering among senior and junior staff over things like vacation, time off etc... It's not even a result of the employer, but what is stipulated in the agreement.

 

End of the day unions are good overall, but they do have their place and are not the solution in every scenario. If your employer respects and treats/compensates everyone equally and fairly, if they follow all local labour laws and ensure to provide a safe and enjoyable working environment, etc... I don't really see the benefit to having one. TBH even though I believe in people's right to unionize.This is not to say the workplace needs to be 100% perfect, no work place ever is, but if overall the majority of employees are happy have vast majority of the time and they feel like they are treated well and respected, they probably see no need to unionize and IMHO I would agree with them.

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

28 minutes ago, Spec7re said:

End of the day unions are good overall, but they do have their place and are not the solution in every scenario. If your employer respects and treats/compensates everyone equally and fairly, if they follow all local labour laws and ensure to provide a safe and enjoyable working environment, etc... I don't really see the benefit to having one. TBH even though I believe in people's right to unionize.This is not to say the workplace needs to be 100% perfect, no work place ever is, but if overall the majority of employees are happy have vast majority of the time and they feel like they are treated well and respected, they probably see no need to unionize and IMHO I would agree with them.

Unions also tend to have folks that know the insides and outs of certain legal structures and exceptions that employers generally don't want to advertise or even know about. A typical example is the practical execution of the EC directive on working time which states every employee is entitled to four weeks of holiday each year at the very least. In practice, this leads to you being able to take those holidays no matter what, since each country had to implement a legal way to take them, but usually you got to know exactly what, where, and when to make use of such systems.

[RasmusDC]

Now my background is Danish, and that is of course with that focus that i can talk about unions.

 

I think at an early state unions here was KEY in driving the living up for most of the danish working people, it was the only way to fight strong and greedy corporations, it made 8/8/8 (8 hours of work 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of freedom) for 5 days a week.. weekends holidays a thing.. it has a REALLY strong impact, this was because people were a resource, to do a SIMPLE task, so they were EASY to exchange, and one was always willing to do a job, to get food on the table. 

 

Today it is +- some groups of people are more independent, and stronger in ability to for them selves actually fight for good salary etc.. and we have freedom of union, it is not by law anymore.

 

we still have a lower level of society that needs this, but in some of the areas, like nursing, it also keeps them in "control", because it is a "COMMON" denomination you are paid by, not performance based, so not all are happy.

 

government can also in collaboration do BIG things here, that "people" then just has to accept. and these sometimes has focus on things that are not the best for the people, just lost a day off, because.. they believed it was "best" for the economy.

 

Also Unions today are LARGE corporations, with LARGE strike funds, etc.. it is a business.. with leader that earns a lot of money, so we have even seen inter union fights..

 

Like we had close to where i live, a "small" restaurant with i don´t know 10+ staff members. that actually were in a UNION, just not the union, that were normally chosen, the big union then went into total warfare, stopped picking up trash, locked out suppliers etc.. NOT because staff was not unionize, but because it was not with them. that was REALLY ugly.

 

also had large industries die because of the strong unions we had one of the worlds biggest ship building sites in Lindø, by Mærsk. the staff fought for years against management, and everytime they did try to optimize production, there was a giant conflict and strike, and it worked, until they had to close down the WHOLE facility, because it was simply to expensive to produce in Denmark, and the company had not moved for 20+ years (it was part of it.. many other reasons)..

 

so there are plus and minusses.. but i think if you see on the amazons in the world right now, here unionization is needed to actually have enough of a voice, to change what is not okay.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

Unions also tend to have folks that know the insides and outs of certain legal structures and exceptions that employers generally don't want to advertise or even know about. A typical example is the practical execution of the EC directive on working time which states every employee is entitled to four weeks of holiday each year at the very least. In practice, this leads to you being able to take those holidays no matter what, since each country had to implement a legal way to take them, but usually you got to know exactly what, where, and when to make use of such systems.

You are are correct.

 

I should have been a little clearer on my vacation example and stated prime time vacations (ie: summer, the holidays, etc..)

 

Where I work we can take time any time of the year and we all know how much time we get and so forth. However, where I am, prime time vacation is vauled highly and has become a very contentious issue since being unionized. So much so that it causes major friction between senior and junior staff, as well as full time and part time staff, which makes the work place hard work in at time, especially when vacation selection is happening. And like may work places only so many staff can be off at any one time, which also makes it hard.

