Unions Urging Actors Not To Work On Hobbit Movie 576
lbalbalba writes "Last we heard about The Hobbit, Guillermo Del Toro dropped out, Peter Jackson was unofficially directing and secretly auditioning actors, the movie had yet to be green-lit, and Ian McKellen was getting super-antsy about the whole thing and threatening not to play Gandalf. This shouldn't help the long-gestating movie happen any quicker: Actors guilds including SAG issued actual alerts yesterday against working on any of the Hobbit films, advising their members not to take parts in the non-union production, should they be offered them."
The guilds are even dumber (Score:5, Interesting)
They have some really stupid restrictions. Take Sin City for example. Frank Miller was very unwilling to have any more of his work turned in to a movie, because he'd been badly screwed over by Hollywood. Robert Rodriguez figured he would win Miller over and in fact did. So they started work on the movie. Rodriguez felt that Miller did so much in directing the film that he was an equal, not an assistant director, but another director. However the Director's Guild doesn't allow that. All films have one and only one director. There can be assistants, but only one director. In the end, Rodriguez left the DGA so that Miller could have director credit. Because of that, he lost his position as director on another film.
The guilds in Hollywood are in every way as corrupt and stupid as the studios themselves.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:First Union? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The guilds are even dumber (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Interesting)
The SAG is different from most labor unions in that they represent workers who are paid for creative output rather than pure labor. It is in an actor's best interest not to slack off and put in a mediocre performance because their future employment prospects are dependent on their portfolio of (hopefully quality) work. This isn't how things work out in unions representing menial laborers.
There was a recent Daily Show where the UFCW was picketing a Wal-Mart for their anti-union practices. The catch is that the picketers were non-union temp workers paid minimum wage to represent the union's cause without any of the benefits. They even had their hours reduced because the union member who supplied the signs had limited time available. This is the sort of bullshit most unions create. They are just out to justify their own existence and keep their members secure in the knowledge that they are protected for slacking off and obstructing efficiency.
Collective bargaining is a powerful tool to uplift the exploited, but as with all forms of power it is all to easily abused and usually is.
That is often not an option (Score:5, Interesting)
In some cases, the unions simply have enough force. Part of their "collective bargaining" is to bargain that nobody gets to hire non-union employees. So even though there may be no real legal prevention, there is effective prevention. Join or you get no work in that field. In other places, there is legal protection. In non "right to work" states if a given field is unionized, membership is non-optional. You work in that field, you MUST join the union by law. You get situations like where the UAW is forcing independent daycare providers to pay dues. See the UAW represents daycare workers in that state, and membership is non-optional. So they are forcing it even on people who are working for themselves, and thus a situation where a union has no relevance. See: http://current.com/news/92664102_day-care-workers-are-now-uaw-workers.htm [current.com].
All of this is just the legal reasons who joining unions is often non-optional. There are also less savory cases of intimidation and violence.
They also work hard to keep it that way. For example right now there's a measure coming up on the ballot here to force all union votes to be secret ballot. Just like actual election votes, and most other votes, the identity of people voting would be protected, you wouldn't know who voted what way. The unions are fighting it extremely hard. Now why would they do that? What reason is there to not want a secret ballot? That system is well established.
The reason, of course, is pressure. If you know how people voted, you can pressure them to vote the way you want. That's the whole reason we use secret ballots in political elections is so that can't happen. However the unions are concerned if it happened, people could vote to disband the union and they'd not be able to pressure them out of it.
If it was just as simple as "Don't join if you don't wanna," it wouldn't be nearly such a big deal. However it isn't.
In the US it varies (Score:5, Interesting)
Some states allow for that kind of thing. "Right to work states," have less employee protections in general (you are usually at will) but also less union protection. You can work a job that has a union, but not be a member and all that. However a number of states, in particular those with big unions with lots of power, are not that way. You are required to join the union that represents you, like it or no, if you work in a given field.
In some cases it is technically legal not to be a member but impossible as a practicality because the union forces places not to hire non-union workers.
