To pick up on Jack's point and play Devil's Advocate for a moment....
It's the people at the bottom of the food chain (new starters, fresh graduates) who are going to have to put their collective foot down and go without work as a result of taking a stand. Presumably anyone already further on in their career may already have taken the "I'll do anything to dig" route to get where they are, and are safely past the point of being impacted (having that all-important commercial experience, a reputation as a good worker and some contacts). Presumably the low wage/poor conditions didn't spontaneously arise with the recession and they must have been deemed acceptable/tolerable for some time now?
If people had acted before now, then presumably we wouldn't be in this situation? I'm doing a lot of "presuming" - perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but feels rather like those who are unlikely to be impacted, are the ones demanding action from those who will. Perhaps the first act of a union should be to establish a "fighting fund" from members, to help those who can demonstrate that they've lost work by refusing to accept unreasonable pay and conditions?
Sorry if any of that sounds harsh - I'm not militant by nature and don't mean to imply that anyone is acting/posting out of pure self-interest. Of course it would be to the benefit of all industry workers (and the discipline as a whole) to have better pay and conditions and this is clearly worth fighting for. It's just that it seems like someone has to suffer to achieve this and the assumption is that it's people like poppy (and possibly me in due course!) who should do the suffering. And at the moment, it's not coming across as an assumption so much as a demand.
It's the people at the bottom of the food chain (new starters, fresh graduates) who are going to have to put their collective foot down and go without work as a result of taking a stand. Presumably anyone already further on in their career may already have taken the "I'll do anything to dig" route to get where they are, and are safely past the point of being impacted (having that all-important commercial experience, a reputation as a good worker and some contacts). Presumably the low wage/poor conditions didn't spontaneously arise with the recession and they must have been deemed acceptable/tolerable for some time now?
If people had acted before now, then presumably we wouldn't be in this situation? I'm doing a lot of "presuming" - perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but feels rather like those who are unlikely to be impacted, are the ones demanding action from those who will. Perhaps the first act of a union should be to establish a "fighting fund" from members, to help those who can demonstrate that they've lost work by refusing to accept unreasonable pay and conditions?
Sorry if any of that sounds harsh - I'm not militant by nature and don't mean to imply that anyone is acting/posting out of pure self-interest. Of course it would be to the benefit of all industry workers (and the discipline as a whole) to have better pay and conditions and this is clearly worth fighting for. It's just that it seems like someone has to suffer to achieve this and the assumption is that it's people like poppy (and possibly me in due course!) who should do the suffering. And at the moment, it's not coming across as an assumption so much as a demand.