Slashdot Mirror
Unions Urging Actors Not To Work On Hobbit Movie
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."
ok (and citations therein). If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, search the page for "344:1" for the pay gap, and see the third-to-last paragraph for some discussion on unions and a reference.
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).
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.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
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.
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.
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.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The Upper Big Branch mine was a non-union mine. In union mines, workers have the power to stop the types of unsafe working practices that contributed to the UBB fatalities.
The union in NZ was apparently abandoned. They didn't file necessary paperwork, so it ceased to exist. Now, when something big is going to be filmed in NZ, they are requiring that an NZ production file proper paperwork in Australia. The NZ production company rightly stated that was not strictly legal (legal to sign, but not binding to anyone, so quite pointless). The Australian company pressed the US company to make it a union issue. If the union had properly maintained its NZ presence, this wouldn't be an issue. Peter Jackson isn't trying to block the union. There doesn't exist any he can sign with.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
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.
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.