Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
This is a long one, but I hope it will not overstay its welcome with you as a reader. Here goes:
Of late, with the trend of town hall controversies, there have been many suggestions, and perhaps indications, that members of organized labor have been used to intimidate the right from protesting against the Health Care Reform bill.
I just wanted to say that I have come to the conclusion that in principle, organized labor still retains a very important place in our society, and these events do not discourage me from continuing to think so.
In fact, at this place in my career, I would be very glad to be a member of any union in my industry, whatever the trade, and whatever the dues. The opportunity to retain a standard of living, find affordable health insurance, and continue in my industry with only the most professional players willing to pay union rates for labor is too great, and this is not a time for being too choosy.
For certain, if I didn't have the skills to work in more than one trade when one or the other was slow, I would not have made it through this year.
I am also just too tired of being taken advantage of by greedy producers who want the opportunity of profit without the responsibility of compensating the working people who are providing them with the chance to make money. I want to be a producer myself. I am not one yet, but it seems elementary to me even at this stage that capitalism has a necessary entry fee that a capitalist interested in scrupulous, long term chances for prosperity has to be prepared to pay.
In business, human beings and their livelihoods are always involved. If you can't afford to invest, then you have to save until you can. If you pretend that you can invest before you have saved sufficient capital (re: capitalism), then you are likely committing some kind of fraud on someone.
With that said, the notion that Trade Unionists must inherently be leftist seems out of place to me. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (who are an important part of the film production world) are perhaps an exception to this perceived rule, and are the most notable national trade union with a past of supporting Republicans, even as they have endorsed Democratic candidates in recent years.
I am more inclined to believe that Trade Unions are a part of capitalism. It is not only the owning class that should be entitled to negotiate for the best prices for labor. Labor should also be able to negotiate compensatory standards for the real world we live in.
It is not just a matter of what the buyer thinks the labor is worth to them. It is a matter of labor organizing to declare what the labor is worth to society and to the working people who acquire the skills to perform the labor so that others may profit.
In my business, I am often asked by production management (the equivalent of executive management in any other trade) to make concessions for the sake of "Our Movie". Unless I am promised a financial stake in the film, or have a lasting personal relationship with the creative players in the production, I am very reluctant to see how this is anything but an appeal to exploit the skills and labor of professionals.
It is not our movie. You cannot move up in a single film production as you can a single company (well, unless someone gets fired very suddenly). You can move up in an industry by being a good soldier, but that does not justify previous acts of exploitation in my view. To some it does justify it and they call it paying your dues.
At the end, it is only the producer's movie. He or she hopes to profit from the labor of the production crew to potentially become more rich and famous than they were before production began. My aspiration is to do the work I am hired to perform, with the skills and experience I bring, so that I can exit the production with a greater or sustained amount of income than before I started. There may be an ancillary benefit of taking pride in my work, but that should be among the reasons I am hired by a producer and not the sole reason I work for myself.
In capitalism, the ideal is that we are both better off or we would not agree to the position. In reality, however, we know well that it is the owning class that can more easily exploit the misfortune of the working class.
Yes, if I am highly skilled laborer in the film production business maybe with exclusive rights to property or equipment, then I can withdraw my services if my rates and standards are not met. But if I am in a trade for which the competition for employment is great, then producers can create a race to the bottom.
And this race to the bottom does exist. Producers of independent, non-union productions are so inundated with desperate aspirants to the industry, that many crew members will agree to work for free, if not for embarrassingly small wages.
I have been offered work, when we had the "luxury" of being "offered pay" for rates as low as $40/day. This is particularly egregious for an industry where on the low end, a work day (dictated by the production schedule, written by the liaisons of the production management called Assistant Directors- a job I've done quite a few times myself) will last for twelve hours, and often much more.
There is work done in certain sectors of the film industry that even many illegal immigrants would not take for the money. Now, working in the film trade is meant to be a pleasurable career. It is even easier for an individual to do than flipping burgers if you really want to do the work, but it certainly requires refined skills and experience much harder and more expensive to acquire than flipping burgers to be done well.
