crossing the line
Imagine two of your friends - let's call them Bill and Laura - are in a fight. Also imagine that you're neutral to this fight - you've heard both sides and think they both have legitimate arguments. Next, let's say that Bill and Laura are not speaking to each other. You, however, wish to walk that daring tightrope of trying to remain friends with both. Bill, however, gives you grief for speaking to Laura. He says that because he's not speaking with her, you should not speak to her, either.
Fair? I don't really think so.
This is what has always struck me as odd about union strikes and picket lines. Now, obviously, the above analogy trivializes a strike situation a bit, but stick with me here. A specific group of workers have a complaint with their employer - usually about their compensation. Thus they choose not to work as a ploy to get the employer to acquiesce to their demands. Personally, I think this kind of heavy-handed negotiating is usually altogether harmful, unnecessary, as a friend recently put it (more about unions in general than just strikes), past their prime. But, for the sake of argument, let's say they have a legitimate complaint, as I believe the WGA does.
What makes the people on strike think that because they have a complaint with the employer, they have a legitimate right to be angry with anyone who still works for the employer by "crossing the picket line"? I don't understand that. I get that Union Worker Joe is striking to get better wages. I can stipulate that as hypothetically legitimate. I cannot see the whole mentality of "not crossing the picket line" as legitimate.
Here's an anecdote from a friend of mine. He works for a company that employs several engineers as well as a manufacturing facility with unionized workers. They tend to strike whenever their contract is up (every few years) to get better and better pay, benefits, etc. This strike only applies to the manufacturing employees. All the other employees of this company are not part of the union, and as such their pay, benefits, etc are completely independent of what the union workers get. They don't have the option to simply not show up to work and still have a job when the strike is over. During the strike, many of the engineers take over the jobs of the manufacturing workers. They have to do so to stay in business. Many of the engineers work 80+ hour weeks, eating 3 meals per day at work to get everything done.
A few years ago, during a manufacturing strike, an engineer (I believe it was an intern, but I'm not sure) was driving into work with his driver's side window rolled down. One of the picketers was so angry at him for crossing the picket line that he punched him in the jaw through his open window. Of course, part of the deal that resolved the strike was that this violent employee was kept his job.
Does this make any sense? The complaint over compensation that the union had with the employer was the union workers' fight. What made them think that everyone should take their side in this fight and not go to work? The engineers HAD to keep doing their jobs if the union workers wanted jobs to negotiate about!
I just don't get the mentality that because I have a problem with how much I am paid, you, who are obviously satisfied with how much you are paid, should strike too. I mean, I understand how that would be appreciated, but not the expectation of not crossing the picket line. Can some one explain that to me?
Also, since I'm sure it will come up in comments, let me air my thoughts on the current writer's strike. I think that the writer's have good points. The formula of residual pay agreed upon in the 80s was intended to boost the home video market and should be reviewed considering today's market in which DVD sales are ever booming. I also think they should be paid fairly for online media distribution. But I also think the AMPTP has a good point in that the business model for online distribution is a huge question mark. The TV/Movie industry has its toes in the waters of the Internet and one it jumps in, no one knows which path(s) it will take. It's unreasonable to lock in a long-term solution for this. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the strike, so if someone more into it than I can explain to me why they don't simply agree to a short-term solution based on profit rather than gross that can be revisited in a few years, that would also be appreciated.
Fair? I don't really think so.
This is what has always struck me as odd about union strikes and picket lines. Now, obviously, the above analogy trivializes a strike situation a bit, but stick with me here. A specific group of workers have a complaint with their employer - usually about their compensation. Thus they choose not to work as a ploy to get the employer to acquiesce to their demands. Personally, I think this kind of heavy-handed negotiating is usually altogether harmful, unnecessary, as a friend recently put it (more about unions in general than just strikes), past their prime. But, for the sake of argument, let's say they have a legitimate complaint, as I believe the WGA does.
What makes the people on strike think that because they have a complaint with the employer, they have a legitimate right to be angry with anyone who still works for the employer by "crossing the picket line"? I don't understand that. I get that Union Worker Joe is striking to get better wages. I can stipulate that as hypothetically legitimate. I cannot see the whole mentality of "not crossing the picket line" as legitimate.
Here's an anecdote from a friend of mine. He works for a company that employs several engineers as well as a manufacturing facility with unionized workers. They tend to strike whenever their contract is up (every few years) to get better and better pay, benefits, etc. This strike only applies to the manufacturing employees. All the other employees of this company are not part of the union, and as such their pay, benefits, etc are completely independent of what the union workers get. They don't have the option to simply not show up to work and still have a job when the strike is over. During the strike, many of the engineers take over the jobs of the manufacturing workers. They have to do so to stay in business. Many of the engineers work 80+ hour weeks, eating 3 meals per day at work to get everything done.
A few years ago, during a manufacturing strike, an engineer (I believe it was an intern, but I'm not sure) was driving into work with his driver's side window rolled down. One of the picketers was so angry at him for crossing the picket line that he punched him in the jaw through his open window. Of course, part of the deal that resolved the strike was that this violent employee was kept his job.
Does this make any sense? The complaint over compensation that the union had with the employer was the union workers' fight. What made them think that everyone should take their side in this fight and not go to work? The engineers HAD to keep doing their jobs if the union workers wanted jobs to negotiate about!
I just don't get the mentality that because I have a problem with how much I am paid, you, who are obviously satisfied with how much you are paid, should strike too. I mean, I understand how that would be appreciated, but not the expectation of not crossing the picket line. Can some one explain that to me?
Also, since I'm sure it will come up in comments, let me air my thoughts on the current writer's strike. I think that the writer's have good points. The formula of residual pay agreed upon in the 80s was intended to boost the home video market and should be reviewed considering today's market in which DVD sales are ever booming. I also think they should be paid fairly for online media distribution. But I also think the AMPTP has a good point in that the business model for online distribution is a huge question mark. The TV/Movie industry has its toes in the waters of the Internet and one it jumps in, no one knows which path(s) it will take. It's unreasonable to lock in a long-term solution for this. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the strike, so if someone more into it than I can explain to me why they don't simply agree to a short-term solution based on profit rather than gross that can be revisited in a few years, that would also be appreciated.