starbuck26
New member
give it to me baby
You can call me susan if the price is right...
hey now
You can call me susan if the price is right...
hey now
LeeRosario
New member
[insert lame joke]when the console sprouts its first pube?
I'll be here all week.[/insert lame joke]
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm pretty sure audio engineering has no formal governmental licensing requirement like you describe. Those are meant mostly for the safety of the public in quality of work in "the trades" related to things like building and road construction.
Another possibility - I'm not sure about this either - would be titles and job descriptions dictated by unions (e.g. A.C.E certification and the like). I don't know about what they do in Hollywood, but I've never come across any such union rules here in Chicago with anybody I've worked with.
But that's not where I was going with my post at all, actually. I was comparing audio engineering to structural engineering not in legal certification or experience metrics, but rather in actual *process* and task description. The way I look at it, "engineering" a single or an album is a process that starts with a mental plan and the physical (or audible) final product is the result of the step-by-step creation and construction of that product based upon solid engineering principles. The songs are *engineered* much the way your house, your office building and the roads between them are. Engineering is a process.
In contrast, a professional structural engineer is not someone who just slaps some materials together, sees what he/she winds up with, and then tries going back and patching/fixing/repairing the finished structure so that it doesn't fall down when a wolf blows at it. That is not "engineering" a building. Simply putting building materials together and engineering a structure are not the same thing.
IMHO, anybody who approaches recording and producing their music the same way is not really an audio engineer, regardless of what they call themselves.
YMMV, etc.
G.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
In simple terms, an engineer is someone who uses technology to build something, especially if they're making a living at it. That's it.
In terms of civil or structural engineering, governments may require an engineer to have a technical degree or some type of certification to say that they're qualified. In this way we don't get electrical engineers asking silly questions like "what's 3 phase?" or something.
A union is not responsible for dictating titles and job descriptions in the engineering community. A union is a third party organization that acts as a mediator between employers and employees, usually operating on some sort of premise that they're there to protect the employees' rights. They collect A LOT of money to (apparently) do this. Several decades ago, unions were a good thing as many employers were apt to exploit their labour force in ways that weren't always legal or ethical. Unions can still be effective in some cases if they operate responsibly, but the whole world is made in China these days so it's becoming increasingly less important. My apologies for the sarcasm.
I'm not trying to sound like Bob Katz here (Glen
), but consider this:
Standards organizations have a lot more to say about engineering practices. They aren't really unions per se, but imagine 100 bolts and 100 nuts. They're all approximately 3/8 of an inch, but when measured precisely they're all kind of like snow flakes so you've got a few that fit alright, a lot that sort of fit but they're kind of sloppy and still more that don't fit with anything so they're kind of useless. Pitches range from 4 to 40 threads per inch, and the nominal outside and pitch diameters are all over the place. No consistency. Now imagine having to bring your car to a machine shop so they can make a custom fitted 3/8 bolt every time you need that sort of thing because in very practical terms, nothing else will work. Standards organizations exist for this kind of thing, so that a 3/8 bolt is a 3/8 bolt is a 3/8 bolt. They're all the same. Not really, but this is the general idea. ANSI, SAE and ISO are all examples of standards organizations so that we use very practical, well tested, well documented and interchangeable guidelines for building stuff.
The RIAA has done something like this in establishing the mechanical limitations of vinyl with the RIAA curves. So are they a union or a standards organization? Audio engineering is more of an artistic pursuit so the lines get blurry. Sometimes the RIAA is a drag. *
Now imagine a machinist saying something like "Dude! Man! Like, dude! These American National Thread Specifications are messing with my art!"
Believe it or not, there is still room for artistic expression in engineering. We see it all the time. As long as it doesn't exploit practicality or the laws of physics (volume wars, anyone?) to detrimental effect, there's usually some kind of room for self-expression.