 

I understand that this will vary from agreement to agreement and workplace to workplace, but all I'll say is that before being uionized, it was actually a lot better and wasn't this contentious as it is now. Sure maybe 4 people weren't happy before , but the other 98% of us were.

 

Again I don't want people to assume im anti union, im not, but I just want to highlight thats its not always better and not as magical that some people think it is.

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

1 hour ago, Spec7re said:

You are are correct.

 

I should have been a little clearer on my vacation example and stated prime time vacations (ie: summer, the holidays, etc..)

 

Where I work we can take time any time of the year and we all know how much time we get and so forth. However, where I am, prime time vacation is vauled highly and has become a very contentious issue since being unionized. So much so that it causes major friction between senior and junior staff, as well as full time and part time staff, which makes the work place hard work in at time, especially when vacation selection is happening. And like may work places only so many staff can be off at any one time, which also makes it hard.

 

I understand that this will vary from agreement to agreement and workplace to workplace, but all I'll say is that before being uionized, it was actually a lot better and wasn't this contentious as it is now. Sure maybe 4 people weren't happy before , but the other 98% of us were.

 

Again I don't want people to assume im anti union, im not, but I just want to highlight thats its not always better and not as magical that some people think it is.

Having worked at such places, I've gotten to the point that any workplace that restricts my ability to take holidays will have to look for someone else. I already had a relationship fail over such things, and never again.

[MartinTheActor]

The important thing I feel to remember about trade unions is that they have become far removed from the ideals that created trade unions in the first place.

One person arguing that their work has more value to the company than minimum wage...that's easy to ignore. Half of the workforce saying the same? That's where companies have to start listening. Collective bargaining is the true spirit of trade unionism. Yet what we all see time after time is people trotting out strikes, and poor behaviour on the part of greedy individuals. 

Therein lies the problem with trade unions though - greed. Much like being socialism's largest inherent weakness (a single greedy individual can exploit and negate a socialist community), it is also trade unionism's biggest weakness.

I say this as someone who spent years as a trade union activist and saw first hand how greed ruins trade unions from the inside out. I left, but still believe in the power of collective bargaining. 

Given all that's come out about LMG, I'd actually say that no, they need a trade union for their workers. It's clearly too easy for upper management to have written off individual concerns as they are raised. You can't write off those concerns when they are represented by a trade union. Sadly it's the issue when a small company or sole trader grows to such a size that they run a multi-million dollar company. My impression from the clips of WAN show was that Linus felt like he was as approachable as the family owner of a little bakery, not the owner of an international firm selling baked goods. Therein lies the problem. When companies grow it's far too easy to claim that trade unions aren't necessary and feel like they can't apply to you.

It's a bit like someone who may have been born working class but then become firmly middle class. Often they still identify as working class despite earning far more money than most. Those midsets can be core to your identity and cause dissonence when challenged. 

Never-the-less, a trade union that applies to just a single workplace (as they originally began and were envisioned) can have a lot of ability to change things for the better. Were there a trade union to face down LMG their data inaccuracies would have been challenged long before now. The Madison (and other former employee) comments may never have reached that stage. As I said, one employee is easy to ignore...several...less so.

Doubling down on this though it all depends on what sort of manager you feel you are. When I ran a small theatre company (basically me hiring actors), I knew that there had to be an option that was outside of me should complaints arise. So, I actively included in my orientation directions both to the industry trade union and to the people who were providing me funding. And here's the thing - if an absolute no-one can achieve and recognise that - no business owner of any size get's to claim that unions are not necessary. I don't hold anyone to a standard that I haven't or won't hold myself to. That's my line of demarkation. If I can do it as a no-one from a nothing town in the North of England can do it...anyone can.

Collective bargaining is essential feedback as well as an important way to manage a healthy workplace where employees feel empowered to call out mistakes and mis-steps. When society forgets this or allows trade union activists to become consumed by their own greedy pet projects - that's when we forget what trade unionism brings to the table.

[Holmes108]

I lean more anti union than pro. I'm not a business owner, nor a manger. Never have been. In fact I'm in a union now. 

 

My experience is just that most of the cliche's seem to be true in my experience... the biggest being they do a better job protecting lazy workers than they do serving the majority of workers.

 

In my mind, the unions had a great purpose once, when you were talking about dangerous jobs working in the coal mines in the old days, etc. etc...  But in this day and age, we have labor laws.

 

If you find labor laws inadequate, and want to fight for more rights, higher minimum wage, etc I'm ALL for it. What I don't like is the idea that these workers over here are "entitled" to X, but workers over there apparently aren't. The answer, in my mind, isn't just for everyone to have a union though. That's too... patchwork (although there can be obvious benefits having a union dedicated to a specific industry, as I said, the pros never seem to out weight the cons in my mind).  I'd just prefer good strong blanket labor protections for all workers at the government level.

