Anyone up for breaking a strike?

You know what I mean. You were just being flippant with a situation I take seriously.

Let me ask you a question. Is there nothing you feel so strongly about that you wouldn't get "high and mighty" in defending it? Surely there has to be something for which moral relativism or the situation wouldn't dictate your actions, right?

Look, if you think crossing a picket line is fine in certain instances, you do what you gotta do if that comes up. But there are some things I would never do, regardless of the situation. Crossing a picket line happens to be one of them.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think it's fair to point out that the new owners of the Inky/DN say they are really up against it, that without some immediate cost reductions they won't be able to meet debt service. Means when they bought the paper they probably paid too much and didn't kick the tires hard enough. Still, it's a pretty grim situation all around.

As to crossing picket lines, I wouldn't recommend it, more for reasons of conscience than career. I've worked at among the most militant Guild papers in the country, alongside people who had crossed picket lines. One took a leave to go to London and scab for Murdoch, then returned and became a Guild super redhot. She, like the others, survived better economically than spiritually.

 

There has been plenty of mediocrity at nonunion papers I have worked at. I've gotten rid of people who can't cut it at both union and nonunion papers. Degree of difficulty is about the same, assuming there's a paper trail. Difference is that union will question you and make you demonstrate the basis for dismissal, which you ought to be able to do before you take anyone's job away. In any well-run nonunion operation, the HR department would demand the same explanation. Only difference is that union might press for alternatives to resignation, like permitting the baddie to resign.

Where a union contract gets in the way is in the area of hours, schedule posting requirements, seniority (last hired, first fired), jurisdiction, etc. And in some of those areas, some state laws are tougher than some union contracts.

 

Shotglass, you've been thoughtful and deliberate in your posts, and I don't think anyone would mistake you for being anti-union...you're taking a nuanced stance and I can appreciate that since most political debates are dumbed down to the point that nuance is not an option.

And while I grant that not all unions are "fighting the good fight," I think that solidarity between workers in different trades and professions is actually a very good thing. This ties in with something larger. One of the most myopic and destructive things about the individualistic culture in the United States is that we tend to deny that the well-being of other people is our responsibility and our concern.

The auto worker's fight for justice at his job is, in fact, my fight. And my workplace struggles are his as well. We are part of the same economic class...one that has been getting the screws put to it pretty hard in the past 25 years. The bosses have been kicking ass for so long in part because they're a lot more united than the workers. They understand that it's in their best interest to cooporate for the sake of a better business climate. Similarly, I feel that workers have an interest in cooporating for the sake of a better working climate. The other side has all the money. All we have are numbers. That's part of why the issue of scabbing inspires such vitriol...every worker who goes over to the other side hurts all workers...including, in my view, the scab worker himself.

Knee-jerk response for every union, no matter how corrupt or disingenuous? No. Solidarity with other working people, based solely on the fact that they're other working people? You bet.

 

That's the only thing which didn't ring true in a great answer. How are they united? I don't see any concerted effort between different businesses to establish limits on how workers are treated. And if there was, wouldn't that be collusion anyway?

Well ... that's part of what I'm saying. No, there isn't anything out there that I feel THAT strongly about. But then again, that's probably why I'm generally anti-partisan, too...

 

Given the vast number of jobs out there for people with newspaper skills (PR, publishing, internet) I have trouble mustering up sympathy for someone who thinks they need a union to protect their job. We're not talking coal miners here. Working at a newspaper is a choice you make -- you love the work, so you end up accepting the shitty conditions. But it's pretty easy to get out and find better pay if you're really unable to feed your family or need more benefits. Philly isn't exactly a one-business town like Flint, Mich.

 

thank you management!

and this is why ceos in this country are making record profits, yet cutting jobs left and right

 

No, these aren't the coal mines. And journalists are not fighting to curb 12-hour workdays or for child labor laws.

- But people are getting laid off while companies are making record profits.

- People are getting laid off, and then their companies are posting new job openings within weeks.

- Say what you want about the "vast number of jobs" -- but people keep losing their jobs. In Dallas. In Akron. In San Jose. In Winston-Salem. In Calgary. ... All over the place.

if you don't see something inherently wrong with that, maybe you must be getting a piece of the action. Well, the rest of us aren't. ... If you think people shouldn't fight for their jobs unless they're working "80-hour work weeks for poverty wages" or working "in the coal mines", then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Agreed. The possibility of abuse of the system by those who don't pull their weight hurts Unions badly. Especially in our business, as continued staff cuts mean that if there's one or two people who are busier bitching to the Union for a raise instead of lifting the quality of their work and effort, the whole operation takes a hit.

I also don't think newspapers should strike. We perform a public service, and striking should be out of the question, period. Newspapers are in a situation right now where quality talent is being more and more devalued by management types, where good people leave and are replaced (if replaced at all) by people of much less experience and often, skill. Cheaper workers, of course.

I think a strike invites management to simply try to replace everyone with cheaper people in one fell swoop, quality of the product be damned. And we are seeing that here.

 

Those who perform a public service are the most in need of unions. Going back to my earlier point about unions having their place for protecting municipal employees, if firemen or cops weren't allowed to strike, cities would be able to shit on them more than they already do with union protection. Then you'd get unqualified people in positions that could cost people their lives; therefore, I think it is even more important for those who perform a public service to be able to strike if necessary in order to keep management from hiring the lowest common denominator at their whim.

 

Using your kids to justify being a scab is some of the most cowardly logic I've ever heard.

Take a job at night waiting tables, sure.

But to say you'd cross a picket line and hide behind your kids is absolutely ridiculous.

Kids need to eat. And they need parents to teach them about life, too.