Between 1492 and 1960, employees were literally at the mercy of employers for pay, benefits, working hours and days, in plant environment (lights, temperature, cleanliness, safety, job security. Prior to any of the multitudes of congressional laws that have been passed since 1960, employers could and literally did do literally anything from demanding an employee's wife provide sex for the boss to the employee working overtime for free and working on his day off for free and taking pay cuts, and buying things from the employer at excessive prices, just to keep his job!
Problem
Employees in every occupation are hearing the “power” offerings from unions that their
employers are not offering. Some physicians, Red Cross workers, commercial pilots and the list goes on. Where employers seek to expand hours of one's work without a corresponding increase in pay, the average employee comments that such increases, aka, “new working conditions” seem unfair, and perhaps unsafe. Too often, when such words as safety accompany the complaint the employer often suggests the employee find less stressful employment as the employer knows of employees who will be more “reliable and not complain.” Many American labor laws are the result of such employer behavior that contributes to indifference-with the firm's bottom line the only thing of concern.
Significance of the Problem
While the US has created many labor protection laws over the past 50 years to counteract
indifferent laws, the unions who were invented/developed to solve such indifference by getting employers to sign specific contracts gained said employee protections. IN some industries, a novice off the street can earn $25 an hour, while an equally “skilled” person not in the union earn less than 1/4 of that amount.
In some cases, however, this unionizing to protect employees, is backfiring. The nation has already had control tower strikes, teacher strikes, police and fire department strikes and as they are capable, unions are seeking members for their shrinking memberships in every nook and cranny wherever people work.
Recently, for reasons not shared with the general public, for the first time in ten years, writers in Hollywood, California, went on strike to gain more salaries. For some reason, the writer's previous contracts did not include the option for the producers to sell the writer's material “wherever the producers could find a market” and thus, the producers gained profits not only with their standard advertisers, in US and foreign markets, but also in internet markets. It is unknown when the writer's contracts were up for renewal, but for whatever reason, the union leaders decided that it was essential that writers get a wage increase immediately based on both past standards and criteria and also now, to include internet sales and profits.
Many employees would quit rather than trying to force the employer's hand by refusing to perform work under “whatever” circumstances.
In most circumstances, such mass-quitting would have been enough to bring the "employer's common sense" around, but during the early days of the railroad or automobile, there were plenty of people available who had the few skills needed, and who would work under literally any conditions, [known as strike breakers in a later era], would be hired. These employees, often foreigners, had been working under similar harsh conditions "back home" and did so at 1/10 to 1/30th the pay. For them, harsh was just a way and "no big deal" considering the non-advancement of the human race in its quest for "Human rights." It appears sad and embarrassing that we needed union leaders to bring the truth of employment conditions and be strong enough force employers to "see the light": to see that employees just want a "fair deal," reasonable pay for the hours and skills demanded, hospitalization and vacations, and reasonable assurance of jobs.
When enough employees, with union halls and their leaders, get together, individual employers could effectively be shut down if they chose not to bring their plants up to safe standards, and if employees aren't being treated well, such "wellness" benefits could be forced--or “negotiated for” by union leaders.
Union benefits (many of which became federal benefits--requirements all employers had to provide) included medical and worker's compensation. Previously, If an employee were injured on the job, the employee had to take time off work, get medical help, and stay off work, all at his own expense.
Thus describes the original intent of unions-fair wages and safe surroundings. Often times, after the government finally “gets with it”, the need for the union disappears.
With the most recent Entertainer's strike by the writers that cost the community of Hollywood over $1.5 billion in lost income, both workers and business people are learning that strikes usually never make an employer cover lost wages, and the unions “unemployment insurance” covers only a pittance. Thus, once the different employment laws were put into effect between 1930 and 1950, those employers who had employees coerced to go on strike by their respective unions always lost more by not working then they could have gained by staying at the job site and gaining new skills that would have earned them higher wages or become a different category employee.
On the basis of the union's description of its members as working an average of 30 hours per week for an average pay of about $14 per hour, they must have lost about $524 million during the 21-weeks-and-a-day between the walkout Oct. 11 and the ratification of the new contract last weekend. Some of that, possibly as much as $200 million, was offset with strike pay, but even taking strike pay into account the average worker lost an astonishing $6,000 of personal income.
The author, a business consultant and college business teacher, has done primary research, and reviewed secondary literature regarding Catholic communities across America and compared their satisfaction to non-Catholic community satisfactions. In interviews by news firms and
national interviewing firms, the way Catholics are able to still live and be Catholics is the same way children live with alcoholic parents; the children ignore much of what the parents say or do.
Suggested Solutions
This research paper suggested that perhaps employees preparing to go on strike where it is felt that wages are not or soon will not be commiserate with the job being performed, would be better off not working for the employer. This is not a suggestion of going on a different type of strike, but instead, getting together with the junior executives of the current employers and finding out about the practicality of opening a new firm, in broadcasting, to compete with their most recent employers.
Most of the time, across the U.S., entrepreneurs find an unmet need and try to fill it if the unmet need is “substantial.” This works for 95% of all candidates for entrepreneurship.
What has not been done, to this paper's knowledge anywhere, is having those intending to go on strike or those currently on strike, to compete directly with their employers INSTEAD of going on strike-or stopping the strike and quitting work to become one or more new [complementary] companies.
There is nothing in Hollywood that is capital equipment intensive. All industries have rentable equipment and the strikers already know who the employer's customers are. As long as documentary theft is not involved, a striker is quite in his/her right position to open a competing business-firms have their staffs do this daily around the nation.