This is part of the reason why you see so much ill will towards unions from some in the US. Many of them, in particular the larger ones, have a "Our way or the highway," situation. If you work in an industry they control, you have to be a member and play by their rules. That leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many.
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is, if you don't have the bargaining power to defend these, you don't have them for long. And the chances are that you don't have it, no matter what delusions of grandeur about your own prowess you might harbour.
Re:Union Shop/Closed Shop. (Score:3, Interesting)
But actually, the theatre and broadcasting unions, by virtue of the fact that they'll use their power to walk out if someone hires non-union staff create the equivalent of a closed shop. Try and get a job on the West End stage without an Equity card.
Of course, the effect of unions in the US is that a lot of productions are done elsewhere. Tarantino shot most of Kill Bill in China. The crew worked 6 days a week rather then 5 (so production could be quicker) and the crew cost was about half of the US.
Re:First Union? (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm not sure what you are complaining about here... this is normal for many regulated industries, for a particular definition of "local"."
He's referring to the local chapter of the union. If you live in area X and you need a certain type of work done, you have to either get nonunion labor or get one from the local union chapter. The guy in the next town over in a different chapter is not an option.
"Well, if you won't deal with them, why should they deal with you?"
It's a union solidarity thing he's talking about here. Where if you don't use a union guy from the local chapter for job X, unions for jobs X, Y and Z will ban their members from working for you. I'm sorry you tried to hire a contractor from the next city over, in return you can't get a plumber or electrician to work for you at all.
"Do you want employers and employees to be forced to accept any particular worker? What exactly are you proposing?"
You don't get the concept of a "union shop." It's a shop where the shop unionized and the standard union contract requires that all workers be members of the union in order to be employed. For example, there are ~50 employees at my workplace. If 26 of them vote to unionize, then all 50 are now required to be dues-paying members of the union, as being a member of the union in good standing is now a requirement to be an employee. Many/most of the big unions have a similar clause that they ensure is part of the new contract, because it guarantees them higher dues than would be otherwise garnered.
I have a feeling you're from a country that wisely decided to neuter union powers early on, rather than allow the pathology that comes with an organization that produces nothing, holds significant political influence, and ultimately controls the livelyhoods of a large number of people.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am an AEA member (the stage actor's union) which means I can join SAG if I want. But my point is the same for both unions.
We do not need more collective bargaining. Both SAG and AEA spend a truckload on things like lobbying for health care. You should have seen our newsletters when congress was debating it -- first it was 'call your congressman and support this bill!' And then when it seemed like the 'Cadillac' plans would be taxed, it was 'call your congressman and fight this bill!'
As a professional actor you do not have a choice when it comes to joining the unions. If you just act on the side then there are plenty of non-union stage jobs at dinner theaters and that sort of thing, and some professional tours every now and then (though the unions have pretty much successfully unionized these). When I got my first professional stage job, I forked over about 1/5 of what I was going to make over the 4 months of the tour for the $1400 initiation fee (and then paid a couple percentage points out of my pay check each week). You can't choose not to do it.
Having said that, the acting unions, like most unions, perform a number of great functions. Before they existed, you couldn't make a respectable living as an actor -- now you can but it's just very hard (which is probably always going to be the case). There are lots of really helpful people who do things like go over all the time sheets because your stage manager didn't keep track of the hours you spent driving / assembling the show / acting the show, and you get a check in the mail 3 months after the fact because your union is looking out for you. They also help you with taxes and do a lot of fairly simple 'here's how the business works' type programs for new actors.
But like most unions, they never ever give anything up that they've won in past negotiations. Before, the producers controlled the business; now the unions do, though of course they wouldn't put it that way. What's happened is that there's now a huge divide between the very small (99 or fewer) seat theaters and the 'professional' ones where they have to do everything according to union rules -- that means actor's union, the electricians' union, the stagehands' union ... because the unions stick together and if you get one on board, then you get 'em all. It's very, very difficult to make money running a theater, and as a consequence most bigger theaters won't produce anything unless it's a big hit show. So lots of fad musicals and less original drama. To some extent that's how the business would be anyway, union or not, but it's exacerbated by how expensive running an AEA theater is.