As a machinist, which is a vague type of engineer, I can tell you that there's an apprenticeship requirement to learn the trade. There are many facets of the trade. There's an education requirement to achieve "certification". This usually comes from a technical college. I've seen a lot of people do the schooling and collect the certificate. This doesn't always mean that anyone with the certificate can do the job. There are a lot of good machinists that learned all of their skills by working in machine shops, but they don't have a certificate. There are also a lot of "machinists" with certificates that don't really have much skill. In some areas, the certificate doesn't have much meaning. Experience and ability are much more important.
YMMV. This is why you can't go to Full Sail and automatically start making "hits". The teachers have to provide a practical, quality education program to develop real-world skills, and the student has to be of the right mind set and aptitude to benefit from the program as much as possible. Perhaps students go to places like that to collect some kind of bullshit status rather than practical skills. It's useless if they never do anything with it. On the other hand, something like being a good mix engineer will require countless hours of first hand experience which you can only get from doing the job. Sitting in a classroom might be very helpful, but it will never fill the experience requirement.
Obviously in some areas, certification from a technical institute can be more critical. Designing buildings and bridges for example. People can die if a bridge fails from a design flaw, but far less people are apt to die from a shitty recording. Again, YMMV.
Best of luck,
sl
* for additional reference see The Rocky Horror Picture Show
In terms of civil or structural engineering, governments may require an engineer to have a technical degree or some type of certification to say that they're qualified. In this way we don't get electrical engineers asking silly questions like "what's 3 phase?" or something.
A union is not responsible for dictating titles and job descriptions in the engineering community. A union is a third party organization that acts as a mediator between employers and employees, usually operating on some sort of premise that they're there to protect the employees' rights. They collect A LOT of money to (apparently) do this. Several decades ago, unions were a good thing as many employers were apt to exploit their labour force in ways that weren't always legal or ethical. Unions can still be effective in some cases if they operate responsibly, but the whole world is made in China these days so it's becoming increasingly less important. My apologies for the sarcasm.
I'm not trying to sound like Bob Katz here (Glen
), but consider this:Standards organizations have a lot more to say about engineering practices. They aren't really unions per se, but imagine 100 bolts and 100 nuts. They're all approximately 3/8 of an inch, but when measured precisely they're all kind of like snow flakes so you've got a few that fit alright, a lot that sort of fit but they're kind of sloppy and still more that don't fit with anything so they're kind of useless. Pitches range from 4 to 40 threads per inch, and the nominal outside and pitch diameters are all over the place. No consistency. Now imagine having to bring your car to a machine shop so they can make a custom fitted 3/8 bolt every time you need that sort of thing because in very practical terms, nothing else will work. Standards organizations exist for this kind of thing, so that a 3/8 bolt is a 3/8 bolt is a 3/8 bolt. They're all the same. Not really, but this is the general idea. ANSI, SAE and ISO are all examples of standards organizations so that we use very practical, well tested, well documented and interchangeable guidelines for building stuff.
The RIAA has done something like this in establishing the mechanical limitations of vinyl with the RIAA curves. So are they a union or a standards organization? Audio engineering is more of an artistic pursuit so the lines get blurry. Sometimes the RIAA is a drag. *
Now imagine a machinist saying something like "Dude! Man! Like, dude! These American National Thread Specifications are messing with my art!"
Believe it or not, there is still room for artistic expression in engineering. We see it all the time. As long as it doesn't exploit practicality or the laws of physics (volume wars, anyone?) to detrimental effect, there's usually some kind of room for self-expression.
As a machinist, which is a vague type of engineer, I can tell you that there's an apprenticeship requirement to learn the trade. There are many facets of the trade. There's an education requirement to achieve "certification". This usually comes from a technical college. I've seen a lot of people do the schooling and collect the certificate. This doesn't always mean that anyone with the certificate can do the job. There are a lot of good machinists that learned all of their skills by working in machine shops, but they don't have a certificate. There are also a lot of "machinists" with certificates that don't really have much skill. In some areas, the certificate doesn't have much meaning. Experience and ability are much more important.
