Has the witer's strike affected you yet?

[Daniel Sheehy]

Phil,

Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about on this issue. The things you say just are patently untrue. I'd go into it more specifically, but I'm confident that changing your mind is next to impossible.

Please, be more specific, for the benefit of the rest of us.

While I think Phil is being a little scarcastic, by and large I agree with his perspective, and would like to hear yours. :)

[Guest]

Of all those things and more, such as the DMV and road maintenance, the only one that government here does at all well is fight fires. Given those odds, I'm glad they have nothing to do with health care. Unless there's a good reason to have only one organization doing something, like running the police department and the courts, I'd rather have it done by many competitors. We're better off without government health care, which is why really sick Canadians come here for treatment. I wish they'd spin off education, but once they get hold of something, they never let go.

-- J.S.

 

Oh brother are you ever a typical mis-informed American on this issue. Yes a very small statistically insignificant number of Canadians go to the USA for treatment. News flash....Americans come to Canada for health care as well, I'll bet you didn't know that. Some come because they need cutting edge treatment not available in the USA, or they come here to pay cash for treatment that is over priced in the USA.

 

Have you any idea how many bus loads of US seniors arrive here every day to buy their prescriptions? These are poor senior Americans that can't afford the drugs they need in their own country.

 

Did you know that for years health insurance cards in this country had no photo ID on them. That had to change largely because Canadians where loaning their cards to un-insured American friends who would come here for treatment.

 

When you say, "We're better off without government health care," what would you say to one of the 50 million Americans with no health insurance, you heard me right, 50 million!!

 

What would you say to the millions of Americans that have health insurance, and get their claims denied by the insurance companies.

 

Canada's system isn't perfect, but afer living in the USA for six years, I'll take it warts and all over the US system any day of the week no questions asked.

 

I've been self employed for six years, and not one day have I had to worry about health care for me or my family. Do you know how many freelance people on this board would love to be able to say that?

 

R,

[Annie Wengenroth]

I think it is safe to say that union or not, whether sitting at a desk or making soy mocha lattes (try one, seriously!) during "slow times", we all have our struggles. Yes I'm in 600 but it's by no means a perfect system...and I still work non-union quite often. I joined because I'd passed the test (one of the ways to join in New York), I had the money, and I thought it seemed like a halfway decent decision and something that might help me. There are some days when I wake up and wish I hadn't joined because it's such a bitch to have to keep paying them even when times are slow and I'm not working...but it's a decision I made that I want to stick with anyway, because I still believe I am better off for it in the long run.

 

Honestly, I really don't want to get into it beyond that. I have had my own personal struggles to overcome, many of which have nothing to do with this business but have also had significant impacts on my abilities to work and to find work in the first place. It is often maddening to me that "breaking in" to the business is so difficult anyway, as if life hasn't been hard enough already. I am not bashing the 9-to-5 desk guys. If I could've been happy doing that with my life, you bet your ass I'd be living easier and rocking the pencil skirts. But I just knew it wasn't what I wanted to do.

 

The union is not a magical solution for anything, nor is it an evil corporate monster. It's just another way to work. If you don't agree with it, you don't have to join. And it goes without saying that the health insurance issues in the United States are far from being solved. I kinda don't get why people even bother arguing about any of it.

 

I wasn't kidding about Starbucks. I am by no means "above" that type of work. Things are slow enough here and everywhere else that I might just chill out and go someplace warm for as long as I can get away with and find something else to do until it picks up again. God knows we all picked a tough business, so why should we make it any worse for ourselves, am I right?

 

Anyway, that's just me. I'm sure other people might feel differently.

[Brian Dzyak]

Canada's [health] system isn't perfect, but afer living in the USA for six years, I'll take it warts and all over the US system any day of the week no questions asked.

 

And I think that this is how most people feel about our union and I'm sure unions in general. It's not perfect, but it is a comfort being able to take a job where you know you won't be worked to death without proper compensation and (given the current imperfect US health system) knowing that you are earning hours toward health insurance for you and your family.

