Vallejo factory staff on indefinite strike

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lathe Biosas**

Tamereth wrote:
I use their sun yellow spray, getting hold of it in the UK is a pain in the arse as it is. This is bad news for me.

This feels like a bad idea from the workers, the reduced output will mean reduced sales, which will increase the likely hood of the whole operation being shut down.

Or at least a reduced workforce.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

To be honest, if the current situation is the same as it is in France, they won't have the luxury to just go away.

As rightly said, the workers will go bankrupt well before the company does and it technically could just wait for the striking workers to be made to get back to work.

As far as I know, we would usually demand big from the company and make a few concessions so in the rmend you may reach a deal that seems good or at least successful to both parties.

Hope they'll make it- and that the company won't retaliate afterwards, which is often the case.

**SU-152**

Slipspace wrote:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Odd strike style.

It's actually a pretty good idea from the strikers. The big problem with striking is you lose pay for the hours you aren't working. If they went on indefinite full-time strike I suspect most of the workers would run out of money within two months, at the most, which gives the employer an obvious advantage in negotiations. By limiting their strike action they still get paid a decent percentage of their full wage but still have a noticeable effect on production.

I'm not the wisest man around, but before going on strike (even if partial - just some hours/day) I would make sure I have enough money for surviving way more than two months. In fact I think that not doing that is plainly stupid.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

If you had such luxury, again, you would possibly simply had left. Times are hard. In true firms, that is not in public services, as far as I am aware, people decide to strike as a last resort, when the situation is already really bad.

I don't know how Spain is fairing in term of employment right now though. But if you are in a situation close to ours, then you won't just jump off Vallejo and land into another firm that pays enough - especially not in December.

Being myself without a job at the moment due to bad economic situation, (and I'm a welder, so a usually sought after jobs, at least it was 3 months in the last). So I can pretty much relate to how hard that lay be and how you simply don't necessarily have got that luxury. You're being harsh.

**deano2099**

SU-152 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Odd strike style.

It's actually a pretty good idea from the strikers. The big problem with striking is you lose pay for the hours you aren't working. If they went on indefinite full-time strike I suspect most of the workers would run out of money within two months, at the most, which gives the employer an obvious advantage in negotiations. By limiting their strike action they still get paid a decent percentage of their full wage but still have a noticeable effect on production.

I'm not the wisest man around, but before going on strike (even if partial - just some hours/day) I would make sure I have enough money for surviving way more than two months. In fact I think that not doing that is plainly stupid.

Well yeah, and the reality is there's always some people who don't and so they continue to work and the strike has a much lessened effect. Which is why you get unions and collective bargaining in the first place. If you join the union, and the union votes to strike, even if you vote against, you still have to strike. Good unions will have hardship funds to help people out in just the situations you describe. But that's where the power of a union comes from.

**Overread**

SU-152 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Odd strike style.

It's actually a pretty good idea from the strikers. The big problem with striking is you lose pay for the hours you aren't working. If they went on indefinite full-time strike I suspect most of the workers would run out of money within two months, at the most, which gives the employer an obvious advantage in negotiations. By limiting their strike action they still get paid a decent percentage of their full wage but still have a noticeable effect on production.

I'm not the wisest man around, but before going on strike (even if partial - just some hours/day) I would make sure I have enough money for surviving way more than two months. In fact I think that not doing that is plainly stupid.

The thing is for people who are at the bottom of the payscale they are often not in a position to easily afford to do that. Indeed pay can be one of the reasons they are going on strike, because they can't afford to make savings and are stuck in the "living paycheque to paycheque" situation. Considering that working conditions and health and safety are other big aspects of them going on strike this further suggests that they simply can't leave and walk into another job; otherwise many of them likely already would have.

This isn't the time when you can "get fired in the morning and be hired in the afternoon". This is the "lose your job and spend the next 6 months sending out 100s of applications a day" era for many. Plus there's the issue of skills and training. If you've got niche market skills then moving jobs often means starting at the very absolute bottom once again and having to work your way up. Which gets increasingly harder the older you get and the more likely that you've got dependents on your income and where moving house isn't a quick "pack your 1 room of stuff up and move" affair.

