How I've Warmed Up To Unions

[DamnYankee]

That probably lends more weight to my point. 99% of the people in the industry don't make big bucks. But they do it anyway. Not because they want to be near bimbo starlets. But because its where they want to be.

They are doing what they love. It makes it worth it.

Again, if the market forces were in full effect, they couldn't afford to work there. *shrug*

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Plus now unions are getting onto boards of directors at these new fascistocratic bailed out companies. Unions got upgraded, as an entity. Adam's into it.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Again, if the market forces were in full effect, they couldn't afford to work there. *shrug*

How so? Lots of people don't make a mint in this business but make sacrifices in order to do the work. They might have a second job. They have a roommate(s), they don't get cable, they drink a six pack at home instead of a martini in Hollywood.

Welcome to my life, but anyway...

What about the market isn't working in this industry?

 

[DamnYankee]

You are correct that it is not the only industry with these kinds of pitfalls, I am only using my industry as an example because it's one I know.

Socialism, however, advocates that the workers control the means of the production instead of capitalists. Collective bargaining does not mean that. It simply gives working people leverage in contract negotiations with owners and management that as individuals they do not have.

Your original assertion that there are few jobs and many workers is really not different from many fields. With our present situation, it is even applicable to the entire economy. While it is never wrong to work, it is not a favor to a working person just to be employed by someone. The working person is doing their share as well and is due compensation equivalent to their labor and skills.

As an individual, they may have limited range to express what that worth is. And that is why unions are organized, not by the state, but by people who get burned and get fed up with it.

Collective bargaining is socialism, by definition.

But my argument is that the free market better serves society. Again, these creative people would be available for other fields. Instead of cranking out hundreds of movies every year maybe they'd be curing diseases or building more efficient cars of curbing pollution or fighting AIDS in Africa. And maybe there would be less people sitting on the couch watching all these films.

Maybe they'd be going to church.

Maybe movies would be classy again like they were in 1930.

 

[DamnYankee]

How so? Lots of people don't make a mint in this business but make sacrifices in order to do the work. They might have a second job. They have a roommate(s), they don't get cable, they drink a six pack at home instead of a martini in Hollywood.

Welcome to my life, but anyway...

What about the market isn't working in this industry?

If they can't afford the six-pack maybe they'd be out in a job that thought they were worth that martini.

And welcome to my world. I've had a double martini every night for the past 15 years.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Collective bargaining is socialism, by definition.

But my argument is that the free market better serves society. Again, these creative people would be available for other fields. Instead of cranking out hundreds of movies every year maybe they'd be curing diseases or building more efficient cars of curbing pollution or fighting AIDS in Africa. And maybe there would be less people sitting on the couch watching all these films.

Maybe they'd be going to church.

Maybe movies would be classy again like they were in 1930.

By your own definition it is not even socialism. They are not collectively organized under the state. By your misapplication of the definition, a baseball team is socialist because they have to collectively throw the ball to each other.

Again, these people are available to other industries. The market is working. Sounds like you want the market to work to your ends rather than what the people have decided freely. And that is the kind of thinking that prompts the rise of socialism.

 

[WinterBorn]

If they can't afford the six-pack maybe they'd be out in a job that thought they were worth that martini.

And welcome to my world. I've had a double martini every night for the past 15 years.

Having the money to be able to afford to have a martini in Hollywood is great. But only if you enjoy what you do. I have known some miserable people with lots of money. I make a very good living. But I am here because I love what I do. That means more to a lot of people.

I think Adam is right. They would still be there.

 

[DamnYankee]

By your own definition it is not even socialism. They are not collectively organized under the state. By your misapplication of the definition, a baseball team is socialist because they have to collectively throw the ball to each other.

Again, these people are available to other industries. The market is working. Sounds like you want the market to work to your ends rather than what the people have decided freely. And that is the kind of thinking that prompts the rise of socialism.

Come on Adam you're above the straw man technique. The definition states "collective or governmental ownership".

I want the people to decide based on realities instead of inflated pay scales by some self-aggrandizing union bosses. Who decided that employees of Hollywood should be unionized, hence making more money, than employees fighting AIDS in Africa? Which job is more worthwhile to society?

 

[DamnYankee]

....

I think Adam is right. They would still be there.

That's not what Adam said. He said that folks couldn't afford to work there if not for the unions.

 

[Cypress]

II have been cheated now many times on non-union productions because the producers do not believe they will need to be as legally accountable to my contracts as a major studio would be to a union contract.

LOL, man adam, do you know how many times I've been yelled at by enraged, cornered Cons when I said unions improve the wages, benefits, and quality of life of working americans?


No worries. I've changed a lot of opinions in my life. And, I think you might have hit upon the reason why one doesn't see a lot of college-educated, 35 year old ideologically pure libertarians. That pure libertarian shit only sounds good when one is 22 years old and sitting around the college coffee house.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Come on Adam you're above the straw man technique. The definition states "collective or governmental ownership".

I want the people to decide based on realities instead of inflated pay scales by some self-aggrandizing union bosses. Who decided that employees of Hollywood should be unionized, hence making more money, than employees fighting AIDS in Africa? Which job is more worthwhile to society?

That's right. And unions in many cases do not own the means of production collectively. They organize the labor collectively. If nobody felt the wages negotiated by unions had a realistic chance of being accepted, nobody would go along with it.

Is it really that inflated for a Teamster to get paid $22.64/hr to drive a commercial vehicle containing very delicate and expensive production equipment or $16 something to drive a crew van full of your employees? These are living wages for working people and not really that unreasonable if you're making a major motion picture. And unions often offer special contracts for lower budget pictures who cannot afford these rates. But those who can pay should pay.

The market, even before unions, decided that people who have skills that can contribute to profitable work make more than people engaging in charity or altruistic efforts.

Charity is very worthwhile to society, but it is not commerce, which is equally important if we're as a broad section of society able to continue with acts of charity and altruism.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

LOL, man adam, do you know how many times I've been yelled at by enraged, cornered Cons when I said unions improve the wages, benefits, and quality of life of working americans?


No worries. I've changed a lot of opinions in my life. And, I think you might have hit upon the reason why one doesn't see a lot of college-educated, 35 year old ideologically pure libertarians. That pure libertarian shit only sounds good when one is 22 years old and sitting around the college coffee house.

But I don't really feel like I'm sacrificing some kind of principle to come to this conclusion. They should be able to freely associate and organize. That's libertarian. They should be able to negotiate contracts in a free market. That's libertarian.

To be a libertarian inclined to those ideas and to be a slave to a rigid ideological concept of Libertarianism to me are two different things.

 

[DamnYankee]

That's right. And unions in many cases do not own the means of production collectively. They organize the labor collectively. If nobody felt the wages negotiated by unions had a realistic chance of being accepted, nobody would go along with it.

Is it really that inflated for a Teamster to get paid $22.64/hr to drive a commercial vehicle with production equipment or $16 something to drive a crew van? These are living wages for working people and not really that unreasonable if you're making a major motion picture. And unions often offer special contracts for lower budget pictures who cannot afford these rates. But those who can pay should pay.

The market, even before unions, decided that people who have skills that can contribute to profitable work make more than people engaging in charity or altruistic efforts.

Charity is very worthwhile to society, but it is not commerce, which is equally important if we're as a broad section of society able to continue with acts of charity and altruism.

Now you're attempting the semantics angle with "organize" v "own". That's disingenuous at best.

And yeah $22 is too much for a trucker. When I was in school I drove a bus and did the same job that a union employee did for half the pay. The stated reason was that I was a student and therefore didn't need the money. Meanwhile I was paying off school loans while I was in school, was paying tuition, rent, food bills, gas, car insurance, etc., and of course couldn't work a lot of hours since I was a full time engineering student. I needed the damn money, and even if I didn't, I deserved it because I did a good job.

Equal work equal pay, right? Except for unions of course. I guess some folks are more equal than others.

Unions are great for those in them Adam- especially the slackers. They just suck for everyone else, and for society as a whole. *shrug*

Anyway, time for my martini. Good night and God Bless.

 

[Cypress]

But I don't really feel like I'm sacrificing some kind of principle to come to this conclusion. They should be able to freely associate and organize. That's libertarian. They should be able to negotiate contracts in a free market. That's libertarian.

To be a libertarian inclined to those ideas and to be a slave to a rigid ideological concept of Libertarianism to me are two different things.

I understand that. But libertarians and their republican allies support policies that have weakened unions.

Simply saying anyone is free to join a union is just a slogan. It's the sausage making that results, or not, in a strong union environment that is on equal footing with corporate power.

We have the lowest union participation rate in unions, by far, in the developed world. And unsurprisingly, that death spiral of unions began with the modern ascendency of movement conservatism.

There are numerous impediments and road blocks put in the way of workers organizing, particulary in red states. This is a documentable fact. The labor laws which are supposed to protect the right to organize are so weak, that companies find it more cost effective to union-bust rather than follow the law.

I think it's great if you are in a position to freely join a union. How about other americans? They might not have the same freedom and opportunity to organize and join unions.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Now you're attempting the semantics angle with "organize" v "own". That's disingenuous at best.

No, it's precise. There is a big frickin' difference.

And yeah $22 is too much for a trucker.

Good thing they don't work for you and that you haven't signed a contract with a union. To the studios, it's apparently worth it.

When I was in school I drove a bus and did the same job that a union employee did for half the pay. The stated reason was that I was a student and therefore didn't need the money. Meanwhile I was paying off school loans while I was in school, was paying tuition, rent, food bills, gas, car insurance, etc., and of course couldn't work a lot of hours since I was a full time engineering student. I needed the damn money, and even if I didn't, I deserved it because I did a good job.

Equal work equal pay, right? Except for unions of course. I guess some folks are more equal than others.

Unions are great for those in them Adam- especially the slackers. They just suck for everyone else, and for society as a whole. *shrug*

Well, I could feel this same way about my current predicament and blame the unions. But there is no question there are many good and hard working people who are union members.

