RE: Technical Writers Union

Subject: RE: Technical Writers Union
From: "Pete Sanborn" <psanborn2 -at- earthlink -dot- net>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:04:03 -0500

Bruce Byfield wrote:
"By the same argument, I suppose, you wouldn't use a lawyer in a court
case."

Apples and oranges comparison, Bruce. If you don't know the difference, you
won't understand my arguments.

"It seems unfair that you should get the benefits of a union shop without
supporting it."

Benefits!? I haven't seen any benefits from any union that would benefit
me. I take a job because the workor company interests me and because I
expect to be paid a particular wage in response to the work I do. My work
habits, by the way, violate most union requirements and get me in more
trouble with the union that represents me and my interests because I make
the more mediocre members look bad.

"The legal right to strike is central to a union."

Strikes and unions are terms that go together. If you are in a union that
has no power to strike, what are the benefits?

"Nowadays, job security is more likely to be the issue."

Bruce, there is no security for me but me. I provide my own security or the
lack thereof. No organization, union or company has or will ever be able to
do that for any of us.

Regards,
Pete Sanborn

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Byfield [mailto:bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:53 PM
To: Pete Sanborn
Cc: TECHWR-L
Subject: Re: Technical Writers Union


Pete Sanborn wrote:

> Why do I have to be burdened with union membership just to accept a
given job?

Because the union performs services for you such as negotiating your
contract and working conditions, and does so with more clout than you as
an individual are likely to have. Of course, it may do so poorly or
well, but union dues are cheap compared to the cost of these services if
you hired someone else to do so.

If you take a job, part of the reason is generally the wages,
conditions, and benefits. It seems unfair that you should get the
benefits of a union shop without supporting it.

>I also prefer being able to discuss my grievances directly with my
supervisor rather than having everything relayed via a shop steward. Such a
role only places me in a permanent subservient position that requires me to
voice everything through a surrogant parent.

By the same argument, I suppose, you wouldn't use a lawyer in a court
case. If you remember what Ben Franklin said about people who represent
themselves in court, you'll understand why this isn't a good idea. A
shop steward or a lawyer has expertise that you and I are unlikely to
have. They may also have the connections in management to help settle a
case. That expertise, by the way, is one of the things that you get for
your union dues. Considering that lawyers start at about $120/ hour,
that's not a bad value.


> Unions also frequently impose rules that are silly and arbitrary.
While the
history of unions is rich with valid grievances of abusive employers,
unions, IMO, have ceased to be of any consequence since around the 70s. The
silliest union organized strike I ever saw was one by railroad engineers
striking for the right to strike!

This isn't silly. The legal right to strike is central to a union. If a
union doesn't have the right to strike, then it loses most of its
bargaining power with management. No matter what you think of unions,
you can't really expect any group to throw away or voluntarily throw
away power.

>The concept of walking off of a job to show management "a thing or two" is
one that completely escapes me.

It's generally a last resort. Contrary to popular image, few unions
strike until a certain level of desperation in negotiations is reached.
For one thing, any union that strikes without very strong support from
its members risks losing member support.

Nor do unions strike nowadays over wages very often. Nowadays, job
security is more likely to be the issue.

>They can't prevent layoffs, they can't prevent a badly run
company from having to close its doors and they can't prevent a company from
relocating from a closed shop state to a right-to-work state or even
offshore, if that is an option.

They can work to make layoffs fairer, and minimize their effects. And,
in some jurisdictions, there are successor clauses that keep a company
from relocating or reforming to escape the union.





^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,00 retailers. Join our almost
10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/publish/default.asp

Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


Follow-Ups:

References:
Re: Technical Writers Union: From: Bruce Byfield

Previous by Author: RE: Technical Writers Union
Next by Author: RE: Technical Writers Union
Previous by Thread: Re: Technical Writers Union
Next by Thread: Re: Technical Writers Union


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads