RE: Technical Writers Union

["Pete Sanborn" <psanborn2 -at- earthlink -dot- net>]

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?  Suppose car
sales worked that way.  Suppose you want to purchase a Zoom 3000 car because
it's just the spiffiest thing on 5 wheels.  And, when you go to buy it, the
dealer says "well, I'll sell it to you, but it comes with a horse trailer
for an additional $2500."  Now, maybe you need a horse trailer and maybe you
don't.  The deal is that in order to get the Zoom 3000, you have to take the
horse trailer.

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.

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!

While I agree that unions served a purpose in the past, that purpose, in
most cases, has been superceded via the EEOC, OSHA and NLRB to name but a
few federal organizations whose sole purpose is to represent the interests
of workers.

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.  Sure, they made a few concessions to end the job action but,
in the end, they still won.  I think it's much more effective to take my
skills and knowledge elsewhere and leave them to try and fill the void.

I'm not egotistical enough to believe that the loss of my "talents" is going
to bring any company to its knees and have them begging me to return.  But,
I do know that when I leave a job it means that my project(s) get delayed;
they have to spend money to advertise for a replacement; spend more money
reviewing resumes and selecting candidates; spend more money for interviews;
spend more money to hire a selected candidate; spend more money to prepare
all the new hire paperwork and drug tests, etc.; and spend more money to
have another writer work with the new hire to show them the pottys and the
break room and help them get up to speed on locations of data, research
materials, etc., in order for this person to resume my project.  Even then,
there is the money spent on SMEs to educate the new hire to bring him/her to
my level of knowledge so that they can complete the project(s) I left
behind.  A union organized job action will likely cost the company a couple
of days of non-productivity while management and the union's surrogate
parents all get together and hash things out.  The job action costs the
union money because that's where the strike fund resides, so the company
isn't out anything.  By leaving a job, I will cost the company more in the
long run.  It takes about 4 - 6 weeks on average to replace an employee.
When you contrast that with a job action and boil it down to dollars and
cents, I win.  The company won't ever admit it, but they know they lost.

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.

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.

Regards,
Pete Sanborn


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.