Even burger flippers, under the law, must be paid overtime if they are required for longer than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. Yet it is not uncommon in the independent scene for no overtime to be paid even if production days may turn into production weeks of 70 hours or more.
For many this would all be fine as long as the compensation was easily secured and issued in a timely and legally responsible manner.
Unfortunately, not only is the pay often substandard, the means by which it is acquired are often uncertain. A pay schedule is often an elusive thing, even as it would be common in any other place of employment (it's law in most all states that I'm aware of for such a thing to exist).
It's best to be the first in line at the bank where the check is issued so that the chance is less that yours will bounce.
In a sense, we should accept some personal responsibility as people starting out in the film business. We could all be working salaried suit and tie jobs if we really put our minds to it, even in the entertainment business. We have all made a choice to sacrifice some comfort to be able to work regularly at the craft we have worked toward for many years.
And yet, the rewards are at first even more limited in some cases than the standards and compensation for the lowest of the low position at infamous employers like McDonald's or Wal-Mart. And to their credit, or at the very least to the credit of good lawmaking and enforcement, you can be reasonably sure that the employees are paid the legal minimum wage, that their checks arrive in a specific place and time and always yield a payment once cashed or deposited.
In addition, they are given an employer contribution of payroll taxes, medicare, and unemployment insurance, which many production employees are deprived by producers, with the erroneous claim that they are "independent contractors".
I guess I'm just mad because I have a pending claim with the labor board for a significant sum of unpaid wages, but it's stuff like this that makes me certain that capitalism, while a very powerful, very democratic economic engine, does require regulation of many kinds.
It not only requires a government that is active in serving the interests of the public, but it requires a public that is active in defending their own interests and is educated to know what kinds of institutions comprise those interests.
The standards of labor are a reflection of the standards of living we bring home with us. For that reason I can't see why people should not be enabled to organize, in a fair and legal manner, for their share of the wealth the nation produces.
Of late, with the trend of town hall controversies, there have been many suggestions, and perhaps indications, that members of organized labor have been used to intimidate the right from protesting against the Health Care Reform bill.
I just wanted to say that I have come to the conclusion that in principle, organized labor still retains a very important place in our society, and these events do not discourage me from continuing to think so.
In fact, at this place in my career, I would be very glad to be a member of any union in my industry, whatever the trade, and whatever the dues. The opportunity to retain a standard of living, find affordable health insurance, and continue in my industry with only the most professional players willing to pay union rates for labor is too great, and this is not a time for being too choosy.
For certain, if I didn't have the skills to work in more than one trade when one or the other was slow, I would not have made it through this year.
I am also just too tired of being taken advantage of by greedy producers who want the opportunity of profit without the responsibility of compensating the working people who are providing them with the chance to make money. I want to be a producer myself. I am not one yet, but it seems elementary to me even at this stage that capitalism has a necessary entry fee that a capitalist interested in scrupulous, long term chances for prosperity has to be prepared to pay.
In business, human beings and their livelihoods are always involved. If you can't afford to invest, then you have to save until you can. If you pretend that you can invest before you have saved sufficient capital (re: capitalism), then you are likely committing some kind of fraud on someone.
With that said, the notion that Trade Unionists must inherently be leftist seems out of place to me. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (who are an important part of the film production world) are perhaps an exception to this perceived rule, and are the most notable national trade union with a past of supporting Republicans, even as they have endorsed Democratic candidates in recent years.
I am more inclined to believe that Trade Unions are a part of capitalism. It is not only the owning class that should be entitled to negotiate for the best prices for labor. Labor should also be able to negotiate compensatory standards for the real world we live in.
It is not just a matter of what the buyer thinks the labor is worth to them. It is a matter of labor organizing to declare what the labor is worth to society and to the working people who acquire the skills to perform the labor so that others may profit.