**Albertorius**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Odd strike style.

If I was running the show and output could be maintained with 2 hours per day of strike action by staff I would then:

Give the 15% wage increase.
Then fire 20% of the staff or cut hours by 20%. Or just do not hire new staff until levels dropped by 20%.

Also clean the factory and add safety features.

Well, being in the EU, there's regulations that prevent that kind of firing or cutting hours without very good reasons (that you need to then demonstrate).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I don't know how Spain is fairing in term of employment right now though. But if you are in a situation close to ours, then you won't just jump off Vallejo and land into another firm that pays enough - especially not in December.

Unemployment rate of 11,76 % at the moment.

**GrosseSax**

I was recently reading an article about the whole Barnier crisis and happened to see post down in the comment section regarding French employment regulations that read:

Up to 8 weeks of holiday with 5 weeks of paid holiday, at least another two weeks off to compensate for the 35 hours per week paid 39. Practically free university. Universal Health care. Add to that at least a week of paid national holiday leave. There are entitlements to families at Christmas, back to school, vacation.

Is that accurate? If so, that seems like a very difficult environment to run a mid-sized business. Before anyone jumps down my throat, let me state that I am a supporter of organized labor, long time union member and as result enjoy VERY generous benefits (by American standards), but this seems kind of excessive.

I totally understand wanting safe working conditions and fighting for a fair wage/salary, but often sacrifices must be made in the latter to compensate for such generous employer provided benefits. Is the economic climate in France so dire that a 15% wage increase is a make or break for either Vallejo or it's employees?

**Commitz**

What are VERY generous benefits in the US? I accidentally clicked through to an american job ad once that listed 2 weeks paid holiday as a benefit and had a chuckle.

Spain is one of the poorer EU nations with a pretty bad job market in recent history and is also not France.
The 15% pay would probably be very beneficial to people, but it's also a negotiating tactic isn't it. You don't get a lot if you start at a modest request.

**kurhanik**

Commitz wrote:
What are VERY generous benefits in the US? I accidentally clicked through to an american job ad once that listed 2 weeks paid holiday as a benefit and had a chuckle.

A joke. Just as an example, where I work a full timer does not get any vacation till after 1 full year, after which they get 1 week. Then get a 2nd week of vacation at 2 years, a 3rd week at 6, and a 4th week at 12. They used to allow a 5th week at 20 years, for the people who stay with the company that long, but you know, can't have that! Also years working part time do not count towards your vacation years, and they only implemented a slapdash vacation thing for part timers in the past 2 or 3 years, and even that is only due to state regulations demanding it and they followed the absolute bare minimum for it.

For health care, I actually have what is considered very good insurance for the US - I pay about 20$/week, and while I forget the exact details I have about 500$ copay, and a max out of pocket of 1,000$, and it covers most things. Also vision and dental are separate, and dental insurance only really covers preventative measures. Mind you for my company its a combined 2$/week out of my paycheck for them, so still good.

Other companies however, often have far worse. I've had friends who put off much needed doctors visits solely because their insurance wouldn't cover it. And hell, I haven't (luckily) needed to use my insurance too much to stress test just how much it would cover and how much they would hem and haw over this and that.

**GrosseSax**

Commitz wrote:
What are VERY generous benefits in the US? I accidentally clicked through to an american job ad once that listed 2 weeks paid holiday as a benefit and had a chuckle.

Spain is one of the poorer EU nations with a pretty bad job market in recent history and is also not France.
The 15% pay would probably be very beneficial to people, but it's also a negotiating tactic isn't it. You don't get a lot if you start at a modest request.

My mistake. Disregard. I was reading the Frenchman's post above and for some reason thought this location was in France rather than Spain.

And yes, 2 weeks is pretty bare bones standard for new salaried employees in a lot of private industries across the US, sadly. Its been a longtime since I've looked so this may have changed.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

Interesting information about American labour market.

@grossesax save the free holiday leave I'm not aware of, the rest is more or less correct.

As no serious firm can hold to 35h and actually achieve anything,.you work often more but this goes towards bonus labour hours that you either get paid higher price or that they give you back, often when activity drops and they need to sent people home for a moment.

However, as the money has got to come from somewhere, the flip side of the coin is that taxation in France is extremely high. You pay extremely high bills and taxes to pump money into that social system. And they take loans. Lots of loans that taxes need to pay too.

Most of this tax effort, as far as I understand, fall on the small and mid sized business, effectively making It really hard to start one to boot and have it survive more than maybe 2 years to tell the tale once tax administration gets at your throat.

Besides, universal health care partially depends on salary income, so I for exemple can't get money back for glasses with a normal welder wage. You still need a solid private healthcare whose proces can ramp up quite fast as well. You pay by the month though, rather than the week.

As you see, some benefits as we work technically overpaid and have got a lot of paid holidays, but the maintaining afloat of these advantages is quite the burden as well for those who work or invest.

**Albertorius**

Some news:

Negotiation is still ongoing at a glacial pace: according to the workers unions, the company has made some "completely irrealistic" offers so far, and has just started fixing some of the mos glaring security issues only after being told to do so following working authority's inspections. The working conditions don't seem to be exactly the best, either:

The labor union representatives report that the company was acquired by an investment group about a year ago. Since then, it became impossible to reach any kind of agreement with the new management, either on health and safety issues or in relation to payroll. “They haven't even given us any of the information to which we are entitled as workers' representatives,” explains Pérez. The chairwoman of the workers' committee also claims that they have had to “sue over the productivity targets that they wanted to impose on us and which are unattainable.” The same has been the case regarding a protocol on psycho-social risks. “This protocol is not only obsolete, but is applied in a biased manner, going so far as to place a person subjected to bullying in the role of the guilty party”, argues Pérez.

CGT also denounce that “the investment group has neglected the facilities. Its state is so poor that it endangers the safety and health of the workforce. “ Ceiling plates fall off, rain pours down inside the factory and the machinery is in a deplorable state”, exemplifies Perez. According to the chairwoman of the workers' committee, there is no proper mess room or even showers, in spite of the fact that the company, as a chemical manufacturing company that works with ingredients to make paints, is required to have them. Moreover, there are many deficiencies that could lead to accidents. “ Also, the owner is trampling on our dignity as workers,” she adds.

According to the chairwoman of the committee, every slight advance in the repairs of the installations or the machinery is only made after a complaint to the Labor Inspectors. She explains that when they filed “the first complaint, the Inspection Office issued an edict requiring the employer to fix all the defects we had reported within seven days. We have had to file several more complaints due to the situation in which the facilities are still in”.

For those reasons, the workforce has started striking full days now (first days were december 11 and 12).

Spoiler:

They're still not doing a total strike yet, but they seem to be getting there. Apparently, they were able to build up a war chest for that eventuality, so hopefully they can keep up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commitz wrote:
What are VERY generous benefits in the US? I accidentally clicked through to an american job ad once that listed 2 weeks paid holiday as a benefit and had a chuckle.

Spain is one of the poorer EU nations with a pretty bad job market in recent history and is also not France.
The 15% pay would probably be very beneficial to people, but it's also a negotiating tactic isn't it. You don't get a lot if you start at a modest request.

That's... partially true ^^. Job market is indeed pretty abysmal, but Spain is the 4th biggest economy of the EU by GDP, only behind Germany, France and Italy.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

It sounds like not all the issues are down to the investment fund takeover, as i can't believe the factory has got into this state in only a year (or 2?), a lot of it has to be down to the original management

**Overread**

It depends - it might be the facilities are older and needed regular upkeep and the new owners just cut investing in upkeep. So that roof that drops a tile every other week suddenly becomes an issue because no one has replaced them for a few months and now the rains got into the machines.

