TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
"*You* are the solution, whether you are in a union or not. The idea is not
to be passive, but 1) to do the best job and practice the highest standards
for job performance that you can; 2) accept responsibility and leadership
and demand it of others as well; 3) build a sense of teamwork and common
purpose in your workplace that will help achieve all the company's goals."
Finally, Ivan, something we can both agree upon. You make some assumptions
about me that I disagree with and I probably make some assumptions about you
that you disagree with. Our opinions about unions will probably remain at
opposite ends of the spectrum, even though you have attempted to present
some very measured responses in their defense. I respect your opinions
about unions and, if they have worked for you, more power to you. My
experiences with unions are just the opposite and I don't believe that they
were all bad unions, they were just unions doing business as usual.
If it ever comes down to an issue of joining a union to continue working as
a tech writer or not, I'll look for another profession. Each of us
obviously has strong feelings about this issue that continuing to discuss on
this thread will not resolve. Should our paths ever cross sometime in the
future, I would be pleased to work with you as a colleague and buy you a cup
of coffee. One thing I respect a lot is passion. You have a lot of passion
about unions and I have a lot of passion about not being in one. :-) That
passion, split between the two of us, would likely make us formidable
co-workers.
Best of luck to you.
Regards,
Pete Sanborn
-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
[mailto:bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com]On Behalf Of Ivan Weiss
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:39 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: Technical Writers Union
""Pete Sanborn"" <psanborn2 -at- earthlink -dot- net> wrote in message news:NFBBLLKAMLPPGANEKMMLAEHICBAA -dot- psanborn2 -at- earthlink -dot- net -dot- -dot- -dot-
> Ivan Weiss gives me too much credit. I've belonged to two unions and
both
> taught me that I had no use for either of them. Membertship was not
an
> option, I had to join in order to work in the particular industries I
was in
> at the time.
>
> I won't disagree with Mr. Weiss that freedom means having the choice
to join
> a union or not. But, I would be curious how being forced to join a
union in
> order to have a given job is a free choice? Yes, I didn't have to
accept
> the job but, as Mr. Weiss so carefully noted, I have a choice to fight
to
> keep a job, even if all the conditions are not acceptable. Why do I
have to
> be burdened with union membership just to accept a given job?
Do you think *all* union contracts require union membership as a
condition of employment? I assure you they do not. In my last job, we
had a clause in the contract by which 1 in 10 new employees could opt
out of union membership in their first 30 days on the job. Many other
contracts are structured in this way. It's not like all collective
bargaining agreements come from the same AFL-CIO (that's TUC for our UK
folks) cookie cutter mold. Those provisions are for labor and management
in each separate company to decide.
> 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. As an adult, I can voice
my
> concerns better and more effectively than a 3rd party who is doing
his/her
> job to represent my interests. This person isn't me and my interests
are no
> more important to them than theirs are to me.
With a bad union, that might be correct. But just as no two companies
are the same, no two unions are, either. In a good union, one which is
run from the bottom up, the shop steward is working for you, not the
other way around. That steward had *better* care about your interests,
and ensure that your voice is heard. This is not a hypothetical. I *am*
a shop steward, and I am there 24/7 for my fellow members. If I am not,
I am out of that position.
Nothing keeps you from talking to the boss on your own. In my
experience, however, your clout is a lot less if you do. Your experience
may be different. More power to you if that is the case.
> Unions also frequently impose rules that are silly and arbitrary.
No! Wrong! Unions enforce their contracts, which also are signed by
management. Even if that does take some bizarre turns (and I grant that
it does sometimes), is imposing silly and arbitrary rules the sole
province of unions? Is it somehow all right for management to do impose
silly and arbitrary rules, with no recourse? At its best, the union
provides recourse against arbitrariness. Is that somehow unnecessary or
undesirable? Have you never laughed at a Dilbert cartoon and thought
"this is me?"
> The concept of walking off of a job to show management "a thing or
two" is
> one that completely escapes me. It costs management more money to
lose a
> talented contributor whom they must replace and train than it does to
> tolerate a short term job action, after which they get all their
talented
> workers back.
You are assuming, then, that all managements are rational at all times,
and free from all personal agendas? I hope that is true. Please give me
a list of companies where this is true, and I will apply for work there,
and if hired, I will work my rear end off and never mention the word
"union" once.
> Unions can't protect jobs that the company can't support if the
revenues
> aren't there. 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. I have also seen cases when union
> negotiated benefits are worse than the benefits a company provides its
> non-union employees.
Closed shops have been outlawed in the United States since the
Taft-Hartley Act, in 1947, so that is a red herring. Besides, I could
cite you case after case of unions in the past few years that have
encouraged their members to sign contracts that included pay cuts, just
to keep a company from folding. Unions that engage in "rule or ruin"
usually end up with ruin, and their own demise. They deserve it.
Obviously, if the company goes away, so do the jobs.
As for nonunion employees getting better benefits than the unionized
workers, two points: 1) In my experience, the union contract has set the
floor for these benefits already; without it the benefits would be lower
all-around, and 2) In my experience, this is a favored union-busting
ploy by management. Your experience may be different.
> People on this thread are all adults and can make their own choice
about
> unions. My opinion is just that. My experience has shown time and
again,
> though, that a lot of those who saw unions as the solution to problems
at
> their company were often disappointed with the results the union
presented.
You know what? I agree with this. The union is not the solution. *You*
are the solution, whether you are in a union or not. The idea is not to
be passive, but 1) to do the best job and practice the highest standards
for job performance that you can; 2) accept responsibility and
leadership and demand it of others as well; 3) build a sense of teamwork
and common purpose in your workplace that will help achieve all the
company's goals.
Then, if the boss, for whatever reason, has not recognized your merit,
nor rewarded you commensurately, you already have formed a strong basis
for bargaining collectively. Then, ideally, you will have *shown* the
boss what you can do, and not just said so. Then, you can *show* that
management what it might be missing without you. Also, if a union is the
result, it would be more likely to avoid the pitfalls you have
mentioned. Such a union just *might* be worth joining, just maybe.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