YMMV. This is why you can't go to Full Sail and automatically start making "hits". The teachers have to provide a practical, quality education program to develop real-world skills, and the student has to be of the right mind set and aptitude to benefit from the program as much as possible. Perhaps students go to places like that to collect some kind of bullshit status rather than practical skills. It's useless if they never do anything with it. On the other hand, something like being a good mix engineer will require countless hours of first hand experience which you can only get from doing the job. Sitting in a classroom might be very helpful, but it will never fill the experience requirement.
Obviously in some areas, certification from a technical institute can be more critical. Designing buildings and bridges for example. People can die if a bridge fails from a design flaw, but far less people are apt to die from a shitty recording. Again, YMMV.
Best of luck,
sl
* for additional reference see The Rocky Horror Picture Show
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
So someone in their garage that uses an arc welder to build a artistic statue out of used toasters and rusty bicycle wheels is an engineer? The set designer that uses a hammer and a couple of nails to make a theater set is an engineer? The line cook who uses gas stoves, microwave ovens and an array of kitechn utensils to build meals is an engineer? A statician who uses an Excel spreadsheet to build actuarial tables is an engineer?
By that definition, everyboy with a job is an engineer. This is where euphamisms like "santiation engineer" come along and people want to PC equate a garbage collector with a rocket designer.
If you remove the making money requirement, *everybody* is an engineer; from the kid making model airplanes from kits using Xacto knives and glue to Dagwood Bumpstead making a triple-decker sandwich using silverware and a cocktial toothpick.
That puts us rigt back in the hip hop definition of "producer". A baby who shits in his diaper is by rights a "producer" since they produced the shit, as much as T-Bone Burnett is a producer for actually engineering a musical production. We already lost the word "producer" to mediocrity, let's not do the same thing with "engineer".
In fact, the technology standard is not even required, IMHO. A negotiator or an arbitrator can engineer a legal or political solution with nothing but words. OK, maybe speech is arguably a type of technology, but I think that example helps illustrate the point that engineering is a skill process more than anything else.
Yes? What?I'm not trying to sound like Bob Katz here (Glen
As far as specifications, yes. As far as job title descriptions, not so much. In that regard, the closest thing we have to "standards orginizations" (not counting the government-regulated trades as we mentioned before) are school curriculums and degree programs with essential prereqs, GPAs and credit totals.
But that's only part of the story. Here's where we get in total agreement, and here's where (IMHO) 95% of the misunderstanding and disagreement in the whole schools vs. self-learning stems from....
IMHO, this hits the nail on the head (and no, hitting a nail on a head in and of itself is not a type of engineering
)People do not come out of trade schools being master plumbers. People do not come out of medical schools being doctors. Nor do people come out of SAE etc. being audio engineers.
Nor should anybody expect otherwise.
The studio owners that complain about the quality of the interns they get seem to forget that *they are getting interns*, they are NOT getting engineers. Hence the name "interns". The students that complain about schools not teaching them everything they really need to know seem to forget that they are not supposed to because they can't. Medical school graduates have to go through years of internship and residency before they can open private practice. Plumbers and electricians need to go through apprenticeship programs before they can be fully licensed and have the experience to do the full job. Audio engineering is no different.
But that doesn't mean the audio schools are useless or overated any more than trade schools are overrated because one does not come out a master of his trade, or medical schools are overrated because one does not come out a full doctor.
G.
B
blazingstrings
dgatwood can **** himself
When you start calling your self a "Producer" and mak'n sum tite beeeetz ya'll!!
LeeRosario
New member
if I may join the debate:
I'm gonna take a stab at the original question: "When do you earn the title Engineer?"
My answer would be simply this...in this era, you don't really earn it, you just happen into it.
These days, the word recording engineer is so convoluted, that you end up splitting hairs alot. The legitimacy of the title is only as credible as the employer who gives that title.
The employer may be a facility, or the employer may be any number of people whom give you that title. That especially includes the fans, since ultimately, they pay your bills.
I mean, some times you sort of get thrown into it for the sake of having legitamcy and legal issues.
For example, you could be some joe blow out of nowhere that happened to be the friend of a cousin of a friend of a brother that's the next 50 cents little sister and she goes, "alright, I herd you frock around with the Pro Tools, right? My brother needs someone to mix some tracks dat he got. Deez tracks is the sickest shiz since slice bread".