But yeah it could also be that these are historical issues and that the new investment firm was hoped to come on board and be a big cash-injection to bring things up to standard. It could even be like when the germans bought springfield nuclear power-plant - a good investment that suddenly turns sour because they realise its not actually as up to standard as expected.

I do agree, some of these do sound like issues that have been around for a while.

**Greenfield**

deano2099 wrote:
SU-152 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Odd strike style.

It's actually a pretty good idea from the strikers. The big problem with striking is you lose pay for the hours you aren't working. If they went on indefinite full-time strike I suspect most of the workers would run out of money within two months, at the most, which gives the employer an obvious advantage in negotiations. By limiting their strike action they still get paid a decent percentage of their full wage but still have a noticeable effect on production.

I'm not the wisest man around, but before going on strike (even if partial - just some hours/day) I would make sure I have enough money for surviving way more than two months. In fact I think that not doing that is plainly stupid.

Well yeah, and the reality is there's always some people who don't and so they continue to work and the strike has a much lessened effect. Which is why you get unions and collective bargaining in the first place. If you join the union, and the union votes to strike, even if you vote against, you still have to strike. Good unions will have hardship funds to help people out in just the situations you describe. But that's where the power of a union comes from.

This is not true in the United Kingdom. No one is obliged to strike. An individual can be a member of a union which votes to strike, and the individual can still choose whether to observe the strike or not. No one can be forced to strike.

**Lathe Biosas**

I wonder if this is going to put an end to the company.

**StudentOfEtherium**

Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wonder if this is going to put an end to the company.

if it does, then good riddance. the company is the one with the power to stop this

**Matt of Jasoom**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
It sounds like not all the issues are down to the investment fund takeover, as i can't believe the factory has got into this state in only a year (or 2?), a lot of it has to be down to the original management

Especially after that mention of the lack of required showers. That sounds like a deficiency that's always been there.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

Or maybe make it ripe for someone to buy the brand? Or something?

**The_Real_Chris**

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Or maybe make it ripe for someone to buy the brand? Or something?

My suspicion is they don't mind if it fails, everyone loses jobs, manufacturing is offshored.

**Flinty**

It’s possible that the original owners were able to put the workforce off taking action for a while by saying that the sale of the company would release the investment money required to improve conditions. Company is sold and the new owners don’t care enough to make the promised investment. Workforce get even more justifiably grumpy, leading to action.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Or maybe make it ripe for someone to buy the brand? Or something?

My suspicion is they don't mind if it fails, everyone loses jobs, manufacturing is offshored.

Would suck hard for them.

**deano2099**

Greenfield wrote:
deano2099 wrote:
SU-152 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Odd strike style.

It's actually a pretty good idea from the strikers. The big problem with striking is you lose pay for the hours you aren't working. If they went on indefinite full-time strike I suspect most of the workers would run out of money within two months, at the most, which gives the employer an obvious advantage in negotiations. By limiting their strike action they still get paid a decent percentage of their full wage but still have a noticeable effect on production.

I'm not the wisest man around, but before going on strike (even if partial - just some hours/day) I would make sure I have enough money for surviving way more than two months. In fact I think that not doing that is plainly stupid.

Well yeah, and the reality is there's always some people who don't and so they continue to work and the strike has a much lessened effect. Which is why you get unions and collective bargaining in the first place. If you join the union, and the union votes to strike, even if you vote against, you still have to strike. Good unions will have hardship funds to help people out in just the situations you describe. But that's where the power of a union comes from.

This is not true in the United Kingdom. No one is obliged to strike. An individual can be a member of a union which votes to strike, and the individual can still choose whether to observe the strike or not. No one can be forced to strike.

Maybe not legally, but morally you have that obligation if you join an organisation that employs strikes as part of its collective bargaining power. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

**Lathe Biosas**

That's why in America, line crossers and scabs are so beloved in our stories and culture....