In my business, I am often asked by production management (the equivalent of executive management in any other trade) to make concessions for the sake of "Our Movie". Unless I am promised a financial stake in the film, or have a lasting personal relationship with the creative players in the production, I am very reluctant to see how this is anything but an appeal to exploit the skills and labor of professionals.
It is not our movie. You cannot move up in a single film production as you can a single company (well, unless someone gets fired very suddenly). You can move up in an industry by being a good soldier, but that does not justify previous acts of exploitation in my view. To some it does justify it and they call it paying your dues.
At the end, it is only the producer's movie. He or she hopes to profit from the labor of the production crew to potentially become more rich and famous than they were before production began. My aspiration is to do the work I am hired to perform, with the skills and experience I bring, so that I can exit the production with a greater or sustained amount of income than before I started. There may be an ancillary benefit of taking pride in my work, but that should be among the reasons I am hired by a producer and not the sole reason I work for myself.
In capitalism, the ideal is that we are both better off or we would not agree to the position. In reality, however, we know well that it is the owning class that can more easily exploit the misfortune of the working class.
Yes, if I am highly skilled laborer in the film production business maybe with exclusive rights to property or equipment, then I can withdraw my services if my rates and standards are not met. But if I am in a trade for which the competition for employment is great, then producers can create a race to the bottom.
And this race to the bottom does exist. Producers of independent, non-union productions are so inundated with desperate aspirants to the industry, that many crew members will agree to work for free, if not for embarrassingly small wages.
I have been offered work, when we had the "luxury" of being "offered pay" for rates as low as $40/day. This is particularly egregious for an industry where on the low end, a work day (dictated by the production schedule, written by the liaisons of the production management called Assistant Directors- a job I've done quite a few times myself) will last for twelve hours, and often much more.
There is work done in certain sectors of the film industry that even many illegal immigrants would not take for the money. Now, working in the film trade is meant to be a pleasurable career. It is even easier for an individual to do than flipping burgers if you really want to do the work, but it certainly requires refined skills and experience much harder and more expensive to acquire than flipping burgers to be done well.
Even burger flippers, under the law, must be paid overtime if they are required for longer than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. Yet it is not uncommon in the independent scene for no overtime to be paid even if production days may turn into production weeks of 70 hours or more.
For many this would all be fine as long as the compensation was easily secured and issued in a timely and legally responsible manner.
Unfortunately, not only is the pay often substandard, the means by which it is acquired are often uncertain. A pay schedule is often an elusive thing, even as it would be common in any other place of employment (it's law in most all states that I'm aware of for such a thing to exist).
It's best to be the first in line at the bank where the check is issued so that the chance is less that yours will bounce.
In a sense, we should accept some personal responsibility as people starting out in the film business. We could all be working salaried suit and tie jobs if we really put our minds to it, even in the entertainment business. We have all made a choice to sacrifice some comfort to be able to work regularly at the craft we have worked toward for many years.
And yet, the rewards are at first even more limited in some cases than the standards and compensation for the lowest of the low position at infamous employers like McDonald's or Wal-Mart. And to their credit, or at the very least to the credit of good lawmaking and enforcement, you can be reasonably sure that the employees are paid the legal minimum wage, that their checks arrive in a specific place and time and always yield a payment once cashed or deposited.
In addition, they are given an employer contribution of payroll taxes, medicare, and unemployment insurance, which many production employees are deprived by producers, with the erroneous claim that they are "independent contractors".
I guess I'm just mad because I have a pending claim with the labor board for a significant sum of unpaid wages, but it's stuff like this that makes me certain that capitalism, while a very powerful, very democratic economic engine, does require regulation of many kinds.
It not only requires a government that is active in serving the interests of the public, but it requires a public that is active in defending their own interests and is educated to know what kinds of institutions comprise those interests.
The standards of labor are a reflection of the standards of living we bring home with us. For that reason I can't see why people should not be enabled to organize, in a fair and legal manner, for their share of the wealth the nation produces.
Last edited:
