How I've Warmed Up To Unions

from the original post:

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.


Working people providing the opportunity to make money? LOL
The stupidity here astounds me
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Equal work for equal pay. *shrug*
 
democrats and zero business sense,
shit I've been educating them for years and they still don't get it.
I've failed
 
Topspin said:
I agree with everything you said in princible.
Please tell me a huge company with many union employess that's a great investment?
Click to expand...
And his answer was that because of government interference most of the big union companies have become problematic.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
[1]No, it's precise. There is a big frickin' difference.



[2]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.



[3]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.
Click to expand...

1. Again, semantics. No one can seriously argue that unions aren't inherently socialist.
2. Its worth it because the alternative is to have the union strike and shut down your operation. Meanwhile there's some guy who will work for 1/2 that if he could, yet he doesn't have the union connections.
3. I also worked for a state employees union and can attest that there were several hard working folks who were also members. I also saw that these hard workers made the same paycheck as the slackers. There was also a guy hired the same time as me who literally did nothing after the 6 month probation period. He too made the same amount that I did yet I cranked out the work. In effect, I was doing my work plus his. It took the state three years to get rid of him, because of union rules.
 
Damocles said:
And his answer was that because of government interference most of the big union companies have become problematic.
Click to expand...

I don't dissagree, but I do think Unions are still a problem without gov interference.
It's obvious by the top investments being non union.
 
tinfoil said:
from the original post:

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.


Working people providing the opportunity to make money? LOL
The stupidity here astounds me
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. Working people create the products that management and investors hope to use to get wealthy.

Especially crafts people in my industry give of their skills and training to make a production possible. A movie is no different from an automobile or a house. It's built by a skilled team of technicians and artisans, and their contracts allow the management and investor to own and profit from their work.

If management doesn't want to pay what it's actually worth to those craftsmen and artisans, then it looks like they better build the product themselves, because ultimately they are the primary beneficiary. They are not doing working people a favor just by letting them practice their trade, otherwise we would all work for free.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Yes, they do. Working people create the products that management and investors hope to use to get wealthy.

Especially crafts people in my industry give of their skills and training to make a production possible. A movie is no different from an automobile or a house. It's built by a skilled team of technicians and artisans, and their contracts allow the management and investor to own and profit from their work.

If management doesn't want to pay what it's actually worth to those craftsmen and artisans, then it looks like they better build the product themselves, because ultimately they are the primary beneficiary. They are not doing working people a favor just by letting them practice their trade, otherwise we would all work for free.
Click to expand...

they aren't working for free. The ones who make a difference the actors and directors get paid more than fairly. The set workers don't have specialized skills.
 
I'm curious Adam, how do the unions justify someone like Tom Cruise making millions of dollars for a picture when the truck drivers supporting the effort get paid $22 per hour? Are the big stars somehow exempted from the union?
 
Southern Man said:
I'm curious Adam, how do the unions justify someone like Tom Cruise making millions of dollars for a picture when the truck drivers supporting the effort get paid $22 per hour? Are the big stars somehow exempted from the union?
Click to expand...
Most stars are part of a union.
 
They do have specialized skills. Maybe you're not familiar with how many people are required in that kind of work. There are very few generalist positions available.

It's not actors and directors and then a bunch of laborers who just do as they are told. All of the technicians and artisans are required to do their work before a single frame is shot.
 
The stars get the major money because their name will bring people into the theater.

Having a newcomer in a role or Tom Cruise in a role makes a huge difference in both initial box office and in getting financial backing for making the movie.

The same cannot be said for who is working as Key Grip. But that does not mean the star is the sum total of the movie.
 
Southern Man said:
Repeating your post still doesn't answer my simple question. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to repeat it. Was fumbling with my cell phone while boarding a plane.

In-Flight Wi-Fi allows me to continue this discussion. Pretty cool if I do say so myself.

Anyway, Winterborn covers your question very well. A-list talent assure national and international box office. Only point I'd add is that most actors are not Tom Cruise.

That's why we have the Screen Actors Guild (once presided over by a do-nothing bimbo named Ronald Reagan). SAG, along with some other labor unions, assures scale wages and benefits for many of its members.

And when your frequency of employment is so limited like it is for many actors and crew, being paid a decent wage makes a difference. Many actors have to go to a hundred auditions to get one opportunity for something small. They hustle and then once they have work they have no guarantee of having it again any time soon.

For crew it's much the same. The $22 an hour we talked about might feel good for a month or two, but it might need to be living expenses money for two months or three or in tough times even longer.

I know plenty of people who didn't work the first half of 2009. The view that most people (or that the only people who provide value in the entertainment business) are millionaire actors and directors is mistaken. Most of them are living on very modest incomes.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
Didn't mean to repeat it. Was fumbling with my cell phone while boarding a plane.

In-Flight Wi-Fi allows me to continue this discussion. Pretty cool if I do say so myself.

Anyway, Winterborn covers your question very well. A-list talent assure national and international box office. Only point I'd add is that most actors are not Tom Cruise.

That's why we have the Screen Actors Guild (once presided over by a do-nothing bimbo named Ronald Reagan). SAG, along with some other labor unions, assures scale wages and benefits for many of its members.

And when your frequency of employment is so limited like it is for many actors and crew, being paid a decent wage makes a difference. Many actors have to go to a hundred auditions to get one opportunity for something small. They hustle and then once they have work they have no guarantee of having it again any time soon.

For crew it's much the same. The $22 an hour we talked about might feel good for a month or two, but it might need to be living expenses money for two months or three or in tough times even longer.

I know plenty of people who didn't work the first half of 2009. The view that most people (or that the only people who provide value in the entertainment business) are millionaire actors and directors is mistaken. Most of them are living on very modest incomes.
Click to expand...

That's my point, is that you have a few millionaires and lots of poor folk. Since they are all part of the same socialist organization they should share the wealth, to borrow a phrase from Joe Biden.
 
Southern Man said:
That's my point, is that you have a few millionaires and lots of poor folk. Since they are all part of the same socialist organization they should share the wealth, to borrow a phrase from Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

It's no different than any other industry. Most business people are small business people. Not industrial tycoons. Same stuff.

As I've told you, we're all working in the marketplace here, even if most of the folks are lefties. We just want fair wages and a chance to succeed, especially when our work is used to rake in cash for the man.

You'll find very few people with the delusion that they are in this business to actively become rich, though nobody would turn it down.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
It's no different than any other industry. Most business people are small business people. Not industrial tycoons. Same stuff.

As I've told you, we're all working in the marketplace here, even if most of the folks are lefties. We just want fair wages and a chance to succeed, especially when our work is used to rake in cash for the man.

You'll find very few people with the delusion that they are in this business to actively become rich, though nobody would turn it down.
Click to expand...
Again, since they are lefties they should be willing to share the wealth. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Again, since they are lefties they should be willing to share the wealth. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Well, we can't say what rich people in Hollywood do or don't do with their money. I'm sure plenty do share their wealth on plenty of occasions. It's really not important and is unrelated to our discussion.

Working people aren't against other people making money. Obviously companies have to make a profit. They aren't asking for a handout. They're asking for decent working conditions that are part of compensation that really pay for their labor and provide a standard of living that should be expected in a first world country.

What you're saying above is like me saying, "you're a conservative, you're supposed to believe in the virture of private charity. Why don't you give me some of that money you spend on your martinis so I can buy health insurance?"

Neither argument is particularly enlightened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top