| Topic Name: |
KOIN Votes To Unionize! |
| Message Name: |
Bindaredundat |
| Date Posted: |
06/11/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
they voted to allow the "union" (we still don't know which one) to represent them in collective bargaining.
MY POINT IS:
collective bargaining with who? station for sale, no management in place and newsroom employees sending out resumes at lightning speed. Under those circumstances, it will take at least 18 months to reach an agreement. By then, 20 of those who voted yes, will be working in other shops.
in the meantime, everyone's wages are frozen and they get to pay dues. the station looks even worse to buyers now, with this hanging over it, so the chance of being bought by a decent owner gets even more remote.
But the union humps, the district reps, didn't tell that side of the story, did they. No, they rallied the troops with cries of "unionize! fight back! stand up to the man!"
and now they get to crow about another 40 suckers paying dues.
As I stated last week. I believe in unions, they have a place and a purpose. But blindly voting to "unionize" under these circumstances was stupid.
|
| Message: |
You said that they voted to allow the union to represent them in collective barganing?
Admittedly, I am no lawyer, but is there a difference between "voting to allow a union to represent a bargaining group" and "voting to unionize"?
What was this process called if the employees are not actual members or negotiating to become members. Would the union do this out of the kindness of their heart?
If you're paying dues, you're a member of a union.
While true, the current company may postpone negotiations into the next ownership, but in the past, incoming management has "tended" to stick with negotiated contracts so as not to stir up the pot.
When unions try to come into a shop, VERY TYPICALLY there is a rift between folks working there, as whether or not the union is a good thing or not. I have seen it happen before twice, and you sound like the sour grapes people.
Viva La Union!
|
|
