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."

7 of 576 comments (clear)

  1. Re:First Union? by jpate · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:First Union? by mjtaylor24601 · · 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.

    --
    I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
  3. Re:First Union? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Re:First Union? by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Informative
    I see we have a terminology problem. A 'local' is a specific part of a union. Lets say you have the pipe fitters union. The union is made up of several locals, each one controlling a geographic area and each local generally has it's own number. The union restricts it such that a member of one local can not work in an area controlled by another local.

    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
  5. Re:First Union? by Reverberant · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:So let me get this straight by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:One does not... by MasaMuneCyrus · · 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.