What's your take?

http://www.deadline.com/2012/1...ke/#more-385080

About time.

As to disclosure, even though I've been branded a fascist Republican by The Pope I am at heart a true believer in solidarity and unions. I was initiated into the IA in 1965 and have also joined two other broadcast unions, IBEW and NABET. The IA is chiefly a Hollywood centered national body with contracts with the major studios(not the ones in the San Fernando Valley!). The union has negotiated contracts that have provided good wages and benefits and provisions that have protected members from short turn around ( two deaths from sleeping drivers forced to drive to Location) and has created classes for professional development.

The crux of the situation in our industry is this: many employers are attempting to make us independent contractors with no contractual protection and no benefits. Competition for jobs has caused many workers to cut deals under scale and without benefit protections like pensions, health care and insurance.

The IA, along with the Writers Guild, DGA, SAG, SEG, AFTRA and other unions are attempting to hold the line and also to encourage the freelancers (eg the people working for the Pac 12 Network) to organize for their own protection. I used to understand Taft-Hartley backwards and forwards but I served on the Executive Board so many years ago that I'm not sure if a majority of freelancers at the Pac 12 can still vote for an election. The plan in the 70's was after a majority voted for representation any union could make a pitch and a ballot would ensue with the choices of any union or no union. Once a union gained victory it would negotiate on behalf of the entire work force not deemed management.

The IA has maintained a great relationship with the studios, operating without a strike since the early 30's.

Most of the guys I work around these days have no clue as to how a union can protect their interests. The unions have done a poor job in educating freelancers outside of Hollywood. I think this informational strike is necessary and if hired by the Pac 12 I would honor the picket line.

SOLIDARITY!

It is pretty interesting though that you come across as a libertarian in many of your posts.

What you describe in your industry is what is happening in many industries throughout the economy. Divide and conquer, take back benefits, give no benefits to new employees, etc. 

Check out this paragraph carefully:

"If income were equally divided across households, each quintile (fifth) would account for 20% of total income. The Congressional Budget Office and others have documented that the bottom fifth has long accounted for much less than 20% of total income. The bottom quintile's share of income has remained little changed for the past few decades at less than 4%, according to Census Bureau data. In contrast, the income shares of the top fifth and the top 5% of households appear to have trended upward. The top fifth's share of total household income rose from 42.6% in 1968 to 50.2% in 2010; the top 5%'s share, from 16.3% to 21.3%. (Estimates derived from federal income tax data suggest that those at the very top of the income distribution have experienced greater gains.) The middle class, defined as the middle 60%, received a disproportionately smaller share of the total economic pie in 2010 (46.5%) than in 1968 (53.2%). [Congressional Research Service, March 7, 2012."

BOTH COMMIES.

The motion picture industry is highly unionized. There are very few areas that remain non-union--e.g., reality programs and what is referred to as "new media" (programs made for direct exhibition on the Internet, mobile devices, etc.). It is not common for there to be representational elections of production companies in the entertainment industry. Rather, non-union productions typically have a combination of union and nonunion crew members. The IATSE union will show up at the production, and are able to easily convince their union members that are working nonunion on the production, to take a walk (e.g., go across the street and have a cup of coffee) while the union organizer has a chat with the show's producer. The disruption to the production is typically sufficient to put enough pressure on the show to start negotiating. The union can show the Producer signed cards indicating that the union represents a majority of the crew. Once the Producer agrees to look at that "prove-up" by the union, the Producer can no longer demand that a representational election be held by the NLRB. The Union's biggest sales pitch to the nonunion crew is the ability to get them health and retirement benefits that are extremely rich. (e.g., a medical plan that has no annual deductible, and will for the first time ever have a nominal employee premium of $0.00-$25-$50 per month for employee only-employee plus 1-employee plus 2 or more, respectively. Moreover, because the IATSE has an Industry Experience Roster system that requires all the studios and production companies to hire from, the nonunion crew members are very motivated to be represented by the union so they can be placed on the Roster, and greatly enhance their employment opportunities in the industry. The biggest problem for the union is that the state of California is killing production in the state by failing to compete with other states that are providing tax and other incentives to attract production. Obviously, the PAC 12 Network has limited options in terms of avoiding the higher costs in California, as four of the Conference teams are here in CA.

