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."
One does not... (Score:5, Funny)
simply walk into an audition.
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One does not... (Score:4, Funny)
I likes 'em raw.
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Insightful)
is that everyone must have a union contract.
in NZ it must be an Opt-in collective, it cannot be compulsory. however that is exactly what SAG, FIA, et al are trying to force.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A big issue here in NZ is that it is illegal to force people into unions, and what the SAG and the other unions are trying to force,
is that everyone must have a union contract.
in NZ it must be an Opt-in collective, it cannot be compulsory. however that is exactly what SAG, FIA, et al are trying to force.
That's what unions do....they are trying to sneak through laws here in the USA to make union membership compulsory....they can't get people to join of their own free will to pay the dues that keep the fat cat union bosses and the contributions to the Demo party.
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one should be compelled to be a member of a union as a condition of employment.
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Informative)
A handy guide for the US:
"Liberal" in the US means "Democrat", which, as was elegantly stated before by Boberfett, refers to an authoritarian leftist. Democrats are notoriously pro-union, and unions are as important to Democrats as hard-line Christians are to Republicans.
"Right-winger" or "The Right" (you can usually add condescending sub-human remarks of any amount to that) are what the Left refers to the Right as, which is are basically authoritarian rightists.
A Centrist, or an Undecided Voter, is what the rest of us are -- typically socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The resounding problem with the US two-party system is that Republicans have to go insane rightist to win their primaries, and Democrats have to go insane leftist to win their primaries. In the end, the "undecided" voters usually have to weigh which they prefer -- social responsibility of some of the Democrats, or fiscal responsibility of some of the Republicans (note: not all Republicans are Christ-warriors, and not all Democrats are authoritarian-socialist nut jobs. In fact, most aren't.). Fortunately, the entire country is moving more centrist -- partly by necessity, but also partly because IMO, most of the country is more center than they are left or right (leftwingers have to face the reality that their utopian visions can't be funded realistically, and rightwingers face the reality that free market with no regulation results in the glory of Wall St.!).
On that note, most of this crap occurs with national-level politics. The national politicians always try to stir up partisanism and nationalism -- usually successfully. Most local races, and some state races, are remarkably level-headed.
Lots of internal reforms are also going on that a foreign observer might not notice: the economy is the elephant in the room, but there's a big freedom of speech and religion battle (i.e., NY mosque) that will force the US to become a little more liberal on the religion front; education reform is getting pretty big (78% or so give US public schools a "C" or "D" grade); immigration reform keeps coming up and is unavoidable (bring us your huddled masses longing to be free?); increasing attention is being brought to ailing infrastructure, and there are calls for "rebuilding America"; more and more people are paying attention on the energy and technology front as the US tries to become greener, and the national broadband plan; US products are getting a little better (e.g., Ford, Chevy) as people have grown increasingly tired of shit-tier products and we're trying to double our exports; we're trying to get along better with our neighbors and act more responsibly as a mediator in the world (instead of micromanaging it brutishly); and, most importantly, the vast majority of the US population is extremely fed-up with the federal government -- both parties -- which will hopefully force things to become more sane and responsible.
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] and Democrats have to go insane leftist to win their primaries.
Helpful note for people in the rest of the Western world: "insane leftist" in the USA means "slightly right of center" for you.
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but the Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative since before Regan started the deficit ramp up. Calling the last Republican administration's policy 'fiscally conservative' is laughable. More like 'bat shit insane'. Long ago the Republican's were fiscally conservative, and I agreed with most of their fiscal policies. That was long, long ago.
Re:One does not... (Score:5, Insightful)
How so? They're urging current members not to work on the film because the producers have opted not to meet union conditions. This is the only power the SAG actually has, and it is otherwise a complete waste of everybody's time.
They have not, and cannot, force the film to use union actors or meet union conditions, nor can they force people to join their union, nor can they prevent union members from participating (they could, in theory, expel any members who do... but that is fairly unlikely, and doesn't keep them from doing the project regardless).
For all the anti-union rhetoric and sentiment out there, at least in the US, union membership has steadily and dramatically declined during the past 30 years. The combined annual budget of all unions is substantially lower than each of the lobbying budgets for most of the Fortune 100 (ie. Wal-Mart spends more on lobbying than the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, SAG, etc. COMBINED spend on everything). They are particularly powerful, they are not particularly wealthy, they are not particularly abusive, and they certainly aren't scary enough to warrant all of the fear people have of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, irta. Still not enough info about what's really going on demand wise, but it sounds like a shill for money and controlling who they hire, but I honestly got lost in all the stupid acronyms and attempts to avoid rea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bah. While there's no doubt that, at one point, unions served a vital purpose in protecting workers from abuse, nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost. Paid for by the protection racket^H^H^H^union dues and ultimately by the consumer.