**beast_gts**

From Reddit:

Vallejo Paints Social Situation
News
Hello,

I've been authorized to post about this by a moderator, I won't say who for respect reasons.

The subject of this post is how Vallejo Paints employees are being mistreated and exposed to dangerous working conditions.

Here is a link below where you can see the workers on strike. Some of the people that understand spanish? better could give you a rundown in the comments of this post if they so wish (about the video).

https://www.polygon.com/news/490371/acrylicos-vallejo-strike-hobby-paint-manufacturer

Note that no matter what you decide to do be respectful, if only for your own sake.

If you send any message to the company itself, please do so knowing they could very well put in place a filter, I'm not telling you to do so but just so you don't waste precious time, find manners to say it or use different contact methods.

Thank you kindly and if need be I'll change this post.

**Slipspace**

deano2099 wrote:

Maybe not legally, but morally you have that obligation if you join an organisation that employs strikes as part of its collective bargaining power. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

Not really. There are a multitude of reasons someone may not want to strike, from financial to ethical to simply not agreeing with the reason for the strike action. Anybody striking should respect those reasons. Each individual needs to make their own decision about whether to support strike action. The point of unions is organising people to try to create a critical mass and central point of organisation, not to force members to take actions they don't want to.

**Patriarch**

Slipspace wrote:
deano2099 wrote:

Maybe not legally, but morally you have that obligation if you join an organisation that employs strikes as part of its collective bargaining power. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

Not really. There are a multitude of reasons someone may not want to strike, from financial to ethical to simply not agreeing with the reason for the strike action. Anybody striking should respect those reasons. Each individual needs to make their own decision about whether to support strike action. The point of unions is organising people to try to create a critical mass and central point of organisation, not to force members to take actions they don't want to.

Strongly disagree: you are in a union to share in the collective benefits of their negotiating power, not let your fellows make all the sacrifices whilst you get to carry on working for "financial" reasons. You disagree strongly enough with the union to ignore a strike, leave the union and give up on the benefits it offers. Morally of course; no doubt legally it's very different.

I'm neither Spanish or in a union, but morally I won't buy Vallejo products (what tiny difference that makes) until this is resolved.

**Overread**

Patriarch wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
deano2099 wrote:

Maybe not legally, but morally you have that obligation if you join an organisation that employs strikes as part of its collective bargaining power. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

Not really. There are a multitude of reasons someone may not want to strike, from financial to ethical to simply not agreeing with the reason for the strike action. Anybody striking should respect those reasons. Each individual needs to make their own decision about whether to support strike action. The point of unions is organising people to try to create a critical mass and central point of organisation, not to force members to take actions they don't want to.

Strongly disagree: you are in a union to share in the collective benefits of their negotiating power, not let your fellows make all the sacrifices whilst you get to carry on working for "financial" reasons. You disagree strongly enough with the union to ignore a strike, leave the union and give up on the benefits it offers. Morally of course; no doubt legally it's very different.

You phrase that like someone who has a comfortable savings and isn't living paycheque to paycheque with dependents in rented accommodation.

Some people really don't have a choice - if they lose their income they are sunk. They can't last a month or two and might have to rely on "payday loans"*. So even IF they agree with the Union's actions, they might have no choice in the matter when it comes to if they can afford to sacrifice their income to stand with the union in strike action.

Furthermore joining the Union for a greater negotiating power doesn't mean that you give up your right to independent thought and attitudes. Legally and morally you should be free to agree with or disagree with the Union.

Now in reality Unions often end up pushing for a "them and us" approach which can result in social pressure even if you have legal right to not have to strike with the rest. So things can get all kinds of ugly

*which are insanely risky

**kilcin**

In the union I was a part of, we took care of our own. A good union builds up a war chest for those people that are living paycheck to paycheck so they don't suffer any major financial loss if they choose to stand with the union and strike. We're most likely striking so those people that are living paycheck to paycheck get better pay and benefits so they don't have to live that way and be able to build up a savings as well as provide opportunities to take personal finance classes.