[Guest]

"I wasn't kidding about Starbucks. I am by no means "above" that type of work. Things are slow enough here and everywhere else that I might just chill out and go someplace warm for as long as I can get away with and find something else to do until it picks up again."

 

What if some one is in your situation and they have a mortgage, car payments, & four children?

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

> it is a comfort being able to take a job where you know you won't be worked to death without proper

> compensation

 

Yes.

 

Just don't be under any illusions that you aren't, by proxy at least, subjecting a lot of other people to even poorer treatment of this type.

 

Phil

[Brian Dzyak]

> it is a comfort being able to take a job where you know you won't be worked to death without proper

> compensation

 

Yes.

 

Just don't be under any illusions that you aren't, by proxy at least, subjecting a lot of other people to even poorer treatment of this type.

 

Phil

 

If there were no unions, then EVERYONE would be subject to unregulated working hours, potentially dangerous working conditions, and (in the US) lack of affordable health care. You would rather that all workers everywhere be at the mercy of the corporations rather than have laborers work toward a better solution for all? I honestly can't understand that point of view. You seem to be suggesting that it is better that all workers suffer, if only for the equity of it, while those at the top walk away with more and more of the pie.

 

I'm not subjecting anyone to anything. People can choose to not take work that doesn't pay a fair wage. I did just that about a month ago when asked to go to South Africa and be an (uncredited) Field Producer and Videographer for five weeks. It meant that I didn't earn about $17,000 in five weeks time, but the fair wage for the work I was asked to do was at least twice that. The same company then hired me to do a different job (just HD Videographer) that has an established rate, and as it turns out, I made more in 2 1/2 weeks doing that job than I would've doing the S. Africa thing. It's all about choices. You can choose to be exploited or choose to demand what is fair. That's the foundation that unions were founded on. They are not designed to exclude, but rather to provide protection from those who would take advantage of others.

 

I do want to understand you point of view, I just need you to elaborate on it a bit more. :)

[Phil Rhodes]

> You seem to be suggesting that it is better that all workers suffer, if only for the equity of it, while those

> at the top walk away with more and more of the pie.

 

But that's what you've got anyway - the only difference is that the people walking away with the big slices are in the union.

 

That's not really my objection, though. What irks me about it is that the unions claim to be working for the interests of workers - whereas what they're actually doing is working for the interests of a some workers, and doing that simply by artificially narrowing the field - which brings us on to:

 

> They are not designed to exclude, but rather to provide protection from those who would take advantage

> of others.

 

Yes of course they are designed to exclude; that's how they work, that's the modus operandi. How is this not axiomatic?

[Brian Dzyak]

> You seem to be suggesting that it is better that all workers suffer, if only for the equity of it, while those

> at the top walk away with more and more of the pie.

 

But that's what you've got anyway - the only difference is that the people walking away with the big slices are in the union.

 

Those in unions (presumably) earn more income than those who are not in a union, so relatively speaking, union members seem to have a larger slice of the pie. However, we are all well aware that the income crew members earn is a pittance next to the slices of pie that those Above-the-Line take home. Your wage frustration is aimed at the wrong target. Instead of fighting against unionization which provides better wages and conditions for workers, the proper fight is to join an existing union or create one, even if it is a de facto one with others in your circle, in order to gain the wages and working conditions that others enjoy. Breaking unions only serves the rich who will become richer. It would do nothing to improve wages or conditions for workers.

 

That's not really my objection, though. What irks me about it is that the unions claim to be working for the interests of workers - whereas what they're actually doing is working for the interests of a some workers, and doing that simply by artificially narrowing the field - which brings us on to:

 

> They are not designed to exclude, but rather to provide protection from those who would take advantage

> of others.

 

Yes of course they are designed to exclude; that's how they work, that's the modus operandi. How is this not axiomatic?

 

Exclusion is a by-product of how it works, not the purpose. You seem to be intentionally putting the cart before the horse in order to justify an anti-union stance. A union is only exclusionary to those who do not qualify to join (for a variety of reasons). They are not "designed" to exclude, but rather to include whoever is qualified. They are designed to protect the interest of all workers.