DRINKERS, EVERY ONE OF THEM.  DRIVING ALL THOSE JOBS TO CANADA THE DUMBASSES.

---------------------------------------------
--- STANFORDTALIBAN wrote:

DRINKERS, EVERY ONE OF THEM.  DRIVING ALL THOSE JOBS TO CANADA THE DUMBASSES.

---------------------------------------------

Speaking of Commies, Drinkers, and Canada, this was sent to me the other day and seems apropos:

"THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

Play all the Pac-12 games in China... where there are no unions, just corrupt Communist Party bosses that are no different in their greed and grabbing for power than their American corporate management counter-parts.  I'm not traveling to Beijing to watch us play the Domers. 

Long live the unions!

The evisceration of the middle class means fewer folks with the disposable income to spend on big-ticket items to fuel the recovery. Insofar as there has been a massive redistribution of income to the top 1-2% and if it's true the super rich don't spend much of their added income on goods but rather accumulate bigger and bigger back accounts, that is not a recipe for economic growth and a healthy economy. There's got to be a limit to how much buying power the middle class can lose and still be able to fuel solid economic growth which should be good for all of us.

in most cases haven't lived long enough to know just how the workers were being shafted by management. I am talking about years ago, say pre 1934 in San Francisco. The waterfront, ( long shoremen), was run by management with what was called "walking bosses that hired every day from the people who showed up. If he knew you and liked you, you got a job that day. However, you also had to give that, (SOB),WB a sum of money, out of your pay, for that day you worked. If you were black, chinese, phillippino, and many other races, your chance to get hired were close to zero. In 1934 the dock workers had enough of the crap that was going on and called for a strike. They shut down the whole city and nothing moved unless it was an absolutely necessity to maintain life. The Calif. National Guard was called out and patrolled the waterfront. One day, the strikers clashed with the SF Police and two of them were shot dead. That day has since been called "Black Friday" and had caught the attention of management and the strike was soon settled. The Union was then formed for the dockworkers and also for the truckers. It cost the lives of two men to get a decent pay check for the longshoremen and rein in the WB's. City firefighters were working 96 hours a week and they had no union. I worked for the Federal Government Fire Department, 1966 to 1986, and we were paid 60% less than the city FF. Worked 72 hour weeks to their 48. All our benefits were meager to theirs. I was a union member and a State Vice President for the California Professional Firefighters being re elected for 18 years. We were unionized and had a contract but trying to get the US Govt. to hear our complaints was reduced to collective begging not bargaining. You have to live it to understand it. Finally, If you have never suffered on your job, then you don't know just what the hell you are talking about. All the anti union people are comfortable with the "I got mine" and that sucks. You don't believe me, then get off your azz and look up the labor history of San Francisco.

THE PENDULUM OF UNION POWER CREATED A MIDDLE CLASS, BUT OVERREACHED AND KILLED IT DRIVING AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS TO SUCH A DISADVANTAGE, THE JOBS WENT OVERSEAS. NOW THE MIDDLECLASS WITHERS ON THE VINE, AND THE UNION'S SOLUTION? HIGHER WAGES AND BENEFITS, AND MORE TAXES FROM THEIR BOUGHT AND PAID FOR POLITICAL PARTY, THE DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE ALL COMMIES.

Since BigRed and tc so eloquently elaborated on why the entertainment unions and public services unions are such a waste of money and such misuse of capital perpetuated by a bunch of people who couldn't cut it on their own, and made their hay by bargaining with a bunch of helpless bosses who had to give them everything they asked for, it got me thinking of all the other unions that we'd all be better off just exploding ASAP:

- The Union Jack
- The Union Between Scarlett Johansson and everyone elses's junk
- The Union Between Kim Kardashian and her mother
- The More Perfect Union
- The Union Between Man and Woman
- The Unity of the Holy Spirit
- The NFLPA
- The Union Pacific
- The Union Joint

Pasadena2000 wrote: Play all the Pac-12 games in China... where there are no unions, just corrupt Communist Party bosses that are no different in their greed and grabbing for power than their American corporate management counter-parts.  I'm not traveling to Beijing to watch us play the Domers. 

Long live the unions!

IN CHINA EVERYONE WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY ARE ALL UNIONIZED.

You know schit about the IA sir.

