I cannot agree, Peter's main points are correct, weak management produces union problems. In this case, the company has run at a loss for 3 years apparently. In the Weinstock days of GEC, and again in US managed ITT, 3 weeks was the maximum period that a loss was allowed in a mature business, followed by replacing the manager in week 4!
I've seen the staff reduced by 50% in one afternoon to correct the situation. In another international company, I've seen the "close" decision taken and executed in a couple of days.
I agree that weak management can cause union problems, but that wasn't really my point.
There are plenty of companies that run at a loss for a lot longer than three years and it does not necessarily mean that the management is poor.
For example, it is quite common to put together a business plan which assumes losses for a period of time because of investment or other reasons related to the business and to enter profitability later. This is fine, although shareholders will be looking to see that the business performs according to the plan or that if it doesn't that necessary corrections are made.
I am not saying that this is the case here, but equally we don't know what the terms of the agreement are between BA and GG or between GG and its parent company; neither have any of us attended their board or management meetings. Therefore anything that is said can only be an observation based on what is reported in the press.
My point is simply that there is not enough information there to be able to point the finger at the management. They may have been operating within parameters agreed with their parent.
Weak management causes problems whether or not there is a union, there is no "can" about it. Equally good management avoids problems whether or not a union is involved. The days of idiot unions having untrammelled power without responsibility was thankfully ended years ago (no matter how the resident idiot apologist for murderers may try to rewrite reality).
Having a plan which involves making a loss for a defined time is somewhat different from having no idea how you will ever make a profit.
There is ample evidence to point a finger at the managers and directors. They are incompetent. The simple fact they have ended up where they have is absolute evidence of that.
That's the reverse of my point. Of course weak management causes problems, but doesn't necessarily cause them with unions. Equally, unions are unfortunately perfectly capable of causing problems whether or not management is weak.
Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for a union to disrupt a business even of the management is good.
Thank goodness. As somebody already remarked, the unions are dead, they just don't realise it yet.
Of course, and we don't have the information to which applies here or whether it is between the two - i.e. having a plan but not executing to it.
No it isn't. You don't have sufficient information to come to that conclusion unless you were present at board and management meetings and have sight of the commercial arrangements with at least shareholders, suppliers and customers.
There you are then. I know where your coming from on that as broadcasting is still seen as a very desirable job and people do work for next to nothing. Supply and demand somewhere?...
At one place I work, my union is close to getting recognition. If the workforce is balloted and more than a certain percentage want this it happens by law.
And surprise surprise. Many of the things that were making the workforce want their union involved - like excess hours, some of which unpaid, observing the maximum working week, statuary meal breaks etc, have now suddenly been implemented.
Only the naive would think these were freely given.
But a union is if anything needed more in a largely freelance industry to prevent victimization. At the moment, few with genuine grievances would go direct to management as it's all too easy to simply not give them another contract as a trouble maker.
I can see your point for your particular sector. However, in an environment that is freelance wouldn't you normally be paid either an hourly rate or a price for the job or some combination of the two?
If that's the case, why would the concepts of excess hours and maximum working week apply?
All contracts vary, but in this case it's based on so many hours per week, with extra being paid if they are exceeded. If you finish early for any reason, those hours are removed from any subsequent overtime payments later in the week. But the hours are purely calculated from 'on camera' time, with no provision made for prep and wrap outside these hours. And for some, these outside paid for working hours are getting longer, for various reasons. So they needed rationalising. But of course the bean counters aren't going to be concerned about things which previously they got for nothing...
Some like to have a life? Most people expect to know well in advance which days and what hours they'll be working so they can plan their leisure time.
Of course with every job emergencies arise and you might have to stay on to sort them. But when those emergencies arrive each and every day, at little to no cost to the employer, it soon dawns that it's down to careless planning.
At one time such arrangements were common on films, and the workforce was 'bought out' to compensate. But TV seems to want the same sort of arrangement without paying for it.
I can see the issue with that. I have seen TV and film production from time to time as well as crews involved in corporate media events staged as though they are a film production and it did strike me that there is a lot of faffing around between the filmed or staged pieces - especially the set up and take down. Most of it seemed to be because the "luvvies" for want of a better word, changed their minds N times as they went along.
I can understand that, but is it realistically possible in a creative environment?
OK. Obviously if something could reasonably have been done to make a situation better and wasn't then it is inconsiderate and should be discussed with them.
That is unreasonable. Is this because there is an oversupply of people to do the work, cost pressure on the production companies or too many production companies or ??
I've always taken a high level view of work. In other words look at it in totality - what the content is and what is required to do to achieve what is agreed and what the return is in terms of monetary and other benefit short and longer term including acquisition of skills. The hours are a factor in it, but for me not the main one by some way
- I tend to look at what is needed to achieve the objectives and go from there.
Due to the high pound and high taxation, features are pretty quiet and have been for some time. So those who prefer to work on them are naturally scrabbling around for any work going. And poorer paid TV stuff is better than starving.
So yes, there probably is an oversupply of bods. Of course there are a vast number of BOFs like me around who will be off the scene shortly - I'm part of the BBC2 'boom' where the BBC had to near double their in house production.
I was wondering how this could have come about. From screen credits, etc. there seem to be a large (growing?) number of (I presume) small production firms around producing programs shown on terrestrial and satellite channels. Are these really companies of any substance or just a small management who pulls together individuals from contacts etc. when they want to make a programme? Are most of these ex-BBC people?
Is this another situation of a sector with a population of well trained and experienced people that will fade as they retire or go and do something else - i.e. a skillset that will be lost, or are there new people coming into it who know what they are doing?
Pretty well yes. I don't know of any small independant who employed full time staff in the 'crafts'. Because setting up any programme requires planning and preparation, and if you look at the actual shooting crew, there will be different lengths of contracts for different skills.
For example, the art department will need time before shooting commences to buy in the necessary props and to decorate or build the sets and or dress the premises, etc. A location manager does much of her/his work before also - scouting round to find suitable locations and issuing contracts for the time they're needed. Costume need also to purchase such clothing etc as may be needed. The director *should* know exactly how she/he is going to shoot something long before the event. On my side of it, on the 'average' programme, assuming I've been given decent information about it - or have watched one - I can near enough turn up on the day. But doing the sound on the Proms would be rather different. ;-)
Only in that it was a major employer who has decided to sack staff and use freelance labour. But near an equal number will have started in ITV who've done the same trick.
There are plenty of good youngsters around. The big difference is they are *very* specialised - just knowing the narrow field they work in.
My BBC training gave me a good understanding of the basics of all the relevant crafts. But this is expensive. And at Thames TV, I worked in near every aspect of TV sound - the thing I miss most now, as you tend to be pigeon holed by those who are likely to employ you.
This is really dangerous and although perhaps commands good money for a while can easily lead to tears eventually if they are not adaptable.
I understand completely. Two things that I've always tried to do are to make sure that I am always acquiring new skills of one kind or another to build on the base and secondly to resolutely avoid being pigeon-holed. However, it is very hard sometimes.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.