 

As there are complaints about the US government not providing health insurance for all, it is also the fault of foreign governments who don't allow their workers to organize. We (US union members) shouldn't be blamed for the actions of foreign governments which provide an environment wherein the workers can be exploited. While many of us here would like to see a more affordable answer to health care, foreign (non-US) workers should be working towards fixing their own unfair situation that allows them to be exploited instead of complaining that the US union system is wrong.

[Annie Wengenroth]

What if some one is in your situation and they have a mortgage, car payments, & four children?

 

R,

Then they must be very unhappy and I feel badly for them.

 

I mean really, what else can I say?

 

I'm not being sarcastic! I swear! I am being completely sincere! I did well for myself this fall and as horrible as this strike is, I'm thanking my lucky stars that it has not hit me harder. I mean...I'm sorry I'm a single girl in her 20's who has supportive parents and only pays $55 a month for a gym membership and that instead of having to pay off my mortgage I can buy True Religion jeans on Ebay and expensive vegan desserts at Whole Foods! (And yes, my priorities are skewed. Hush.) If it makes anybody feel any better, last winter I was watering down tomato soup, selling half my possessions on Craigslist, and buying the crappy white bread from Target. If you toast it, it tastes better. :-/

[Phil Rhodes]

Brian, I'm not being exploited. The only people who are doing me down are the big American unions. Plus, I speak as a foreigner, and I'm slightly vexed about it. If I were in the US, I'd be foaming at the mouth about the fact that there's a large, well-funded organisation dedicated to keeping me out of the industry, minimising my income and generally screwing me over in any way it possibly could with its anticompetitive activities. Obviously you like that idea, you're in, it's making you lots of money. Just don't expect those of us outside to feel the same way.

 

And if you can make $17,000 plus in - what was it - five weeks, you are more or less a poster boy for my position that those who get in can really rather easily afford to buy the benefits themselves.

 

The only people I know who joined 600 - three or four - did so because not being a member was preventing them from getting better work. Not because they wanted the benefits. Not because they felt they were being exploited. Simply because the organisation wanted to exclude them.

 

It could not be more obvious that it's about artificially narrowing the field. It's a solution to an oversubscribed industry, but it's not a just one.

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian, I'm not being exploited. The only people who are doing me down are the big American unions. Plus, I speak as a foreigner, and I'm slightly vexed about it. If I were in the US, I'd be foaming at the mouth about the fact that there's a large, well-funded organisation dedicated to keeping me out of the industry, minimising my income and generally screwing me over in any way it possibly could with its anticompetitive activities. Obviously you like that idea, you're in, it's making you lots of money. Just don't expect those of us outside to feel the same way.

 

And if you can make $17,000 plus in - what was it - five weeks, you are more or less a poster boy for my position that those who get in can really rather easily afford to buy the benefits themselves.

 

The only people I know who joined 600 - three or four - did so because not being a member was preventing them from getting better work. Not because they wanted the benefits. Not because they felt they were being exploited. Simply because the organisation wanted to exclude them.

 

It could not be more obvious that it's about artificially narrowing the field. It's a solution to an oversubscribed industry, but it's not a just one.

 

Hmm. Well, it seems that your only looking at the union as something negative, so there's no way you'll believe that the real reason is to help people like you and me make $17,000 + in a few weeks. It is NOT designed to be exclusionary even if it happens to be an unfortunate side-effect for some people.

 

That said, yes, I am in the union, but I haven't had a real "union" job in quite some time. I was an AC for about fifteen years during which I earned whatever the contract at that time specified.

 

After burning out of that cart-pushing exercise, I shifted my career back into shooting video, only this time, mainly shooting EPK/Behind the Scenes. EPK has never and still is not covered under any union contract even though studios and vendors practically insist that those Videographers hold cards. If you're looking for an example of extortion, EPK is textbook at least until we can get it under contract. I pretty much have to have my card in order to do the work I do, however I get absolutely no benefits or protections that other card carrying crew members enjoy.