Compared to groups like the SEIU, the entertainment unions are pretty tame, and as I hope I've made clear, I'm grateful for what my union has done for me -- but if I could, I'd tear them all apart and start from scratch, because we have the same big, bloated, self-serving unions just grabbing for the biggest piece of pie they can (an actual headline from Equity News last year: 'How AEA Will Get a Piece of the Stimulus Pie,' as if actors needed federal stimulus money!) in the same fashion that big business used to do it before the unions. No union leader stops and asks 'just because I CAN do this or demand that, should I?'
It's all just a matter of degrees.
New definition of unions (Score:1, Interesting)
Economic Terrorists...
"You works for the Hobbit, youse gonna feel da pain..."
Re:Are There Actual Peter Jackson...Fans??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That is often not an option (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason, of course, is pressure. If you know how people voted, you can pressure them to vote the way you want. That's the whole reason we use secret ballots in political elections is so that can't happen. However the unions are concerned if it happened, people could vote to disband the union and they'd not be able to pressure them out of it.
If it was just as simple as "Don't join if you don't wanna," it wouldn't be nearly such a big deal. However it isn't.
Pressure. Yeah. A brick through the windows or an "anonymous" phone call that says your kid will be coming home in a coffin if they go to school tomorrow because you pissed off the labor union in some fashion. That is if you are lucky and they're just being stupid.
The "pressure" that labor unions exert is usually far and away more than just rhetoric. I've seen the National Guard get called out simply to maintain order when a strike happens because the police didn't have the "tools" to keep the union under control.
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:3, Interesting)
They compete with companies who are non-union, and build their cars right in America, like Toyota.
The NUMMI Fremont Toyota plant that just closed down recently was union-based. In fact, the first thing that Toyota did when it purchased the plant from Ford, was to re-hire all the Union organizers and troublemakers that Ford had purged, then fly them to Japan so that they would work in the Japanese plants themselves, and fly them back to their original plant so that they would become its new leadership.
The reasoning of Toyota's management was that there was no way in hell that they could gain the trust of all the American workers at their new plant in such a short period of time, that's why they turned to the supposed troublemakers that Ford had labeled as such, because by virtue of being the troublemakers/union organizers, those folks had already demonstrated the requisite leadership abilities and already gained the trust of their co-workers.
And if you want to look for a simpler explanation of the difference between American and Japanese companies. Look no further to how Toyota's executives are being compensated. Even thought their company is freaking huge, their executive compensation system is much-much saner in my opinion. It's not only much smaller, but it's also based on a much more longer-term view of the market. It actually makes way too much sense if you ask me.
Re:Unions (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm the president of a union that was formed because we work for a prefectural government in Japan that has found a way to work around the immigration laws and hire people on a permanently temporary basis. Trust me, unions can serve a very important service when used correctly. They would have never come into being if somebody else wasn't already being a total douchebag.
Re:First Union? (Score:3, Interesting)
The last place I worked was a "union shop" - Oak Ridage National Labs. So, let me tell you why I have an obviously irrational dislike of unions.
So, you have an Ethernet card go bad (back when they were not integrated into the mother boards). You had to deal with the Teamsters, Electricians, and the carpenters to get it changed. Only the teamsters can move things. Typically speaking your computer isn't where everything can be taken off so if that monitor needs moved or the box needs moved around to get access to it then you have the have the teamsters do it. Next only electricians are allowed to plug/unplug wires and you cards. Lastly carpenters are the only ones that can take a screw out or put it in. Further you always get a minimum of two workers at a minimum of an hour each. You can't schedule them all at one time (after all they are busy people and no one knows when they will get to you) so you have to do each one, wait until the finish, and schedule another. If you are a high enough in the corporate hierarchy you can get several at a time - but it costs you.
So, now back to the dead card - you need to first call the teamsters in to move your monitor and/or box. Next the electricians have to come over and unplug the unit. Then you get the carpenters to come out to take the screws out of the back of the machine. Now back to the teamsters to take the case off (it is moving it). Then the carpenters come back out and take the screws out that are holding you card in place. Then the electricians have to back called in to change the card out. Now we do the whole things in reverse - carpenters to put the screws back in, teamsters to put the case back on, carpenters to put those screws in, electricians to plug the computer back up, and the teamsters to move it back into place.