 

It's gone from creating a safer environment, and other more important features, to threatening to strike to make $26.40/hr instead of $26.20 an hour for the third straight year in a row, in the worst examples. I genuinely think that the creators of unions would be spinning in their grave at some of stuff going on these days.

 

More than all of that though, the thing I hate most about the biggest union proponents is the blind support for them. A labor dispute, like any other dispute, is complicated. The worker side isn't always going to just be 100% correct. It's possible for them to be unreasonable too. Of course, so can management. But for people to just blindly support one side in negotiations, or assume a strike is just without necessarily being familiar with those involved is pretty silly to me. 

 

Either side can be "wrong" or unreasonable, and most often maybe both are to some degree. But some people seem to lose all ability to reason when it comes to certain topics, and will pick a side knowing nothing. It's common with union stuff, police stuff, landlord tenant stuff, and it's very frustrating. 

 

I've focused a lot on the negatives here, because LTT's fanbase seems particularly rabid in their "pro labor" stance, but I do genuinely see some good come from Unions. I benefit from it myself from time to time. They aren't all evil, greedy or useless, etc... but I feel like there's a better solution out there, even if I don't know exactly what that is.

[Lurking]

I'm not against voluntary unions, to me that is like your private church, bowling club or other membership you choose to join and pay for. 

 

but some US states have forced-union laws that mean if a company is unionized, every employee that doesn't join the union, has to get fired by the employer. The employer also is forced t deduct the (relatively high) union dues out of the employees 'pay (again, even if they don't want to be members). This begs the question, if a union is so great, why do people have to be forced to join? If it was that great, it should be self-evident and people would volunteer to join. 

 

The large union bosses get a salary larger than the US-president. Paid out of the forced union membership. How is that justified and how des tha thelp the average union member? 

 

And unions are political. They campaign for candidates, and donate (out of the forced dues) to political parties and candidates (even if not every single paying member likes that candidate). With that they ensure sympathy among politicians, who in return allow favorable (to the unions) laws. 

 

Again, I'm not for or against union anymore than I'm for or against someone joining a mason lodge. But forced membership and political stuff should not be part of that. 

 

And all they really do is keep the membership large. This is why their doing is all about forcing to hire as many (due paying) people. A unionized company can't really use modern technology if it makes labor more efficient (uses fewer workers). Look at GM, they had a job bank where people who should have gotten laid off due to robots being used, still got paid 95% of their salary. So GM had to buy expensive robots, and then still had to pay the people to sit around (literally sit around). Look how it ended for GM.... oh, and after bankruptcy actual lenders got a haircut, but the union all of sudden became part owner because Bush/Obama turned the bankruptcy laws upside down (thanks to union campaign contributions). But don't worry, it all worked out (for the union), they still have many (forced to) paying members.

 

Make unions voluntary everywhere, and see how popular they actually are. 

[Vilacom]

3 hours ago, MartinTheActor said:

Never-the-less, a trade union that applies to just a single workplace (as they originally began and were envisioned) can have a lot of ability to change things for the better. Were there a trade union to face down LMG their data inaccuracies would have been challenged long before now. The Madison (and other former employee) comments may never have reached that stage. As I said, one employee is easy to ignore...several...less so.

This is a concept that just doesn't have any real grounding in reality.  Let's make a pretty straightforward jump to two unions that are in a similar business and very much in the news right now.  SAG and AFTRA,  Every single piece of entertainment media that you have loved and hated has been directly overseen and involved with these unions.  Did you hate the new star wars movies?  The 8th season of game of thrones?  Did seeing a starbucks coffee cup in a medieval fantasy show take you out of it?  Sick to death of marvel movies?  All of them are 100% union backed and overseen, same with Oppenheimer, Barbie, Maverick, all the entertainment media you've loved in the same time period. 

Look at the chart errors pointed out by the GN video.  Are the charts poorly made?  Unreadable?  Edited into the video badly?  No, but for a number being entered wrong by someone at some level of the chain its perfectly fine and exactly what you would expect from a professionally made video.  A Union can't make it so someone doesn't make a mistake or that they have more time or require LTT to hire another person to double check numbers(cause where are they getting their numbers from, if the error happened early enough they would be checking against the wrong number as see it was fine) all a union can do is negotiate how that error is responded to from a disciplinary standpoint and make sure that procedure is followed when it happens by representing the employee in the contract. 