 

And my rate has absolutely nothing to do with the union, so you can't blame the union for that at all. The going rate for LA Videographers is roughly between $500 and $700 for 10 hours. I'm going to repeat that: my union status has absolutely NOTHING to do with why I can earn so much in so little time. The distinct potential is that I could actually wind up earning LESS (take home) if EPK gets organized under an IA contract as some of our compensation would undoubtedly be in the form of hours toward benefits.

 

So, the union is definitively NOT about being exclusionary. It only works if more people are in it, not less. That someone isn't able or allowed in for whatever reason has nothing to do with the purpose of organized labor, which is fundamentally about protecting workers from being exploited in terms of long hours and less pay.

 

I hold my IA card yet I earn absolutely ZERO hours and have ZERO protection because of it while I shoot EPK on set alongside everyone else who does. Is that irritating? Of course, which is why we're working to include this specialty into the contract. In the meantime, instead of getting angry and becoming anti-labor/anti-union, I'm working to fix the situation instead of rationalizing my anger and potentially making it worse.

[Phil Rhodes]

> And my rate has absolutely nothing to do with the union

 

Exactly!

 

So what the ?#@! is the point?!

[Brian Dzyak]

> And my rate has absolutely nothing to do with the union

 

Exactly!

 

So what the ?#@! is the point?!

 

Excellent question. :) The answer ... the point is that the world of Videography is akin to the Wild West. While I get one rate from one company, another company may agree to only pay, say $600 or $500 for the same exact work. There is a "loose standard" of pay, but hardly a set rate for everyone. So while I may be great at what I do, if my rate is too high for someone for whatever reason, they have the freedom to hire someone else for less. So now, that other guy is doing work that is worth a higher rate, but now he has undercut everyone else who has managed to work hard to set a "standard rate" for the work. But if employers don't really care about quality or loyalty, they really don't care who they hire so long as that warm body can show up on time and push the button. That new guy may have the job, but he is allowing himself to be exploited and dragging down everyone else at the same time. Meanwhile, the Producer can walk away with his profit plus whatever he has saved by hiring a cheaper crew. So who exactly wins here?

 

The benefit of unionizing Videography work, specifically for EPK on features and the like, is that A) we'll get all of those college grad buddies,who carry those miniDV's around, off the set. They typically don't have a clue how a set works so they break protocols and often, place themselves in dangerous situations. Those guys also run around like they are trying to recreate Hearts of Darkness, trying to "get dirt" like they are working for 60 Minutes. The problem with that is when professionals, like myself, show up on a set, we have to earn back the trust of a crew and the cast that we aren't there to "catch them" and make people look bad. It is a very real issue that I deal with nearly every time I show up on set anymore. Somebody (Producer or Director) hires some kid out of college to hang around set to shoot behind the scenes and that kid has no clue about set etiquette and the like. It's ridiculous some of the stories I hear from crews.

 

And B) with union representation for EPK work, I would actually get hours credited toward my health and welfare, because like it or not, the US does not have socialized medicine and it costs me and my family nearly $1000 a month for the PPO coverage. If I qualified for Motion Picture Health, the costs would be substantially reduced. So this notion that all union people are living in luxury is way way way off base. Many of us are struggling to get by like most people.

 

With the protection of a union contract, I would be guaranteed my rate, I would be guaranteed a paycheck within a week like everyone else, and I would have insurance. As it stands now, I have to ask for my rate everytime, I have to chase paychecks months after I've invoiced, and I pay an exorbitant amount out of pocket for health insurance. Those are all reasons why having a union behind you is a good idea. I see no good reason why the opposite would ever be true.

[Mark Dunn]

So you DO want a closed shop. You've just said as much. What is 'getting the college-grad buddies off the set' if it isn't a closed shop?

We did away with them as well, 20 years ago.

[Brian Dzyak]

So you DO want a closed shop. You've just said as much. What is 'getting the college-grad buddies off the set' if it isn't a closed shop?

We did away with them as well, 20 years ago.

 

I said nothing of the sort. I should have been more clear and said unqualified cameramen off the set. I'll go back to something said previously and reiterate that the process for joining a union (any union), in most cases, necessitates a certain level of experience. In this specific example, grabbing some cheap/hungry kid out of school to run around a movie set undermines the rather serious attempts at obtaining quality promotional material for EPK and/or DVD content.