If you violate any of that and do it yourself (and get caught) it is one of only two things that are immediate termination (the other - for reasons beyond me - were to sleep while on the premises no matter how long you had been there). And people *did* get fired over it - even full staff scientists got removed for it from time to time. Indeed, you *would* (not could) get a grievance filed for simply having a screwdriver (leathermans were a touchy subject too), and that pretty much always resulted in a hefty fine to your project.
There are some ways around it - for example service contracts with outside companies for equipment, those outside companies get to service their own equipment - but do that in more than just a few cases and the unions will not only be ultra strict but will also take days to get to any request you have (as I said they are busy people so one can't expect them to be at your beck and call). The other is to realize that they are also strict about their working hours - so wait until they go home, close your door and lock it, and replace the part yourself. However you can't do the latter if you do not know how (for example the secretaries rarely know how to tear a computer apart and no one asks someone else to do something that could potentially get both people fired), if the part is tagged as inventory and tracked by their asset management software, or if you are unlucky enough to be in an open space that can't be closed and locked.
I'm going to assume that you do not find the above "sane" - I certainly didn't. Lots of good science goes on there despite a great deal of that type of crap (most simply risk their jobs, we all certainly did). If you *do* find that sane then I'm actually offended that you may find me "otherwise sane". Unions in the US have spiraled out of control over the last few decades. Having never worked in the UK I can't say how it is there - I can say the above isn't that strange for unionized labor pools in the US and there are quite a few places that are worse. If the people are "otherwise sane" then it may behoove you to *ask* why they have the anti-union attitude - they may very well have a sane reasons for that one too.
small business ftw (Score:3, Interesting)
There are 29.6 million small businesses in the United States. 70% of all jobs created in the past 10 years were due to small business. More than half of the non-farming US GDP is from small businesses. And this percentage can easily change. Think of all of the Japanese mega-corporations and all of the office workers working for huge faceless corporations. 90% of Japanese are, in fact, employed by small businesses.
The evil super-rich who own the means of production and all the wealth on the planet represent not even a fraction of all of the businesses and not much of the jobs that are out there. People only remember the truck driver that ran them off the road, never the tens of thousands of truck drivers that changed lanes for you.
If unions are to be organized, let them be organized and protected like they are in Japan -- on a per-company, per organization basis. Under no circumstances should there be an "auto workers union", or a "teachers union", or an "actors union". Perhaps there could be a "Ford union", a "Southern Ohio District Teachers Union", or a "Paramount Pictures Actors Union". And different unions could talk to each other to compare their conditions.
But as it stands, unions are too large to accurately represent anyone, they are literally bursting at the seams with corruption, they have zero checks and balances, you are forced to join the union for most union jobs (unless you your administration to be pressured by the union to fire you or you like working 2 hours per week), they destroy companies or at the very least make them extremely uncompetitive from their often ridiculous demands, and most of their assets are private and completely unscrutinizable (unless you like be demonized by unions).
Re:First Union? (Score:3, Interesting)
That seems to be the general opionion of Americans, however if you care to look up the US dept. of labour figures [dol-esa.gov] you find that out of 1159 unions, one has more that $100M in reciepts, about a dozen or so have reciepts in the tens of millions and the other 1100+ unions all have recipts of less that $10M (most less than $1M). The average US CEO makes $8.5M which going by the link is considerably more money than the entire revenue of most unions.
Re:One does not... (Score:3, Interesting)
From where I'm sitting (far away in Europe, I admit), the difference between Democrats and Republicans is mainly that, while they're both authoritarian and repressive, they disagree on the issues on which they should be authoritarian and repressive. Democrat ideals do seem slightly more in line with the way things are usually done in many European countries, but they really suck at how to implement those ideas.
Mind you, I think many European countries are also way too authoritarian and restrictive. But I'm a flaming left-wing libertarian.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Interesting)
And how do you "get a new union" when the current union has a legal contract saying that the employer is not allowed to hire anyone in your line of work who isn't a member of that current union?