So you being smart, you say, "alright Puffy Spice, 40 bucks an hour. I get can get these songs sounding good for you". For all you know, he's full of shit. But if he's not, a) you made some quick "bill paying cash" b) you just got your first legit credit on the next big star.
Suddenly your name, "Mixed by Bevo Brocks Thug Liscious" shows up in mass circulation, and the rest is history. Congradulations, youre suddenly a recording engineer.
In other words, what do most of the engineers you and I know as "legit" have in common? They all had a serious connection that got them slung into the industry. It's not nessessarily your talent or how you talk that matters. It's treating all projects like it's a big break that matters.. They where given a shot, they performed flawlessly, therefore, they got repeat business.
It's how you perform in the moment of truth and how lucky you are in finding good contacts. That starts recording engineers carreers far more often than anything else. Think about it, it's not an accident that alot of mixes out there sound sort of built up with uncertainty. Alot of guys really do get nervous recording these albums, however, they are able to finish and finish with some kind of results.
It's not all about talent, it's about being at the right place, at the right time and then really getting through to your client. There's a million guys that I've seen that could of easily been the next Andy Wallace, they just never found the chance to put themselves out there.
It's like Jonny Carson said, "being at the right place at the right time dosn't mean anything unless you're prepared to perform in that moment of truth".
Whether it's earned or not, I don't think it's a possible thing to find out in audio production.
I'm gonna take a stab at the original question: "When do you earn the title Engineer?"
My answer would be simply this...in this era, you don't really earn it, you just happen into it.
These days, the word recording engineer is so convoluted, that you end up splitting hairs alot. The legitimacy of the title is only as credible as the employer who gives that title.
The employer may be a facility, or the employer may be any number of people whom give you that title. That especially includes the fans, since ultimately, they pay your bills.
I mean, some times you sort of get thrown into it for the sake of having legitamcy and legal issues.
For example, you could be some joe blow out of nowhere that happened to be the friend of a cousin of a friend of a brother that's the next 50 cents little sister and she goes, "alright, I herd you frock around with the Pro Tools, right? My brother needs someone to mix some tracks dat he got. Deez tracks is the sickest shiz since slice bread".
So you being smart, you say, "alright Puffy Spice, 40 bucks an hour. I get can get these songs sounding good for you". For all you know, he's full of shit. But if he's not, a) you made some quick "bill paying cash" b) you just got your first legit credit on the next big star.
Suddenly your name, "Mixed by Bevo Brocks Thug Liscious" shows up in mass circulation, and the rest is history. Congradulations, youre suddenly a recording engineer.
In other words, what do most of the engineers you and I know as "legit" have in common? They all had a serious connection that got them slung into the industry. It's not nessessarily your talent or how you talk that matters. It's treating all projects like it's a big break that matters.. They where given a shot, they performed flawlessly, therefore, they got repeat business.
It's how you perform in the moment of truth and how lucky you are in finding good contacts. That starts recording engineers carreers far more often than anything else. Think about it, it's not an accident that alot of mixes out there sound sort of built up with uncertainty. Alot of guys really do get nervous recording these albums, however, they are able to finish and finish with some kind of results.
It's not all about talent, it's about being at the right place, at the right time and then really getting through to your client. There's a million guys that I've seen that could of easily been the next Andy Wallace, they just never found the chance to put themselves out there.
It's like Jonny Carson said, "being at the right place at the right time dosn't mean anything unless you're prepared to perform in that moment of truth".
Whether it's earned or not, I don't think it's a possible thing to find out in audio production.
Last edited:
J
jndietz
The Way It Moves
rayc
retroreprobate
snow lizard's view of unions is very jaundiced.
A union is as good as its collective membership.
Whilst an overweight whimp myself I belong to a strong, progressive and socially active union that protects its members, enhances salary, improves working conditions and has a strong voice in its members' place in society.
I pay my dues, as I pay my taxes, in the hope that they will be used appropriately. I KNOW, through legally required tranparency and the union's open & democratic processes, that my union uses my money better than my government does.