 

The goal is and should be to include everyone who is qualified. If that happens, then everyone has that "ticket" to get any job available and they have wage and working conditions protection.

 

As I said before, doing what I do now, I don't enjoy all of those benefits, but instead of fighting against it, I try to work for better representation, not just for me, but for everyone who does this.

[Brad Grimmett]

f I were in the US, I'd be foaming at the mouth about the fact that there's a large, well-funded organisation dedicated to keeping me out of the industry, minimising my income and generally screwing me over in any way it possibly could with its anticompetitive activities. Obviously you like that idea, you're in, it's making you lots of money. Just don't expect those of us outside to feel the same way.

Phil,

If you lived in the U.S. you would be in the union if you wanted to be. For you to act like it would be impossible for you to ever get in is ridiculous. It's not hard to get in at all.

The "poor me" approach is getting quite old.

[Phil Rhodes]

If you lived in the U.S. you would be in the union if you wanted to be.

 

From the looks of it, I'd be in the union even if I didn't want to be.

 

But seriously, the problem with what I do is that it's far too variable. I'm a generic production IT guy - computer systems. It covers many fields. About the only thing I've done 100 days of in the last couple of years is edit, and that's not going to impress anyone.

[robert duke]

The IATSE has a wage Minimum rate sheet. You are by all rights allowed to barter a wage that is higher than the printed minimum. This is not price fixing. It is assurance of pay for knowledge learned.

 

The IATSE is only exclusionary in way that work volume = the volume of workers. Other wise everyone starves. I am sorry but we all can't be everything we wanted. I had to wait for someone to die before I moved up into a position. The rate at which people are graduating film school is higher than the rate of work. If the IATSE did not close its open policy there would not be enough work for its membership to survive. It would make itself contrary. If you cant find work maybe you should find another line of buisness. Darwin holds true for filmmaking too.

 

It does not take a rich person to join the IATSE. It is frequent that on shows that "flip" free or discounted membership is Offered. In this manner MANY of my friends and I have joined the union. You can if you have not worked apply for reduced dues.

 

The Union Members make more money because we have rate minimums, overtime rules, meal penalties, etc. We do not allow ourselves to be overrun by errant producers. If you are not happy with what you make look at why you make that much. We work just as hard as Non union members, but we stand together. If all the non union people united they would create a UNION.

 

I have worked plenty of $100 a day jobs, flat day jobs, etc. I still do.

 

The Union is responsible for all the labor laws all over the world. history will tell you that it is the work of the unions that have created labor laws and influenced them. People died for you to be able to have a weekend. with out the unions the weekend as we know it would not exist.

[Annie Wengenroth]

Whoa Phil...maybe like...you're in the union ALREADY...and you don't even KNOW it!!! Like in a parallel universe or something. :blink: Ha ha. Honestly, I have to admit that sometimes I don't know how I feel about the prospect of AC's getting walked in based on reality shows, for example...in other words, all THEY had to do to join was juggle tapes and batteries, and yet I had to take a test? But you know what? Sometimes that's how it goes and what right do I have to complain and get all pissy about it. You make $125 a day on an NYU job but then you make $500 on a commercial so you just keep moving, union or not. I don't see any reason to be anti-union in the sense of "they're taking work away from indie people". Whatever man, I know AC's who are in 600 who get passed over by indie guys now because the indie guys don't want the union to know about those jobs and don't want to get a contract. And I know AC's who are on the verge of having enough days to join 600 and they've been dodging it forever. Things are not so black and white for anybody.

 

The Union is responsible for all the labor laws all over the world. history will tell you that it is the work of the unions that have created labor laws and influenced them. People died for you to be able to have a weekend.

There ya go.

[Walter Graff]

QUOTE The Union is responsible for all the labor laws all over the world. history will tell you that it is the work of the unions that have created labor laws and influenced them. People died for you to be able to have a weekend.