Have that contract declared illegal. Many countries have anti-cartel laws.
Re:One does not... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, Americans seem to not want to vote for actual conservatives either, which is why Democrats have held majorities in the House for most of the time that the parties have had their current political alignment. This is also why there's so much mistrust of the Tea Party movement. (Well, that and the liberal media.)
This leads to the thoroughly confusing situation where apparently the most electable person is a liberal who claims to be a conservative. What the hell, America?
Re:One does not... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:3, Interesting)
The observation is that 19th century has increased quality of life of people in industrial countries, as they were able to move away from agrarian economies towards industrial economies as a byproduct of capitalist system, which allowed use of capital and labor to increase production capacity and efficiency and eventually increased everybody's quality of life, this observation is objective, it's not subjective.
In the beginning of 19th century, in the USA people were using outhouses, they didn't have running water in their homes, they didn't have machinery that helped them, the food was much more expensive, they clothes were more expensive, etc.
By the end of 19th century people had in house sanitary amenities, clean water, the food was much less expensive and much more accessible, so was clothing, people had sewing machines and washing machines, this is an objective observation and government only had to do with it this: it was there to protect individual liberties of people, not to take away their rights and not to provide special privileges to special interests.
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also I wanted to add something, which I had said in various other comments, but forgot in my response to you, that the banks were lending risk free (gov't guaranteed) mortgages to all sort of people who weren't going to pay back (banks knew they weren't going to pay back, that's who for example Goldman could package deals it factually knew were going to go bust and then bet against those deals) but where did the banks get all that money?
The Fed gave them the money. It was basically interest free money, something on the order of 1%-0%. The Fed gave the banks FREE MONEY while removing risk from lending the money out.
Think about this before you accuse Wall street of being the devil. Sure, they took advantage of this situation, but seriously, only a brain dead idiot wouldn't. This is the Government in action for you.
Re:One does not... (Score:3, Interesting)
Back when I was a member of a radical left group, I remember talking to a woman from (I think) Sweden, who told me she supported the right-of-center party in her native country. I had just come back from an organizing meeting for an anti-death penalty group, and she was appalled the US had the death penalty. I ran through the major issues our group was working on at the time, and she agreed with all of them, with the notable exception of our long-term goal of a social revolution. (And come to think of it, that's the subject on which I've most changed my political views since then, anyway).
One thing that irritates me about most of the US left is that many members are exceedingly paranoid about admitting their actual political beliefs. On a lot of occasions, I'd talk to several people, each whispering that she or he is really a socialist, but doesn't want anyone else to know, for fear of being politically ostracized. And these people would be standing right next to each other. There's a real, longstanding problem with cowardice in the US left.
Re:One does not... (Score:3, Interesting)
The McCarthy period was a long time ago. Most people who were in the radical left in the 60s in the US didn't even suffer mild embarassment. Most of the people I'm talking about were only children in the 60s, and not even born in the McCarthy period. Furthermore, the people I'm talking about are mostly best described as social democrats -- what in Europe is understood to be the moderate left.
I wouldn't be inclined to point out that I'm a socialist during a job interview, and I certainly don't want to mention that I support labor unions to an employer. I've known a few economics grad students who went through contortions to avoid directly referring to Marx, and there are doubtless a handful of other professions that are so dominated by the right wing that it would trouble one's career to admit being a socialist. But aside from that, I don't think open socialists in the US have more to worry about than raised eyebrows, and even that's not as common as people seem to think.
Furthermore, even before McCarthyism, the US Communist Party was criticized by other parts of Comintern for having its members go "underground" with little justification. During McCarthyism, CP members made things worse by denying their politics, then being shown to be liars, thus confirming one of the McCarthyite accusations and reducing the potential for public sympathy. On top of that, they left the few people who stood up at first to HUAC exposed and vulnerable.
There are lessons to be learned from the Gay Rights movement and "coming out."
I remember Noam Chomsky, in a lecture, commenting that in the US, people avoided taking political action because they feared even the possibility of persecution, whereas in Latin America, leftists assume they will be persecuted, and take action anyway.