In Australia under our just recently defeated Govt. 20,000 + employers were stripping away holiday pay, rostering rights, increasing hours & paying 10c and hour more in return etc.
Not all employers are cavaliering capitalists but the Oz experience proves that many still are - particularly when the market place is unregulated.
We had, until the last 3 years an Industrial Relations Court that arbitrated on disputes but the conservative Govt wiped it out. In the end the rampant rip offs became so bad that even the conservative govt had to respond by creating a department to check all agreements on a no net loss for the worker basis. The backlog became gargantuan & that's in a developed nation that is, essentially, a social democracy.
Not all unions serve their members but MOST do.
I'm sad that you've had a bad experience & I hope your relationship with your union improves in the future.
A union is as good as its collective membership.
Whilst an overweight whimp myself I belong to a strong, progressive and socially active union that protects its members, enhances salary, improves working conditions and has a strong voice in its members' place in society.
I pay my dues, as I pay my taxes, in the hope that they will be used appropriately. I KNOW, through legally required tranparency and the union's open & democratic processes, that my union uses my money better than my government does.
In Australia under our just recently defeated Govt. 20,000 + employers were stripping away holiday pay, rostering rights, increasing hours & paying 10c and hour more in return etc.
Not all employers are cavaliering capitalists but the Oz experience proves that many still are - particularly when the market place is unregulated.
We had, until the last 3 years an Industrial Relations Court that arbitrated on disputes but the conservative Govt wiped it out. In the end the rampant rip offs became so bad that even the conservative govt had to respond by creating a department to check all agreements on a no net loss for the worker basis. The backlog became gargantuan & that's in a developed nation that is, essentially, a social democracy.
Not all unions serve their members but MOST do.
I'm sad that you've had a bad experience & I hope your relationship with your union improves in the future.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
Sorry for the off topic post here, some of you might want to skip this...
Ah, but I don't have or want a union.
The unions here in Canada were essential for raising the bar on fairness in the labour force several decades ago. Working conditions were pathetic in certain places, and unions put a stop to it. What it has done is prompted governments to redraw labour laws and such. I'm not saying unions are a bad thing if they are required as a watchdog to ensure fairness, but there are many industries in this area where the unions can actually do more to make a place of employment worse than it could be. A lot of companies will go out of their way to match what other places are offering, without a union. Things like competitive wages and benefits, plus maybe a few extra perks like bonuses or company sponsored social functions or what have you. Basically a show of good faith on the part of the employer to help keep the employees comfortable and motivated.
Companies would never have gone out of their way to do things like that if it weren't for unions in the first place, but they're a bit outdated in certain places. Often enough, if a company in question doesn't treat its employees properly there's 2 more companies that will, so that company will have a hard time finding and keeping good workers. Also, if the employee has a major grievence, or the company is doing something illegal, any worker can phone the labour board and the government will step in. Unions were much more important back in the days where workers didn't have that kind of recourse.
If and where the unions have nothing to fight for, it destroys trust in the companies that are already good. People take advantage. The extra perks a company might offer usually disappear as soon as a union is brought in. Morale suffers.
Unions work best in places where the employers don't have respect and do take advantage. There are still a few places here in Canada where having a union is a good thing, but it's becoming rare. It sounds to me like what you're describing in Australia is an example of why unions are a good thing, but after they raise the bar the system can start to backfire. Hopefully your Oz unions will help to prompt your governments to improve their human rights codes.
Incidentally, a friend's son recently moved to Melbourne and the reports are that he's loving it there.
sl
rayc said:
Ah, but I don't have or want a union.
The unions here in Canada were essential for raising the bar on fairness in the labour force several decades ago. Working conditions were pathetic in certain places, and unions put a stop to it. What it has done is prompted governments to redraw labour laws and such. I'm not saying unions are a bad thing if they are required as a watchdog to ensure fairness, but there are many industries in this area where the unions can actually do more to make a place of employment worse than it could be. A lot of companies will go out of their way to match what other places are offering, without a union. Things like competitive wages and benefits, plus maybe a few extra perks like bonuses or company sponsored social functions or what have you. Basically a show of good faith on the part of the employer to help keep the employees comfortable and motivated.