The situation with Madison is a similar issue, look at Harvey Weinstein, decades it was an open secret what was happening with him, there were jokes about it on awards shows, he was physically confronted by multiple actors and the women he was attacking were often extremely famous actors with huge clout and support...yet the union really couldn't do anything to him for any number of reasons for an extremely long time.  One of those primary reasons sadly was, "You're getting paid a lot, you're in an amazing situation, deal with it" Union's dont fix people, they dont get rid of biases, they advocate for compensation and benefits and represent employees against management in official capacities.  They are not equipped to deal with things like SH/SA which are legal matters, that must be elevated to whatever level the person who has experienced it feels it needs to be elevated to, not dealt with the person who happens to be the most popular person in the office who wanted to be the union rep at the time.


 

 

31 minutes ago, Lurking said:

 

but some US states have forced-union laws that mean if a company is unionized, every employee that doesn't join the union, has to get fired by the employer. The employer also is forced t deduct the (relatively high) union dues out of the employees 'pay (again, even if they don't want to be members). This begs the question, if a union is so great, why do people have to be forced to join? If it was that great, it should be self-evident and people would volunteer to join. 

Virtually every single thing in your post is incorrect, aside from the fact that unions are political but find me someone who says anything is apolitical and I'll show you a liar or someone who is hopelessly naïve. However I'll focus on this in particular because its the most egregious portion of what you said.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't actually know what you're talking about and aren't malicious against unions.  

There is no state in the country where union membership is required, there is no law requiring paying dues if you are not a member and no state requires this.  How am I so sure?  Well simple, my job has facilities in 50/50 states as well as all the incorporated territories and every single one of them, including my own, does not have 100% union membership and it is always a choice if you join or not.    

What you are likely referring to is even if you are not a union member you still are required to operate under the terms of the contract that the union has negotiated, management cannot treat you differently or offer you terms beyond the terms of the contract to "reward" you for not becoming a member, but on the up side the union also is required to represent and advocate for you regardless of your status as a member so it's overall a good thing.

Employers are forced to allow employees to pay their union dues from their paychecks directly because it is anti union behavior to not allow it, it adds an annoying process for union membership to have to arrange payments on your own, costs union resources to remind people to pay them and track down/maintain records of who has paid what and if people owe money, not to mention putting additional onus on the union to have to secure and safeguard payment information.  If you are not a member of the union, you do not pay dues, ever and anywhere in the United States.  If you know about a union or company doing this it is illegal and you need to report them to the state or OSHA.

As for being political, of course they are, that's part of advocating for workers.  That's all ill say on the subject since politics is not allowed on the boards but yes, its part of it and its extremely important for worker advocacy.

 

 

2 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

 

My experience is just that most of the cliche's seem to be true in my experience... the biggest being they do a better job protecting lazy workers than they do serving the majority of workers.

Does freedom of speech do a better job protecting people who want to scream hate speech on a street corner than an average person who just wants to get to work quietly?  No, its just that's what you see as the worst examples.  The union protects that lazy worker with the same fervor and veracity as any other employee to make sure that when you have a bad week, or something outside your control drops your productivity to the same as that lazy guy, they can effectively protect you as well.  The system can be abused of course, and any time you set specific productivity goals and requirements there will be people who take the absolute minimum as what they'll do and that can hurt other workers when they do that, those people are selfish and taking advantage of the benefits they are afforded by their union.  But that has to be there so the union can protect someone like my brother who was fired from his job because he wanted to take the full month that was afforded him under his states FMLA laws when his daughter was born, but as a contract employee they just fired him when he said he wanted to.  Union's prevent that from happening at the cost of some asshole getting away with taking sick leave every time there's a football game on.  I promise you my brother would rather have had to pick up some slack because of someone else than lose his job with a one month old at home.  

[MartinTheActor]

4 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

This is a concept that just doesn't have any real grounding in reality.  Let's make a pretty straightforward jump to two unions that are in a similar business and very much in the news right now.  SAG and AFTRA,  Every single piece of entertainment media that you have loved and hated has been directly overseen and involved with these unions.  Did you hate the new star wars movies?  The 8th season of game of thrones?  Did seeing a starbucks coffee cup in a medieval fantasy show take you out of it?  Sick to death of marvel movies?  All of them are 100% union backed and overseen, same with Oppenheimer, Barbie, Maverick, all the entertainment media you've loved in the same time period. 