Thank you, no.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost
Unions are paid directly by their membership, or in certain legislated instances, directly by those they represent in contract negotiations.
The only "middle-man" cost to a union is the wages that workers receive when they bargain collectively. To argue that this is an "increased" cost, you need to refute the union's basic premise -- that collective bargaining brings about a "fair" wage.
While you're about it, please include an example where everyone having to haggle for the cost of a head of lettuce is also "fair", please.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not saying its all bad, group bargaining is important. But often the union organizers are in it for themselves rather then the members.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
But often the union organizers are in it for themselves rather then the members.
If that's the case, then you need to get a new union. Immediately.
My mother was one of the founders of the nurses union at the hospital where she works. Prior to unionizing, wages sucked. Working conditions sucked. Nurses were harassed by doctors, and fired if they complained. Nurses were told that if the equipment to lift an overweight patient onto another bed wasn't available, just lift them up yourself. Led to a lot of back problems with the nurses - but if they didn't do it, they'd be fired. When the movement to unionize started, the hospital hired private detectives to follow some of the organizing nurses. For a few days there was a detective parked outside of our house, 24/7 watching our family.
Now: wages are a lot better. Nurses aren't required to injure themselves. When doctors occasionally start screaming and swearing at a nurse, the nurse can complain without being fired - or just pull out their cellphone and say 'keep talking, I'm recording this' - that tends to solve the issue. Prior to the union, any nurse with the courage to do that would have been fired. And in general, relations between the nurses and management is a _lot_ better now. It was a bit strained at first, but it's improved immensely.
Of course, I'm not going to say that _all_ unions are _always_ good - there was this English teacher in my highschool for example who essentially decided she just wasn't going to teach anymore. We watched probably 10+ movies in her class, and did several huge assignments that just never got graded - a few more that never even got turned in. She was late nearly every day, and didn't even show up at least 5 days out of every month. At the end of the year she did "resign", but the rumor was that she would have been fired _much_ sooner, but she had tenure, and the union made it incredibly difficult to fire even teachers who were blatantly just not doing their jobs.
In my opinion, unions are generally good. Union organizers are generally good. But as with anything else, if they become too powerful, you will have problems. But then, without a union all that power belongs to the employer, which isn't a good situation either.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Unions, churches, political parties... They start out because people have a vision of what they want to accomplish, but within a generation or so they exist to preserve and/or advance their own temporal power, and that means finding ways to keep people under their control.
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:First Union? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And there have been times when crossing a picket line, especially if you were a union member, would get you shot, or beat up, or your home torched. So it wasn't exactly optional.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Informative)
You are forced to join unions and pay money to them even if you don't like what they are doing - otherwise you aren't allowed to work due to union agreements that essentially enforce a monopoly for the workforce.
You also can't start a competing union with a premise of making more effective agreements (i.e., scrapping seniority requirements for promotion which hamper talented youngsters) and charging less of worker's salaries in union fees - since the old union would force the employer to choose between only them and only you, and you can't replace an entire company worth of workforce overnight; where there are multiple competing unions, it's only due to historic basis, they are consolidating much more than the employer megacorps.
So much for your freedom to organize yourself freely. If you dislike policies that favor the old union guys (pay increases limited to seniority, instead of job quality; unqualified coworkers not pulling their weight, where nobody can get rid of them, etc), then well, you can suck it up, there is nowhere you can go. If you are stuck with a few corrupt or simply lazy guys at the union top, then you are *really* stuck with them and not much you can do, but keep paying them.
If you have a bad boss, you can switch to a different job or branch; If you dislike employer policies, you can switch employers - it's a huge pain in the ass, but switching your industry to get to a different union is not so easy - so you just keep paying part of your salary as a tax to guys you hate and policies you don't accept. (well, some similarities to the government there).
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.
Re: (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 und
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions still serve the same role they ever did. It's an important role.
It may impose cost, but whatever costs it imposes are the other side of keeping it being a reasonable and workable thing to be an actor.
In modern times, we don't need less collective bargaining, we need more. If, for example, medical interns had a union to prevent 16-hour shifts, I imagine we could agree that to be a step forward. Cost to consumer is not the only thing worth optimising in society, and harmful competition still exists.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely disagree.
Collective bargaining encourage mediocre performance. It rewards people who should lose their jobs because they perform below the average, and it creates an incentive for the above average performers to lower their performance to the average, because they're not going to receive any rewards for standing out. There is a downward trend in performance and productivity, yet the union typically wants more pay for that reduced productivity.
I'd much rather see people rewarded on their merits. I
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Informative)
There is a downward trend in performance and productivity, yet the union typically wants more pay for that reduced productivity.
You're full of shit. Productivity has been going UP, not down, for the last 50 years or so. At some point, wages stopped keeping up. That's what you get for your union hostility.
But don't worry, we're fighting our collective asses off for you, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In modern times, we don't need less collective bargaining, we need more.
I disagree. We neither need more, nor less unions. It is not up to me to determine your working conditions any more than it is up to you to determine mine. If we work in the same field then we may agree that conditions need changing for both of us, but that it is up to us to agree to collectively fight for each other.
More often than not, businesses unintentionally encourage unionization. These days it often begins with the workers attempting to organize a sick-out or other "hey, we arent happy so we are
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:The guilds are even dumber (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The guilds are even dumber (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess "their" is the key word, as they weren't interested in actually representing how the movie was made, but by who was actually paying the guild their dues. Seems like it really is all about the "money-men" still.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The guilds are even dumber (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why rules need to be flexible, and when all parties can come to mutually agreed upon alternative contracts then they should have the ability to waive them.
The rules are flexible. The guild can offer waivers. The Guild often DOES issue waivers.
In this instance the Guild rejected Rodriguez's argument that Frank Miller did enough to be worthy of a directing credit. If you can demonstrate that you're a legitimate directing team working collaboratively they will grant directing credits.
99% of the time this rule protects its guild members. Issuing waivers whenever the director "asks" for it would be the same as removing the rule. "Would you like to direct Lord of the Rings?" "You bet!" "Ok here's the deal though, if you do it, I'm going to be co-director and I want you to ask for a waiver." "Ok, I guess, if it gets me to direct LOTR!"
In no time flat the Directing credit would be going to every moneybag who showed up to set one day and made an offhand remark.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah that is why CEO pay is now 300x the average worker versus 30x. The problem with the American Dream is everyone thinks one day they will be rich, so lets make all the laws good for rich people.
The middle class should be very powerful - however the decepticons - I mean the republicans - have convinced everyone the unions, public options for health care, etc are all communist.
The top marginal tax rate has been on a downward trend since the sixties. Income trends reflect the upper 20% are earning more and more percentage of the total national income - unions are one way to fight this.
But sure convince yourself we don't need them, and ask yourself in 20 years why there are rich and poor and no middle class.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah. While there's no doubt that, at one point, unions served a vital purpose in protecting workers from abuse, nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost.
Tell that to the workers of the Upper Big Branch Mine [wikipedia.org].
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Informative)
The Upper Big Branch mine was a non-union mine. In union mines, workers have the power [post-gazette.com] to stop the types of unsafe working practices that contributed to the UBB fatalities.
Re: First Union? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bah. While there's no doubt that, at one point, unions served a vital purpose in protecting workers from abuse, nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost.
Yeah, 'cause there aren't any employers who would take advantage of their employees anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions have also claimed to attempt to secure equal pay for equal work, which remains an outstanding concern for particular genders and races. Since unions have not succeeded in closing such gaps over decades since the industrial safety problems were resolved, but instead have installed a seniority regime that systematically ignores workers' performance of their duties in determining wages and job security, we should be open to breaking the unions' monopoly on representing worker rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the union exists for exactly one purpose, which is to maintain its power. It's illegal to try to bust a union, and it's also unwise, as you're likely to get a strike on your hands.
Businesses are slowly getting rid of them, though... as they expand into new technologies, they can easily open up as a "new" business which is a wholly owned subsidiary, and would allow them to hire a non-union staff for that LOB, but it would still be difficult to get rid of the staff for their existing business.
That's just rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)
The unions aren't in any way attempting to secure equal pay for equal work. It's just a ploy to raise some salaries without real reason. If it weren't they'd be willing to "equalize" pay by lowering that of those they seem to feel are overpaid.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Informative)
but how frequently do employers bargain collectively with the unions?
All the time. Ever heard of a public corporation? That's just an embodiment of a group of partial owners (aka stock holders) joining together to gain, among other things, the benefits of collective bargaining power.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most members aren't that rich. If they are doing well, it's because they are unionized.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Informative)
Most actors are so poor they need to work second jobs as waiters or behind bars to make ends meet. It's a tiny tip of the ice-berg that are wealthy.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is only in the US with its comparatively low rate of unionisation that people have such a passionate aversion to unions, and I don't know enough detail about current US unions to know if it is something peculiarly pathological about them or simply that the politics of the country is far more uncomfortable about collective worker bargaining. One thing I do recognise in the US is a peculiar desire to bring others down rather than try to achieve what they have: IOW, if a union job brings someone good pay and good pension, why don't you fight for those same privileges?
I've actually been spoken to by my union rep for working too hard and making everybody else look bad. That kind of mentality may have something to do with why unions aren't particularly popular among management types on this continent.
For that reason, I'm very grateful that my current position is not unionized, and that I work in a meritocracy. I'm actually paid quite well for what I do, too, and I have good coverage/benefits (which they're gracious enough to extend to my partner, regardless of her gender). I'm also paid on exactly the same scale as all of my male colleagues (if you haven't guessed, I'm not male), which sets a base pay rate, with base annual increases, and adjustment to that increase based on individual performance and company performance. I actually get paid more than some of my coworkers, and less than others, even though this department is about 90% male. Job security-wise, some of my coworkers have been with the company for 30+ years (longer than I've been alive), and while there is attrition, it's mostly due to people being dismissed for incompetence/seriously breaking the rules, or their decision to move on... within the company, among people that stay more than 5 years there's actually more attrition due to retirement than any other factor, and barring something unforeseen, I do expect to still be working here in 30 years.
That said, I am in Canada, and I work for a company that's been around for 130 years. We have much stronger employee protection laws in this country than they do in the states, and have had them for a lot longer. Unions simply aren't as necessary up here than they are in other countries where they still serve an important purpose.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
The formation of a corporation is collective decision-making and bargaining by owners of the means of production. Major shareholders are the rich guys, and even minor shareholders have a certain degree of control of the means of production. These are the powers exerted over the worker which he counters with collective bargaining.
By exercising monopoly control over the access to the labor for entire regions? Something that if the owners did, would be ruled illegal. Want wiring done in an area? You have to use local labor. Want to use a specific person? All the labor will be forced to boycott you if he isn't a member of the local. Or for the individuals: Want to work at a union shop? You have to join the union. The employer wants to higher you? Too bad, the law says if a simple majority of the employees want to unionize, everyone is forced to be part of the union. Control of the production is irrelevant if it is not controlled by a monopoly. Control of the Labor has been consolidated under monolithic monopolistic unions in several areas.
It is pretty much only the US middle class which considers the US to be marked by "doing our best at what we do". If what you said were true, you would see precisely the opposite thing happening to what is actually happening to the US middle class.
What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
The workers experiencing the worst treatment may no longer be in the US and the UK, and certain Unions may be old enough that they have become inefficient, but the nature of business has not changed.
With union representation at such a low, it appears it has changed. In the US at least. I don't have the numbers for the UK. Maybe they are needed in other countries, but not in the US anymore.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Informative)
You have switched between complaining about anti-cartel(?) law, union behaviour (which you are partly implying is only possible because of union law), and union law.
Well, why not? A union is a form of cartel, after all.
Well, if you won't deal with them, why should they deal with you?
And even if they want to work with you? The union has the ability to prohibit it's member from working for you, even if they want to. You really don't know much about unions in the US.
Do you want employers and employees to be forced to accept any particular worker? What exactly are you proposing?
You're missing the meaning entirely. We have these things called union shops in the US. If you want to work in them, you have to be a member of the union. This is regardless of what you may want. So if you want to work for an employer, you have to join the union.
Seriously?
Yes. Especially since you continue to evade the question.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, a cartel comprises members which own the means of production.
No, a cartel comprises a group that seeks to control a resource. In this case, labor. Although it's easy to argue that labor is part of the means of production.
Your implication is absurd. You do not get to work somewhere just because "you want to". The employer has to want you to work there. And one of the things that the employer will care about in deciding whether to employ you is how you will get along with fellow employees. Now, if all your fellow employees have a particular union arrangement (e.g. Equity) and you don't want to play along with them, they won't play along with you. This will harm the company, so the company will ultimately expect that you join the union.
Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is paid the same amount. Yet for some strange reason, it still seems to work just fine.
No. It it is not even legal to employ only union workers. Of course, it is not legal to force people to work with you either, which is why Equity union members won't work alongside you.
But it is legal for employees to negotiate to require a new employee to join the union after some time... again, freedom of association.
Don't you contradict yourself here? First you say it is not legal only union workers, then you say it can be required to have the employees join the union. And seriously, you're saying that forcing the employees to join the union is a point in favor of freedom of association? You have an interesting definition of freedom.
Here is what I am for: Allowing people, voluntarily (which includes right of refusal) to group bargain for pay and benefits with an employer.
What I am not for: Union shops where people have to be part of a union to work. Workers able to set up a union and have the union automatically represent everyone at the employer. Unions restricting geographically where members can work. Unions boycotting an employer because they have non-union labor. Unions able to say all employees must be part of the union.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
Re: (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 talkin
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
What say you?
I say that anyone who can look at our current corporatocracy and claim with a straight face that "the unions are MORE powerful than their employers" -- or even present that state of affairs as a plausible scenario -- is completely disconnected from reality.
Two words for you: General Motors
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
If freedom of association means employees have the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining, then surely it also means they have the right to either join a different union (which the law often prevents under "sole bargaining agent" provisions) or not be represented by any union at all (which, again, is not always possible).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of association also means an employer can agree to hire only union workers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but that's not how it works in practice. What actually happens is that a majority of employees (say, 60%) decide they wish to be represented exclusively by a particular union, in which case that union becomes the sole bargaining agent for all employees (including the 40% who were against it).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but that's because the employer freely chose not to lose 60% of it's workforce in a single instant. That in turn is because that 60% freely chose to associate with the union even if it wanted them to freely choose not to associate with their employer anymore.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's because the law requires the employer to recognize that particular union as the sole bargaining agent. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely, WalMart for example goes even further than that. Stores that attempt to unionize get shut down. Completely.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is all labor unions did in America, perhaps it would be useful.... or at least stick with employer/labor relations.
One of the major complaints is if you happen to be in that 40% minority that wants the labor union to go take a hike, but none the less the labor union dues are still being taken out of your paycheck and are being used to finance the election campaigns of politicians that you absolutely don't agree with. Furthermore, the labor "leaders" are in turn padding their expense accounts and becoming personally wealthy on the backs of the union members in a fashion that sometimes would make even a CEO blush.
Yes, you can find some exceptions of a frugal labor leader who is genuinely trying to make a difference, but usually the labor union exists for its own sake and not for its members.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Informative)
American union law gets weirder the more I hear about it.
In the UK, you can join any union you want. Most unions have limitations over what sort of employees they'll represent, but most careers will have a choice of many.
I am in a single-company union, which only admits employees of the company I work for, plus associates (contractors, pension-scheme members, etc), but I could have joined one of the several financial services unions (being the industry my employer is in) instead, or one of the unions that represent my actual career. My GF is a teacher, and there are more different teaching unions she could have chosen from than I can count in my head.
Also, I don't understand the anti-union attitude some otherwise sane Americans seem to have. Even most businesses in the UK recognise the value of unionised staff- a singe point of negotiation, and plausible cover for unpopular yet unavoidable decisions ("I know you don't like it, but even the unions agree its necessary..."). They have their drawbacks- such as stopping a company squeezing their staff as a viable way out of tight spots or of boosting profits- but then I wouldn't shed any tears over that.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Informative)
One of the problems with American labor unions is that they are simultaneously a political organization as well as a representative of the employees. This wouldn't be so bad if the union followed the political philosophies of its members, but that isn't always the case and often there is a labor leader who is "telling" the members how they should vote.
"Vote early, vote often" has been practiced by a number of organizations, but labor unions are right in the middle of it, not to mention how they are especially so tied economically and politically to the Democratic Party in America. Often labor leaders become "automatic delegates" to select politicians representing mainly themselves and their union above and beyond the citizens in the political jurisdictions where they are at. The current congress in session right now has strengthened those ties even more. Many times the labor leaders themselves are also involved with the distribution of the political "pork" coming from federal and state contracts (it gives their members work) where the labor leaders are collaborating with the employer but against the "competition".... particularly "non-union" employers.
This is just scratching the surface and I should point out that there have been many abuses done in the name of organized labor that has ticked off many in America. It isn't just insanity but some of the practices of the major industrial unions that has caused some of the backlash against the unions.
All this said, I do believe that most employers with labor unions have "earned" those unions by virtue of their labor practices and treating their employees like trash. Indirectly having labor unions do help out by pulling out the worst of the employers in a region to raise wages so other companies in the area can compete even if they are being ethical towards their employees. I was fired from a job once merely because I suggested that if the management didn't start dealing with their employees, that a labor union might form. That was blatantly illegal, but at the same time I was glad I got out of there.
Re: (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 acces
Forced unionization (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the anti union feel comes from unions acting like asses in many cases. For example in Michigan if you are in child day care you must, by law, be part of the union. Actually it's more cryptic than that. If you have a day care You are a government employee and get union dues deducted. [wsj.com] No choice on the matter even if you're a sole proprietor running your own small day care.
Or even been to a tradeshow? Want to plug something into an electrical outlet, like you have done countless times in your life? Sorry, wait for a union electrician to show up because it's part of their union contract (Not an insurance matter most of the time).
Or maybe a Production engineer at a plant, with an assembly line down to something stupid like a tripped breaker, valve stuck, one of the normal reasons for a lockup. You could get the line going within a heartbeat but instead waste lots of manhours waiting for the one certified union worker to push the button for you.
It's because of these stupid rules, that while the intention may have started as good, hurts the company as a whole and gives unions a bad rep. Now I do have a history in the trades and I thing the formal journeyman / masters process is a very good thing. The bureaucracy is an entirely other thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Put the complaint where it belongs ... with the government who made the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes it impossible for people who do well to get ahead and to remove the people who do a sub-par job.
In what way does it make it "impossible"? I mean, in countries with a history of high unionisation rates such as Germany, is nothing of good quality ever built because the good men are kept down and the bad men are kept on?
It's perfectly possible for bad negotiations between the union and employer to result temporarily in something like you describe, just like it is possible for a businessman to choose his son to take the reins rather than his best performing underling, but there is nothing inevitable about this. And, in both cases, the long-term effect is that the company will not succeed (assuming its success is not guaranteed somehow, e.g.if by government).
people stop thinking for themselves and instead have devotion to their union which even influences how they vote.
And again, you're using a pathological extreme. Of course you show loyalty to those who have an understanding of your plight and your interests in mind, but you must still remain vigilant for corruption or plain bad decision-making. To what individual in any particular grouping of primates formed for whatever reason does this not apply?
For example, if you walk out of the job and strike, you should be able to be fired, no questions asked, you broke your end of the contract.
OK, but then everyone else will strike.
Re:First Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a silly question. The debate over unions has nothing to do with the first amendment. It's to do with legal protections unions have lobbied for themselves including the National Labor Relations Act and a whole lot of subsequent regulation. In short of course you have the right to assemble and collectively bargain all you want, but your employer shouldn't be forced by law to assist you with that.
By the way, it's pretty amusing that the issue of choice when it comes to union membership is invoked by the same people who think that corporations have to be heavily regulated because, presumably, their customers have no choice but to buy their products. In a heavily unionized industry a worker has no real choice but to join the union, while a diabetes ridden fat slob does have a choice not to eat at McDonalds.
Re:First Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short of course you have the right to assemble and collectively bargain all you want, but your employer shouldn't be forced by law to assist you with that.
Unfortunately, this thread is full of people starting off with the premise "there is a problem with union law" (including single-union laws which are effectively anti-union) and assuming the conclusion "there is a problem with unions". Disney copyright extensions are bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean all businesses which make their money with the help of copyright protections are pure evil.
eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
See how destructive unions can be? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>"The Do Not Work Order tells actors, "If you are contacted to be engaged on The Hobbit please notify your union immediately."
It should be up to the actors whether or not they want to work on a non-union film. But I guess this is what happens when you make megaliths like corporations... there has to be counter-balancing force like the union, and the citizen gets squashed in the middle.
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you say "oh hey only do this if you feel like it", collective bargaining gives way to a "race to the bottom" as employers hire the people who are willing to break ranks. The benefit of all is better served by standing together.
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a person can get away with reaping the benefit of others' actions while simultaneously betraying them to their benefit, they generally will. An economist would call someone doing this a "rational actor", but on a large enough scale it kills collective action, even when everyone wants the action to be successful.
Political scientists call it the Free Rider Problem.
It's a big problem for groups like non-profit organizations, but it's also one of several key issues raised in the Tragedy of the Commons thought experiment, and it's why sometimes government action is necessary to cause everyone to behave a certain way, since even 100% approval for enacting such a law doesn't mean that 100% of people--or even a majority--will act that way without the law.
In other words, no, simple economics (providing enough benefit to entice free actors to compliance) doesn't always work, or can become prohibitively expensive, even if all the members of your group think everyone should comply. There are not always market solutions to a problem.
