Steven Bush said:

>IN order to "make them pay" you are going to have to prove that you are a
>superior employee as compared to the field.

<SNIP>

> In order to increase salaries then
>the work of an employee has to be evaluated, careful evaluation based upon
>the mission of the institution is difficult.

>Steven Bush

>P.S.    As for an action to take, when you leave your position to attain a
>higher paying one, whether in or outside of the field the institution will
>realize that they either made a mistake or that the salary meets the job
>market because someone took the job and performed just as well.  AS long as
>people are willing to work for that pay they will keep offering.  In a sense
>we are not biting the hand that feeds us we are giving it a manicure.

 No Mr. Bush there are other ways such as the one cited by Ms. Castillo
below:

> From: Anna Castillo <[log in to unmask]>

>
> What a opportune time to be discussing our "worth" as our friends and
> colleagues spend their seventh week on strike at MOMA.


Which is one of the many ways we might be able to get higher wages, but to
take up a refrain from my previous post there are positive and negative
consequences attached as many professions and trades in US history are fully
aware. Read below.  Are you ready for a work place divided by union
membership? (Do you know anyone that's been on strike? It can destroy
decades old friendships) Are you ready for yelling at your visiting public
and membership while on strike? (There's a visitor's studies thesis for you.
Perception of a museum by the visitor after a strike. Higher? Lower?
Visitation, membership, and annual giving up or down?) Are you ready to
place your professional goals into the larger aims of organized labor? Are
you ready for an agency or closed shop? Organizing with implied labor
actions up to and including strikes is an option. An option with
consequences that are fairly predictable.  Is it worth it?


 --
Matthew White
Director of Museums
The Mount Washington Observatory
North Conway, New Hampshire


From New York Times

May 16, 2000

Museum Says Strikers Cross Picket Line


By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

he union representing striking workers at the Museum of Modern Art has been
put on the defensive because 40 percent of the 250 workers in the bargaining
unit, according to management's count, have crossed the picket line during
the 18-day strike.

Museum officials said the number of workers who had crossed the picket line
showed that the strike might be losing steam and that the union was highly
divided and having a hard time selling its message to many workers.
But Maida Rosenstein, president of the union, insisted that the strike was
going strong, noting that the walkout had forced the museum to postpone a
handful of events.

"We think the museum is feeling the impact of the strike, and our members
are becoming more resolute," said Ms. Rosenstein, who heads Local 2110 of
the United Auto Workers, which represents several thousand white-collar
employees in New York City.

As evidence of the strike's success, union members pointed to a large and
raucous demonstration on Friday night, saying that it persuaded many people
not to visit the museum. That demonstration, in which more than 100 union
members screamed at museumgoers, was quite different from the scene
yesterday, when about 20 strikers stood outside the museum, rather quietly,
penned in by police barricades on 53rd Street.

Museum officials said attendance had essentially remained steady during the
strike.

While disputing that 100 workers have crossed the picket line, Ms.
Rosenstein said it was not surprising that many employees had returned to
work because a third of the museum workers eligible for membership in the
unit -- assistant curators, librarians, bookshop workers and others -- had
chosen not to join.

Summoned by federal mediators, negotiators for the two sides yesterday held
their first bargaining session since the walkout began. The two sides are
feuding over wage increases, the health care plan and job security, which
has become more urgent because the museum plans temporary layoffs for scores
of workers during a four-year, $650 million expansion project.

Several workers said they had crossed the picket line because they thought
union leaders were emphasizing an issue that was more important to the
leadership than to rank and file workers: the union's demand that all new
employees join the union or, if they choose not to join, be required to pay
union dues.

Charles Silver, an assistant curator who is one of the founders of the
museum's union, said he crossed the picket line because he believed the
leaders were not representing the members' best interests. "I believe this
strike is based on manipulation," said Mr. Silver, who quit the union after
repeatedly clashing with the leadership and calling them undemocratic.
"These people have engineered a strike for their own purposes. It has
nothing to do with the benefits of the workers."

Mr. Silver's criticism of the union are consistent with statements by the
museum's management, which insists that the union's leadership is
misinforming and manipulating union members.

The museum's workers belong to the Professional and Administrative Staff
Association, a 30-year-old unit that is part of Local 2110.

Robert Batterman, the museum's chief negotiator, said Ms. Rosenstein had
been less than candid when she said her top priorities were protection
against layoffs and preservation of the workers' health plan.

Rather, he said, her first priority was a requirement that new workers join
the union or pay union dues. That move, which would create what is called an
agency shop, would go far to strengthen the union's hand in future
negotiations.

"Publicly and to the people on strike, they are saying agency shop is not a
big deal," Mr. Batterman said. "That is not what they're saying to us. I
think the people on strike do not want to be on strike to support an agency
shop."

Ms. Rosenstein said the museum's negotiators were putting that argument
forward to undercut the union's leadership and divide its members.

Mr. Batterman said the museum has never proposed cutting its health plan.
And he said the museum was offering to grant a right of recall to workers
laid off during the construction, which would amount to strong job security,
he said.

Taking a break yesterday afternoon from shouting at visitors not to enter
the museum, John Gray, a cataloguer in the museum library, took sharp issue
with Mr. Batterman. He asked why, if the museum's negotiators were sincere
about not planning to cut the workers' health coverage, they were rejecting
a provision promising not to make such cuts. He also said management's
promise of a right of recall was unsatisfactory because it did not guarantee
that all workers furloughed during construction would be called back.

"I resent the statement by management that we are dupes of our union
leaders," Mr. Gray said. "If management doesn't like the idea that we
rejected what they view as a fair contract, that's their problem. But don't
call us stupid. I'm a great researcher. I've published seven books. Don't
tell me I don't know how to analyze their proposals."

Neither management nor the union appeared to be putting much emphasis on
wages. Wages run from $17,000 for bookshop workers to more than $50,000 for
associate curators, and median earnings are around $28,500. Management has
offered a 3 percent wage increase each year for three years, while the union
wants a five-year contract with a 5 percent raise in the first year and 4
percent in subsequent years.

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).