No union is knocking down my door to hand me a card just like that. Some jobs I've done enough work to be eligible and some of the ones I have more of my eye on I have not.

Of course, employers are always welcome to offer me a compensatory rate for my work despite that, but on my own they have very little incentive to do so, and especially in difficult economic times when people are desperate for work.

 

[Taichiliberal]

What market forces aren't working? I am here because of the opportunity to make money with my skills and training, and to continue to make money. That is a market force. There are incentives for me to be here.

I am able to make some money without a union, but the security of my standard of living is much lower. I have been cheated now many times on non-union productions because the producers do not believe they will need to be as legally accountable to my contracts as a major studio would be to a union contract.

A union will negotiate with producers for what my work is actually worth to them and to me. Yes, they will pay more, and I will have to make a sacrifice for the service, but that is not exactly an impediment to the marketplace. It raises my standard of living and actually pays for the labor they are asking for.

I'm not seeing where the market being disposed of in all this.

You know, this thread was inspired by your comments. You said on another thread that unions were inherently Socialist organizations. I am not sure I understand that argument.

If they are socialist, then they must be organized as an extension of state ownership. I have not seen unions themselves demand socialism, but negotiate the distribution of compensation (wealth) in the marketplace.

The only real socialism I've seen recently is not as much from working people but from the previous class of "capitalists" who don't seem to understand that investments in a free market must be able to both succeed and fail.

THANK YOU! Far too long you've had people knee jerk a completely absurd idea of what a union is, much less what socialism is.

Also, I applaud your attempt to explain that the entertainment industry is indeed part of the "market". People who believe otherwise should look at what studios and companies are on the market, let alone all the sub groups that make up the enterainment industry (i.e., chemical/technical companies that create the DVD's, the actual film cameras, etc).

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Southern Man
Now you're attempting the semantics angle with "organize" v "own". That's disingenuous at best.

No, it's precise. There is a big frickin' difference.

And yeah $22 is too much for a trucker.

Good thing they don't work for you and that you haven't signed a contract with a union. To the studios, it's apparently worth it.

When I was in school I drove a bus and did the same job that a union employee did for half the pay. The stated reason was that I was a student and therefore didn't need the money. Meanwhile I was paying off school loans while I was in school, was paying tuition, rent, food bills, gas, car insurance, etc., and of course couldn't work a lot of hours since I was a full time engineering student. I needed the damn money, and even if I didn't, I deserved it because I did a good job.

Equal work equal pay, right? Except for unions of course. I guess some folks are more equal than others.

Unions are great for those in them Adam- especially the slackers. They just suck for everyone else, and for society as a whole. *shrug*

Well, I could feel this same way about my current predicament and blame the unions. But there is no question there are many good and hard working people who are union members.

No union is knocking down my door to hand me a card just like that. Some jobs I've done enough work to be eligible and some of the ones I have more of my eye on I have not.

Of course, employers are always welcome to offer me a compensatory rate for my work despite that, but on my own they have very little incentive to do so, and especially in difficult economic times when people are desperate for work.

What you see in Southie is atypical of a lot of folks....they are angry at unions because they feel they were slighted by unions. What Southie doesn't or does not want to understand is that as a student, driving the bus was NOT his full time job. By his own admission, he couldn't put in the hours needed. However, the union person was a FULL TIME driver...that was his job....period. So getting a better wage because that job was his only support and most likely not a stepping stone to a white collar job explains the salary difference. As you pointed out, no one hands out that union card willy nilly.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

What you see in Southie is atypical of a lot of folks....they are angry at unions because they feel they were slighted by unions. What Southie doesn't or does not want to understand is that as a student, driving the bus was NOT his full time job. By his own admission, he couldn't put in the hours needed. However, the union person was a FULL TIME driver...that was his job....period. So getting a better wage because that job was his only support and most likely not a stepping stone to a white collar job explains the salary difference. As you pointed out, no one hands out that union card willy nilly.

So as long as you strive for no better, you can get the protections of a union?

 

[WinterBorn]

That's not what Adam said. He said that folks couldn't afford to work there if not for the unions.

I was referring to Adam's comment "Lots of people don't make a mint in this business but make sacrifices in order to do the work. They might have a second job. They have a roommate(s), they don't get cable, they drink a six pack at home instead of a martini in Hollywood.".

 

[DigitalDave]

Adam, you offer up a stance I've held for years. I've always felt that unions are key in a capitalistic society. Workers need to be able to band together if the powers that be refuse to treat them right. The powers that be then should make the decision to work with the union or ignore it and find a new workforce. Government should never really get involved unless a contract is breached.

Democrats like to try and poke fun at Libertarians all the time, as if we are just about letting businesses run all over people, but that's not what we are about. We are about Free trade, with an end result of fair trade. Society can level itself out, as long as contracts are enforced. Unions are key to a free and fair society. That being said, I don't agree with where unions have taken some companies, but government always seems to back the unions, even if their desires are unrealistic.