StanfordMan wrote: The motion picture industry is highly unionized. There are very few areas that remain non-union--e.g., reality programs and what is referred to as "new media" (programs made for direct exhibition on the Internet, mobile devices, etc.). It is not common for there to be representational elections of production companies in the entertainment industry. Rather, non-union productions typically have a combination of union and nonunion crew members. The IATSE union will show up at the production, and are able to easily convince their union members that are working nonunion on the production, to take a walk (e.g., go across the street and have a cup of coffee) while the union organizer has a chat with the show's producer. The disruption to the production is typically sufficient to put enough pressure on the show to start negotiating. The union can show the Producer signed cards indicating that the union represents a majority of the crew. Once the Producer agrees to look at that "prove-up" by the union, the Producer can no longer demand that a representational election be held by the NLRB. The Union's biggest sales pitch to the nonunion crew is the ability to get them health and retirement benefits that are extremely rich. (e.g., a medical plan that has no annual deductible, and will for the first time ever have a nominal employee premium of $0.00-$25-$50 per month for employee only-employee plus 1-employee plus 2 or more, respectively. Moreover, because the IATSE has an Industry Experience Roster system that requires all the studios and production companies to hire from, the nonunion crew members are very motivated to be represented by the union so they can be placed on the Roster, and greatly enhance their employment opportunities in the industry. The biggest problem for the union is that the state of California is killing production in the state by failing to compete with other states that are providing tax and other incentives to attract production. Obviously, the PAC 12 Network has limited options in terms of avoiding the higher costs in California, as four of the Conference teams are here in CA.

That's news to me since I do business in China.  Do you?  

CardSince84 wrote:

Pasadena2000 wrote: Play all the Pac-12 games in China... where there are no unions, just corrupt Communist Party bosses that are no different in their greed and grabbing for power than their American corporate management counter-parts.  I'm not traveling to Beijing to watch us play the Domers. 

Long live the unions!

IN CHINA EVERYONE WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY ARE ALL UNIONIZED.

And your John Birch Society takes no money?  Shut up Taliban before we expose you for who you are.

And besides, our robots are bringing jobs back to the US.  

STANFORDTALIBAN wrote: THE PENDULUM OF UNION POWER CREATED A MIDDLE CLASS, BUT OVERREACHED AND KILLED IT DRIVING AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS TO SUCH A DISADVANTAGE, THE JOBS WENT OVERSEAS. NOW THE MIDDLECLASS WITHERS ON THE VINE, AND THE UNION'S SOLUTION? HIGHER WAGES AND BENEFITS, AND MORE TAXES FROM THEIR BOUGHT AND PAID FOR POLITICAL PARTY, THE DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE ALL COMMIES.

Pasadena2000 wrote: That's news to me since I do business in China.  Do you?  

CardSince84 wrote:

Pasadena2000 wrote: Play all the Pac-12 games in China... where there are no unions, just corrupt Communist Party bosses that are no different in their greed and grabbing for power than their American corporate management counter-parts.  I'm not traveling to Beijing to watch us play the Domers. 

Long live the unions!

IN CHINA EVERYONE WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY ARE ALL UNIONIZED.

OMG do you think I was actually serious? Hahahaha

On this board, I can't tell who is sober and who isn't.  DOC has so many handles I get confused.  Believe me, DOC might believe that. 

CardSince84 wrote:

Pasadena2000 wrote: That's news to me since I do business in China.  Do you?  

CardSince84 wrote:

Pasadena2000 wrote: Play all the Pac-12 games in China... where there are no unions, just corrupt Communist Party bosses that are no different in their greed and grabbing for power than their American corporate management counter-parts.  I'm not traveling to Beijing to watch us play the Domers. 

Long live the unions!

IN CHINA EVERYONE WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY ARE ALL UNIONIZED.

OMG do you think I was actually serious? Hahahaha

Well, Topcamera, I don't know what you think I'm wrong about since I'm an expert in this field. But I really don't give a "schit" what you think old "sir."

STANFORDTALIBAN wrote:
DRIVING ALL THOSE JOBS TO CANADA THE DUMBASSES.

Doc, what's driving TV & film production jobs to Canada is the fact that they'll rebate up to about 50% of the money spent there in the form of a tax credit.

Canada -- Vancouver in particular -- is buying the work.

