To union or not to union?

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

There was an attempt to form a union at one of my old shops. Probably 100 percent of the newsroom was for the union.
The company honchos went so far as to hold weekly informational meetings for a month spelling out the reason why we should VOTE against unions. Those folks who management knew were engaged in pro-union activities were kept out of these organizational meetings. The local television station even tried to a story on the employees attempt to unionize. We were told very bluntly that anyone who spoke the TV station would be fired on the spot.
At one of the final informational meetings, the publisher, who had been there just six months, told everyone he would personally make sure that things were right with the paper.
The union was overwhelming voted down. Everyone outside of the newsroom was against the union idea and it failed big time.
The publisher, his assistant and ME went around glad-handing all the department heads. Our SE, who had made life kind of rough on us during the whole debacle, actually hugged the assistant publisher.
Three months later the publisher - the guy who promised to keep us all from getting screwed - was gone.

Tension was high between those who were (outspoken) in favor of the union and those against for a long time afterward.

I don't know if work would have been any better with a union - I am staunchly ANTI-Union when it comes to forksticks like the UMWA -- because it is easier for lazy-ass jackoffs to keep a job, but our mileage rate was immediately cut and a number of other benefits were reduced (increased insurance rates and trimmed medical benefits) or altogether eliminated (free subscriptions for employees).
Who knows if we had been unionized, being the low man in the sports department, my job may have been eliminated to give others a pay raise.

Uncle Happy Pants, have your friends talk to the NLRB for advice and find about the right to work laws in their state.

If I were you I would I would do what reporters do best ... listen.

 

[Twoback]

I don't see why any newspaper employees think they need a union.

well, I'm don't work for a newspaper. However I am in a union. We don't pay ANYTHING for our Medical Coverage. Can anyone at a NON-UNION place of business say the same?...We also have a higher wage than non-union shops....so, let's see, HIGHER WAGES, FULLY EMPLOYER PAID medical coverage....ahhhhh, why would anyone NOT want a union?

You're paying nothing for your medical coverage, and your union is taking out about the amount in dues that the non-union folks pay for medical.
Great deal for you!

 

[Tom Petty]

No real Norma Rae moment for me. Boobs, booze and a union card -- thus did my activism begin.

i've never seen a sig. line so ripe for the picking.

 

[STLIrish]

I've been at two union papers and one non-union paper. With the union papers, the pay's been better, the benefits are better and I actually get paid for some of the OT I work.
Sure, they protect dead weight, but they also help me get fairly compensated for my work in a business where upper management would gladly screw us at every turn. Seems like a good deal to me.

 

[shotglass]

I've been at two union papers and one non-union paper. With the union papers, the pay's been better, the benefits are better and I actually get paid for some of the OT I work.
Sure, they protect dead weight, but they also help me get fairly compensated for my work in a business where upper management would gladly screw us at every turn. Seems like a good deal to me.

You could've stopped right there. No defense for it. None.

I'm not about to go Bob Jelloneck on this -- I DO believe there are some newspapers where union representation is necessary -- but also understand that unions often fly in the face of putting out the best product.

 

[friend of a friend]

I agree with Shottie and Slappy. I've worked at a union shop, and all it did was prevent the worthless people from getting canned.

 

[Ace]

If they vote to join the union, can they be fired? Any info on this and any stories from personal experience would be greatly appreciated by my friends.

Legally, no, they can't be fired.

From a practical standpoint, the pressure will be on the bosses at the paper to keep the union out.

When it comes down to saving their asses by finding some pretext to get rid of the union organizers and scaring the rest or following the letter of the law, which do you think will win?

 

[JR]

We were told very bluntly that anyone who spoke the TV station would be fired on the spot.

That one sentence sums up why you need a union: so that you're not the subject of arbitrary shirt like this.

And up here those weekly "informational meetings "are illegal. It's called strong-arming and intimidation.

 

[micropolitan guy]

Hey, somebody had to do it. Every thread is worthless without pictures.

 

[STLIrish]

I've been at two union papers and one non-union paper. With the union papers, the pay's been better, the benefits are better and I actually get paid for some of the OT I work.
Sure, they protect dead weight, but they also help me get fairly compensated for my work in a business where upper management would gladly screw us at every turn. Seems like a good deal to me.

You could've stopped right there. No defense for it. None.

I'm not about to go Bob Jelloneck on this -- I DO believe there are some newspapers where union representation is necessary -- but also understand that unions often fly in the face of putting out the best product.

Funny, that, because the non-union shop I worked at had plenty of dead weight, too. But, to be honest, other people not pulling their weight isn't exactly my top concern. Doing the best work that I can, and being able to make a living doing it are much higher. Maybe I've been lucky, but no union I've ever come across has gotten in the way of that.

 

[zagoshe]

I've been at two union papers and one non-union paper. With the union papers, the pay's been better, the benefits are better and I actually get paid for some of the OT I work.
Sure, they protect dead weight, but they also help me get fairly compensated for my work in a business where upper management would gladly screw us at every turn. Seems like a good deal to me.

You could've stopped right there. No defense for it. None.

I'm not about to go Bob Jelloneck on this -- I DO believe there are some newspapers where union representation is necessary -- but also understand that unions often fly in the face of putting out the best product.

Funny, that, because the non-union shop I worked at had plenty of dead weight, too. But, to be honest, other people not pulling their weight isn't exactly my top concern. Doing the best work that I can, and being able to make a living doing it are much higher. Maybe I've been lucky, but no union I've ever come across has gotten in the way of that.

Great point, I've worked at both union and non-union shops and I think one of the great myths is that dead weight and older employees who are terrible are more kept around more at union papers. As far as I can tell, that's hogwash.

Newspapers traditionally don't clean out dead weight or fire very many people, that is, until the bean counters say it is time to start saving money by laying people off......

 

[JR]

In every organization there is "dead weight". heck, I work in a place where I'd say 10% of the people are useless but they've been here 20 years and they're part of the furniture (actually some of the furniture is smarter).

Point is--there are good places to work and crappy places to work. Problem is, if you have an arbitrary power-tripping boss/owner and no union, you're shirt out of luck.

If it's a non-union place and you have a great boss/owner, you're relying on the kindness of strangers.