Which side are you on?

*Writer's note - This column is atypical from my usual satire. My editor requested a column with my thoughts on the local MGPI strike regarding satisfaction of life issues. I decided to publish it, in the hopes that it would provoke thought about unions and their worth.


It’s the eighth day of the MGP Ingredients union strike — have you chosen a side?

Regardless of the community’s size, a union strike will cause bandwagon jumpers. Such controversy almost always results in sides being chosen, whether resolute or on the fence.

In a community such as Atchison, it is likely difficult to find a person without some sort of connection to MGPI — be it a family member, friend or your cousin’s friend's brother's ex-girlfriend who works there.

With such overlapping ties, I’m curious to know, where do the residents of Atchison stand on UFCW No. 74D vs MGPI?

As in any policy-related issue, there are many factors to consider when deciding which entity to support.
First of all, do you support unionization?

The benefits and drawbacks of unions are many, and each side would argue those points to the bone.

Unions were organized for the sole purpose of protecting workers from insufficient pay, hours and working conditions.

That’s precisely what unions do through strikes — take a stand against policies and such that violate the workers’ expectations of employment.

Through unions, American workers have elevated the standard for workplace conditions — no longer must they work 18 hour days at $2 an hour in hazardous conditions.

However, some critics of unions think they’re monopolies in progress.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Milton Friedman argues that unionization results in higher wages and fewer jobs, point-blank.

He explains that as the price of labor rises, so does unemployment because businesses no longer seek to employ those whose work is worth less than the union’s set minimum wage.

Having my own contacts in the MGPI sector, I have heard time and time again that shifts are too long and overtime hours are typically unexpected but obligatory.

I find myself now asking, does MGPI need more employees? Can they not employ more because of this vicious linear parallel between union wages and their own budget?

Logically, one would deduce that more employees would spread out the burden, easing the long shifts and quelling overtime.

Union representative Chris Pruessner stated recently that MGPI has reduced its jobs, creating more overtime for its employees.

Is that a direct effect from the company’s being stonewalled by unions, causing higher wages for fewer workers?

Whether the situation has become a monopoly that MGPI can’t overcome, union workers have a right to resist their current conditions.

They are being asked to work additional hours. They can’t call in sick without being docked, they can’t go home early to tend to a sick child.

For a two-parent household where both work, that’s not an easy situation. For a one income
home, it’s nearly impossible.

Instead of multiple call-ins counting as one point on their record, every call counts as one point — it’s eye for an eye.

So the standoff continues, and the groups on each side of the strike seem unwilling to compromise.

Has the union backed itself into a corner? Or is MGPI being stingy, hiring fewer employees and working them like dogs, all while flying a glamorous money and benefits banner?

Before you decide which side you’re on, take the time to look at both sides. You might find that you’re not the only one picking out a good spot on the fence for the longhaul.
———————
Katy Blair, a Globe reporter and Effingham native, can be reached at 367-0583, Ext. 214, or at katyblair@npgco.com.