Sometimes taking away some individual freedom enables a group to provide better benefits to its members--that is, together, by giving up a bit of freedom, they can do or accomplish things that would otherwise be very difficult or impossible. It doesn't fit nicely with a the narrow understanding of freedom usually intended by the word (at least here in the U.S.) but it's true. Hell, it's the whole idea behind the Social Contract. More regulation doesn't always mean less freedom; done right it just means different freedom, and, every now and then, it means more freedom.
Re:See how destructive unions can be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya well few problems with that:
1) Talented people have no difficulty finding other work, and thus the competition keeps pay high. You may notice that there are a lot of non-union jobs out there that are quite good. I don't see CCIEs needing a union, they seem to be able to find work for lots of money. When you have a talent that is in demand, that alone takes care of compensation. People have to pay to keep you. This is the case with actors. They are in demand.
2) Much of the "Race to the bottom" you talk about has been taken care of by the government. If you research labour unions you find they came about because of industries with extremely exploitative and dangerous practices. That is now handled rather efficiently by oversight agencies like OSHA. They can bring more heat on an employer than a union ever could. In particular with Hollywood we aren't talking about minors who are perpetually in debt to the company store and working in dangerous conditions. We are talking about rich people working in the environment they choose.
3) Unions often crease a "race to the bottom" for employees. The protection of any and everyone leads to a situation where bad employees cannot be gotten rid of. That increases costs over all, and thus mean less compensation for good employees. In particular, many unions favour seniority over all else. So no matter your talent, no matter your work ethic, you are forced in to the same pay as everyone else at your level.
4) You have to deal with the realities of the world, and that there is non-union competition. I am not just talking about 3rd world sweatshop labour. Have a look at the American car companies. They compete with companies who are non-union, and build their cars right in America, like Toyota. Companies that pay well, have good working environments, but are not union and lack that overhead. You have to compete with that and unions tend to be bad at it.
I'm sorry but I just see a massive divide between the sort of pay and conditions that lead to unions back in the day, and the places where there are unions now. When you have a good work environment and make good money, you do not need a union.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
In particular with Hollywood we aren't talking about minors who are perpetually in debt to the company store and working in dangerous conditions. We are talking about rich people working in the environment they choose.
You don't know any actors, do you?
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. Monopolies [wikipedia.org] / Oligopolies [wikipedia.org] / Cartels [wikipedia.org] are awesome. They succeed by having overwhelming market power, and enforcing a determined price/quantity/benefits/etc, regardless of the externalities, or the true value of their goods/services. This is why OPEC [wikipedia.org] and De Beers [wikipedia.org] are so great, and why everybody loves them. Really, I think we all know, that you're goods/services are not worth what other people would pay for them, but instead are worth whatever you can collude to make them pay. That's the true spirit tra
Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions are supposed to represent their members' interests, but the way unions behave these days I often wonder if it's not the members who are serving their unions. SAG prohibits is actors from working on non-union productions, and if it weren't for "right to work" statutes they would likely get away with it too. I do appreciate the need for pressure against employers who refuse to give fair treatment and compensation to their employees, but I often feel that unions are yet one more bureaucracy that employees have to deal with.
Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we know. 100 shareholders get together and form a corporation and that's proper capitalist freedom. 100 workers get together to form a union and they are communist freedom-hating Luddites. Forgive me if I ignore everything that comes out of the mouth of someone who evidently has no grasp of reality. Both are bad. One is a reaction to the other. And both have morphed into something other than intended over the years. But unions are a valid and necessary reaction to corporations and their actions. They never would have existed if the corporations weren't screwing employees as much as possible, so blame unions on the corporations. They worked really hard to get them started.
Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the example of this story, it's easy to see that this is so oversimplified it is untrue. There are those that are not interchangeable - big actors whose name on a poster will increase box office. But there are many more - e.g. the actors playing orcs - that are are very much interchangeable. They are very poorly paid - to the extent that they typically need to work as waiters or behind bars between acting jobs. This doesn't necessarily come from being bad at their jobs - many very good actors can't get much work. It comes from the fact that the public can only remember a limited number of stars at any one time. And those that manage to get there do so from a mix of hard work, talent, nature's gift of good looks, luck, breaks etc. Not just hard work.
Supply and demand is what makes the interchangable actor's rewards low. Not lack of effort or being bad at their job. It's perfectly reasonable for such people to group together to create collective bargaining situation where they are less exploited.
Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
I can
I worked as a prof in a local college that had a "Professional Association" (read expensive union)
When I stated that I would prefer not to join, I was told it was a requirement. But they asked why. I told them, I would rather negotiate my employment conditions as I could do a more effective job representing my skills and their value than a simple grid that listed years of experience and years of education. As an example. I earned the same salary teaching Advanced C Programming (yes this was a while ago) and earned the same salary as the prof teaching a high school math upgrader. My marking alone took many more hours than the multiple choice exams my office mate had.
In 1996 the college went through a downsizing. Since I was the last man hired, I was the first man to be released. The students actually demonstrated to keep me. ( I was the only prof who had actually done real development work in C, the others that they kept actually sat in my lecture in the morning and attempted to reteach in their afternoon block )
At one point, I thought I would try and work with the system. I booked a meeting with my union rep and made a proposal for a 3rd dimension on the salary grid. Course difficulty. I actually had it mapped out quite well with research from the colleges own industry reports where salary would now be based on length of employment, education, and teaching load. Where the classes were ranked on load. This would then become the 3rd dimension to the grid. I even volunteered to present it at the next meeting.
The answer I got was, "This looks nice, but you elected me as a representative, it is my job to decide what should be put in collective agreements. You then vote on what your union officials decree". My proposal never got a second meeting, nor acknowledgment anywhere.
When the downsizing happened, students complained (in numbers) to the dean, I even suggested to some that they try the union. The information I got back from the union was that they agreed with the college about downsizing so that they could maintain the current salary grid for those remaining. Now if you look at this politically. If you want to maintain your rep seat, keep the people that are staying happy. To bad for those released, but they wont be paying dues next year.
Another example of a real union was the Transit Union. When I was going through school, I drove a bus at night to pay for my college. If a driver called in sick, dispatch could force you to drive a double shift, and once I drove a triple shift. However, because money was important, you were allowed to drive a shift for another driver and he would pay you. The only difference was, if you drove more than 48 hrs that week you were not allowed to pick up another shift. Here is the catch, Say you traded your Tuesday night shift to study and picked up someones shift on the weekend, and then on Wed, dispatch forced to drive an extra shift, you would not be allowed to drive the shift you traded for on the weekend because the time system said you had too many hours.
Off I went to the union meeting, asking that this be looked into. The membership in attendance voted almost unanimously, a couple of abstainers, in favor of discussing this with management and looking at it during the contract negotiations. This was the last I heard of the proposal. When I asked about it, I was told more important issues came up. Some of the items that did get negotiated were absurd at best. "Seat covers for the drivers seat" for example.
In the end any union or prof association I have ever belonged to has only managed to lower my salary to what I have been able to negotiate myself, collect fees from me, and not carry forward any of my concerns. Most were more interested in keeping their own rep posting.
Last example. My father owned a tin smith shop. He employed approximately 30ish tradesmen. One day a few of them got together and decided that it was time that the shop become a union shop. Sometimes you have t
Unicorns? (Score:3, Funny)
dixit Alec Baldwin (Score:3, Funny)
Union Shop/Closed Shop. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the union is trying to have US-style closed shops in New Zealand. Not a good plan.
"Closed Shops" are (from what I read) frowned upon (if not illegal) in New Zealand. It is up to the individual whether or not they join the union and pick up the collective contract. You can't force them, and you can't say, "You can only hire union members". This is different to the US and Canada which still allow "union shops" to exist.
Thankfully, Peter Jackson covers this in his statement:
"He always honoured actors' union conditions if they were union members"
You want to have a full union membership in the cast? Approach them and ask them to join.
Re:Union Shop/Closed Shop. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't know what you are talking about. There are lots of non-equity actors working in the west end. As you might expect, their average pay is far less than the Equity actors. But they are certainly there, working. In the UK, it's illegal for unions to mount industrial action to exclude non-union workers. So it could not be otherwise.
Did you know before Equity flexed it's muscles in the industry, actors were not paid for rehearsals? Weeks of work with not a penny to show for it. If there ever was an ind
Meh. (Score:3, Funny)
So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did they object during the first 3 films?
They probably would have had they known about it or how known how popular the trilogy would become. However, Jackson very astutely filmed all three films simultaneously over a period of 8 years before the first film was even released. So by the time the Unions knew that some crazy little project in New Zealand was going to become the biggest and highest grossing trilogy of all time, most of the shots, minus editing and special effects, where probably already in the can. In other words, by the time they knew
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the NZ actors are unionized, but the union doesn't exist in NZ. It's that problem that's causing the issues. The union existed in NZ for the first films, so there was no problem. The union disappeared between then and now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Produced By: Quentin Tarantino
Script By: J. R. R. Tolkien
Sounds like a winner to me!