Yeah, as someone with first hand experience of entertainment industry unions you've missed something huge about how lazy large trade unions have become. The reason SAG-Aftra (a single union these days) had so little work is because many unions these days fall back on standarised agreements. It is these standardised agreements that are part of the problem. Modern trade unions suffer from a lot, but if you've ever had first hand experience of big and small trade unions that operate under a true unionist paradigm they tend to be more about working conditions than pay in truth. Strikes are obviously visible, but there will be lots you've never heard of in the background. That said I don't doubt that Sag-aftra much like Equity in the UK have let themselves be courted considerably by the producers and various forces such that they lose sight of individual workplaces. Which incidentally is why comparing union attempts of big organisations with unions representing single shops or single workplaces...isn't an equivelence. 

[Holmes108]

23 minutes ago, Vilacom said:

Does freedom of speech do a better job protecting people who want to scream hate speech on a street corner than an average person who just wants to get to work quietly?  No, its just that's what you see as the worst examples.  

 

Indeed, and that's my entire point. I feel that I see those worst examples far too often in regards to unions, and therefore question whether they do more harm than good. It's going to vary union to union, region to region, and opinion to opinion, but I personally think it's rampant.

 

Even among my coworkers, you start to see a pattern. The people who show up every day, and just want to work tend to be a little more negative, or at least neutral regarding unions ("what have they done for me lately?"), and the ones that are most in favor tend use use the system to the point of almost abuse, missing sometimes 100+ days in a year, filing multiple grievences in a year because the bathroom is 1 degree colder than they'd prefer, etc etc

 

That's anecdotal and there's always a spectrum obviously. I'm also absolutely not saying that anyone who thinks unions are great is automatically a lazy worker. That should go without saying, but I'll say it anways because these days people just want to isolate text and misrepresent a stance in bad faith.

 

But again, it's just a matter of how bad are the issues, and 2 people aren't always going to see eye to eye on that.

 

I was listening to an interview with Justin Long the other day (actor). Someone complimented him on a movie he was in, and he said while he appreciated the compliment, he wasn't allowed to discuss or even acknowledge any specific works due to the ongoing strike. Like WTF is that about? Make your absence known by striking if you feel like it. But not discussing past work? Seems childish.

 

But I see petty shit like that (which I had NO idea was a thing until he said it), or picket lines trying to physically stop people from going somewhere (protest all you want. You have no physical rights over me), and it's easy to start to get fed up.

 

*I don't blame Justin Long for playing the game btw... I was just shocked to hear that premise in the first place.

[Vilacom]

6 minutes ago, MartinTheActor said:

Yeah, as someone with first hand experience of entertainment industry unions you've missed something huge about how lazy large trade unions have become. The reason SAG-Aftra (a single union these days) had so little work is because many unions these days fall back on standarised agreements. It is these standardised agreements that are part of the problem. Modern trade unions suffer from a lot, but if you've ever had first hand experience of big and small trade unions that operate under a true unionist paradigm they tend to be more about working conditions than pay in truth. Strikes are obviously visible, but there will be lots you've never heard of in the background. That said I don't doubt that Sag-aftra much like Equity in the UK have let themselves be courted considerably by the producers and various forces such that they lose sight of individual workplaces. Which incidentally is why comparing union attempts of big organisations with unions representing single shops or single workplaces...isn't an equivelence. 

No, you are wrong, there is a great youtube video done by Adam Conover talking about what the writers guilds and actors are asking for and advocating for.  The reason they're having trouble is because contracts that are signed over years don't deal with how technology changes things well after the contract.  The main point of contention in these contracts is how streaming residuals should be handled and how large language models/AI VFX tools will be incorporated into the entertainment industry.

The episode is on the youtube channel Pod Save America just search "Adam Conover Pod Save America"(I forget if links are allowed) and he does an excellent job explaining why the strike is happening and what the focus is on.  You're right, it is about working conditions, but its also very much about pay.  Working conditions are part of compensation and benefits.  My working conditions are pretty dogshit, but I'm compensated extremely well because of that.  

The SAG-AFTRA strike is very much about individual workplaces, the SAG part is really comes down to individuals.  It's great work they are doing.  

[ToboRobot]

 

16 hours ago, Vilacom said:

That's the quick examples.  Unions aren't magic,  they don't make it so shitty people arnt shitty people.  They are extremely valuable for what they actually CAN do for employees, but dont for a second think that they can or even remotely come close to preventing the kind of stuff we are hearing may have happened.  
 

True.  Having worked in both types of workplaces, unions weren't a reliable indicator of a good employer.