Companies would never have gone out of their way to do things like that if it weren't for unions in the first place, but they're a bit outdated in certain places. Often enough, if a company in question doesn't treat its employees properly there's 2 more companies that will, so that company will have a hard time finding and keeping good workers. Also, if the employee has a major grievence, or the company is doing something illegal, any worker can phone the labour board and the government will step in. Unions were much more important back in the days where workers didn't have that kind of recourse.
If and where the unions have nothing to fight for, it destroys trust in the companies that are already good. People take advantage. The extra perks a company might offer usually disappear as soon as a union is brought in. Morale suffers.
Unions work best in places where the employers don't have respect and do take advantage. There are still a few places here in Canada where having a union is a good thing, but it's becoming rare. It sounds to me like what you're describing in Australia is an example of why unions are a good thing, but after they raise the bar the system can start to backfire. Hopefully your Oz unions will help to prompt your governments to improve their human rights codes.
Incidentally, a friend's son recently moved to Melbourne and the reports are that he's loving it there.
sl
rayc
retroreprobate
Union membership down under dropped over the last decade as the economy was chugging along nicely. It was then that the federal govt & the bosses bignsmall radically (so much so that true conservatives were appalled) gutted the industrial relations system.
Whole workforces were sacked for "operational reasons" & then offered new workplace agreements at many thousands less etc for the same work. Workers in small business could be sacked for no reason at all. Such was the legislative framework of the powers that be.
Oh, no mention, hint or idea was given by the conservative govt when they went to the election just prior to their pogrom.
The only workers not affected were those with a yet non expired awards and/or strong unions.
It took a concerted 50+ million dollar 3 year union based campaign (funded by the only 20% of workers still members) that was supported by non unionists and many employers alike & the swelling of membership as folk realised that their KIDS were in for it if not themselves for the govt to be thrown out, the prime minister to be dumped by his own electorate and a change come through.
If I follow your logic I ought to join a union, leave when it's secured a good deal for me & go back if/when it sours.
If not for the unionists who stayed true to their roots Australian kids, despite a thriving economy, record profits and massive rewards for mediocre management, would be sacked for the colour of their hair, retrenched & re-employed with a 30% cut &/or fail to secure anything more than a promise of a traineeship that never comes to fruition due to "operational reasons".
I see your point but to me it's like turning off your alarm because the burglar next door moved away.
My union is progressive, improves learning conditions & curriculum, has taken a tree levy from fees for a decade & a half that is poured into reforestation, workplace based greening progs and has reduced its paper use by 17%. It also demonstrates a social conscience, has scholarships for students and all from a group that were not, due to an existing award, under direct threat from the fed govt changes.
But then again - I think we ought to agree to disagree.
I pleased that you've had the courage of your convictions and articulated them so well. Viva l'difference!
Whole workforces were sacked for "operational reasons" & then offered new workplace agreements at many thousands less etc for the same work. Workers in small business could be sacked for no reason at all. Such was the legislative framework of the powers that be.
Oh, no mention, hint or idea was given by the conservative govt when they went to the election just prior to their pogrom.
The only workers not affected were those with a yet non expired awards and/or strong unions.
It took a concerted 50+ million dollar 3 year union based campaign (funded by the only 20% of workers still members) that was supported by non unionists and many employers alike & the swelling of membership as folk realised that their KIDS were in for it if not themselves for the govt to be thrown out, the prime minister to be dumped by his own electorate and a change come through.
If I follow your logic I ought to join a union, leave when it's secured a good deal for me & go back if/when it sours.
If not for the unionists who stayed true to their roots Australian kids, despite a thriving economy, record profits and massive rewards for mediocre management, would be sacked for the colour of their hair, retrenched & re-employed with a 30% cut &/or fail to secure anything more than a promise of a traineeship that never comes to fruition due to "operational reasons".
I see your point but to me it's like turning off your alarm because the burglar next door moved away.