California has its own tax credits, but nowhere near the amount offered by Vancouver and London.

Name the Local Mr. Expert. I could care less for your generalized post. It's experts like you who think we skulk away and "drink coffee." Ever been on a real set Mr. Expert? Ever seen somebody hand hold for twelve hours straight? Ever see how many dangerous things a rigging crew does on a location set?

You must be an expert. You think you know it all.

So Mr. Expert "Stanford Man" i guess you're a one-percenter living off the toil and sweat of the working man and woman. Typical Stanford exploiter and typical jerk.

I don't think DD is going to like this sentence, though his response is likely to be "and your point is?"

---------------------------------------------
--- topcamera wrote:

So Mr. Expert "Stanford Man" i guess you're a one-percenter living off the toil and sweat of the working man and woman. Typical Stanford exploiter and typical jerk.

---------------------------------------------

dpbrewster wrote: I don't think DD is going to like this sentence, though his response is likely to be "and your point is?"

---------------------------------------------
--- topcamera wrote:

So Mr. Expert "Stanford Man" i guess you're a one-percenter living off the toil and sweat of the working man and woman. Typical Stanford exploiter and typical jerk.

---------------------------------------------

Is this like sectionDD "closing" the Rose Bowl bid using RJ's salesmanship?

Now there's a tidy way of putting it. Reality: with the technologically enabled onset of globalization and the enactment of treaties like NAFTA (yes, I hold Clinton responsible in a big way for that and believe that Ross Perot was correct about "that giant sucking sound"), for U.S. capitalists who cared only about the financial bottom line and not about the jobs of their fellow citizens, it became clear that the savings in labor costs exceeded the increase in transport costs from producing abroad. And, of course, there were no public policies enacted to level the playing field by giving U.S. companies who kept jobs here tax breaks (as Obama has proposed doing and I believe would be a good idea). Apparently you believe unions should have acquiesced in massive give-backs in salary and benefits, thus bringing them down to the salary and benefit and safety-regulatory levels of workers in Third World countries. You wouldn't feel that way if it was union members in your U.S. family whose economic circumstances would be devastated, you'd be outraged. As for your claim about "THE UNION'S SOLUTION," (a) re "HIGHER WAGES AND BENEFITS: unions have mostly lost the battle for higher wages and benefits. It's been more a matter of how quickly they would agree to a series of give backs. Silly to call that part of "THE UNION SOLUTION." (b) "MORE TAXES" from the Democrats, well, I wasn't aware that was part of their "SOLUTION" other than increasing taxes back to 39.6% for those making more than $250K, which is what the top rate was under Clinton. Unions are far from perfect, they've had their share of corruption (as has any other large organization in human history), and they often cut off their noses to spite their faces. But, on the whole, unions have been a progressive force for change in U.S. history re the emergence of the middle class and making workplaces safe and healthy. Democrats under Clinton helped accelerate globalization without providing any protection for union and other workers put at risk by the new order because of their relatively high wages, benefits, and workplace regulations. IMO, Democrats need to step up to the plate and enact a policy that gives significant tax breaks to corporations that keep or add jobs in the U.S. Otherwise, union and other lower economic class workers are at risk of further degradation of their jobs until the cost of transporting goods to the U.S. from abroad is equal to or greater than the savings in wages by outsourcing work to low-paid workers in Third World counties.

professional football player and one time pass blocker

Prof, what you have said really lays it out. I have been a union member since I graduated from hi school. As I have noted, I have served as a State Vice=President for 18 years. Are the unions perfect, hell no. But then, what if we had no unions, would management pay a living wage? They didn't before unions were established and it wasn't of the management's doing to form a union. I have always said that I didn't like Coors Beer. My wife said , "you don't like it because Coors is a non union company". Waaaaait a minute, my taste in beer has nothing to do with unions. In fact I respect the Coors company because a while ago some workers tried to unionize Coors. Coors threw it open to a vote by the workers and the union lost. The workers, majority rule, knew what they wanted and got it so who can argue against that?  As a President of my firefighters local I fought for a raise in our pay. It took about 4 years but we finally got a 1.5 % pay raise and guess what? The non union members also got the same raise and had not lifted a finger to help us. It goes to, Why buy a cow when you get the milk free?

Fisch, don't forget Union Underware.