My union is progressive, improves learning conditions & curriculum, has taken a tree levy from fees for a decade & a half that is poured into reforestation, workplace based greening progs and has reduced its paper use by 17%. It also demonstrates a social conscience, has scholarships for students and all from a group that were not, due to an existing award, under direct threat from the fed govt changes.
But then again - I think we ought to agree to disagree.
I pleased that you've had the courage of your convictions and articulated them so well. Viva l'difference!
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
Again, your view supports the purpose of unions and shows why they're good.
This is a true story, and typical of what unions do here. It's not always this bad, but it still doesn't make much sense.
A guy I used to know a few years ago was a mechanic. He worked for a company that went bankrupt. After that, he got a job in a union shop that just worked on fleet vehicles for a very large soft drink company. After he was hired, they had something like 6 mechanics and a lot of problems with the fleet vehicles. So he goes in there and starts fixing cars. The other mechanics gave him a hard time about it.
"What are you doing?"
"I'm fixing this car".
"Are you trying to make us look bad or something? You don't see us fixing cars do you? Relax buddy, this is a union shop."
It's a bit warped to see someone get harassed for doing their job. It's fairly common for people to underperform and get away with it because the union will protect their jobs. Employers aren't allowed to fire someone just for being nearly useless, so initiative is frowned upon. There's nothing wrong with a union protecting employees rights within reason, but things can and do go overboard. I'm not exagerating.
So my logic is actually more like join a union, stay when it's secured a good deal for me and leave when it becomes a joke or forces the business into bankruptcy. And if they strike because the employers are asking the workers to do their jobs, the 10 dollars a week strike pay will come in handy.
I get the impression that's not what unions were really designed to do, but it gets like that sometimes. We can agree to disagree, but I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. Anyone with power, be it a government, union, employer or employee has the ability to abuse that power if they choose.
Oh, and the big unions here make millions of dollars in profit every year. They're very secure.
And to bring this thread full circle and back on topic, unions come up with fancy names like "Operating Engineers". The nice folks that collect my garbage on Tuesdays, for example. (Another suggestion to add to Glen's list) Probably a great place for a union to be, unlike the trades where all the nonsense happens.
Anyway, best of luck to you with your own situation. May your livelihood have abundant fairness and common sense.
sl
This is a true story, and typical of what unions do here. It's not always this bad, but it still doesn't make much sense.
A guy I used to know a few years ago was a mechanic. He worked for a company that went bankrupt. After that, he got a job in a union shop that just worked on fleet vehicles for a very large soft drink company. After he was hired, they had something like 6 mechanics and a lot of problems with the fleet vehicles. So he goes in there and starts fixing cars. The other mechanics gave him a hard time about it.
"What are you doing?"
"I'm fixing this car".
"Are you trying to make us look bad or something? You don't see us fixing cars do you? Relax buddy, this is a union shop."
It's a bit warped to see someone get harassed for doing their job. It's fairly common for people to underperform and get away with it because the union will protect their jobs. Employers aren't allowed to fire someone just for being nearly useless, so initiative is frowned upon. There's nothing wrong with a union protecting employees rights within reason, but things can and do go overboard. I'm not exagerating.
So my logic is actually more like join a union, stay when it's secured a good deal for me and leave when it becomes a joke or forces the business into bankruptcy. And if they strike because the employers are asking the workers to do their jobs, the 10 dollars a week strike pay will come in handy.
I get the impression that's not what unions were really designed to do, but it gets like that sometimes. We can agree to disagree, but I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. Anyone with power, be it a government, union, employer or employee has the ability to abuse that power if they choose.
Oh, and the big unions here make millions of dollars in profit every year. They're very secure.
And to bring this thread full circle and back on topic, unions come up with fancy names like "Operating Engineers". The nice folks that collect my garbage on Tuesdays, for example. (Another suggestion to add to Glen's list) Probably a great place for a union to be, unlike the trades where all the nonsense happens.
Anyway, best of luck to you with your own situation. May your livelihood have abundant fairness and common sense.
sl