 

 

Actually, you ought to look into the history of labor laws to see that you statment is not entirely factual. Unions had some influence after time with labor laws but not nececessarily because unions where so good to the masses.

Here's a link that gives a good overview.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law

[Matt Workman]

This is another heated debate I'm happy to jump in on!

 

On my last job, the lil'Pana job, we had our own little union. Clearly this was a non-union shoot but the crew was pretty experienced and insisted on meal penalties, OT after 12hours, etc. It wasn't the strictest following of those rules but it was made quite clear that if the crew felt they were being taken advantage of, there would be problems. Like no more making movie problems.

 

For this job it was about respect. I think that is the best goal of a union, is to get workers respect for their work. Now I realize this isn't the case, but its perhaps the ideal of a union.

 

I'm pretty new to this and as the DP I should probably have been leading the campaign for better conditions but the guys who really did the leg work were the sound mixer, gaffer, and 1st AC. They have been working more union-ish type jobs than I have.

 

Without their "standards" that they've adopted from the union world and brought into the non-union world, we would have worked longer hours, made less money, been sadder :( , and the producers would go about their business expecting that the next show could be run like this.

 

I am not a local 600 DP (YET!!!) but I'd have to say that even if the union is an imperfect system (in an imperfect world <_< ) that I'm glad they are around at least feigning to protect the workers. Minimum day rate? Health Insurance? Hot Chix Room? Sign me up!

[robert duke]

Labor Unions assisted in the language of the laws that govern workers rights. labor unions wrote that language to fight the sweat shop mentality of mills, factories, and other industries. you should research beyond wikipedia and read about the labor disputes that followed the coal industry.

Here is some history of Unions and their why.

 

1800s

 

1806 (United States)

Commonwealth vs. Pullis was the first reported case arising from a labor strike in the United States. After a three day trial, the jury found the defendants guilty of "a combination to raise their wages".

 

[edit] 1820s

 

27 April 1825 (United States)

Carpenters in Boston were the first to stage a strike for the 10-hour work-day.

 

[edit] 1830s

 

3 July 1835 (United States)

Children employed in the silk mills in Paterson, New Jersey go on strike for the 11 hour d

 

ay, 6 days a week.

 

[edit] 1840s

 

March 1842 (United States)

Commonwealth v. Hunt was a landmark legal decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of labor unions. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that unions were legal organizations and had the right to organize and strike. Before this decision, labor unions which attempted to 'close' or create an unionized workplace could be charged with conspiracy. See Commonwealth vs. Pullis

 

1847 (Scotland)

The Educational Institute of Scotland, the oldest teachers' trade union in the world, was founded.

 

[edit] 1850s

 

July 1851 (United States)

Two railroad strikers are shot dead and others injured by the state militia in Portage, New York.

 

21 April 1856 (Australia)

Stonemasons and building workers in Melbourne achieve an Eight-hour day, the first organised workers in the world to achieve an 8 hour day, with no loss of pay.

 

[edit] 1860s

 

1860 (United States)

800 women operatives and 4,000 workmen marched during a shoemaker's strike in Lynn, Massachusetts.

 

1866 (United States)

National Labor Union formed - 1st national labor federation in the US.

 

1868 (Germany)

The General German Federation of Trade Unions (ADGB) was founded and represented 142,000 workers.[1]

 

1869 (United States)

Uriah Stephans organized a new union known as the Knights of Labor.

 

[edit] 1870s

 

13 January 1874 (United States)

The original Tompkins Square Riot. As unemployed workers demonstrated in New York City's Tompkins Square Park, a detachment of mounted police charged into the crowd, beating men, women and children indiscriminately with billy clubs and leaving hundreds of casualties in their wake.

 

Commented Abram Duryee, the Commissioner of Police: "It was the most glorious sight I ever saw..."

 

12 February 1877 (United States)

Great Railroad Strike -- U.S. railroad workers began strikes to protest wage cuts.[1]

 

21 June 1877 (United States)

Ten coal-mining activists ("Molly Maguires") were hanged in Pennsylvania.

 

14 July 1877 (United States)

A general strike halted the movement of U.S. railroads. In the following days, strike riots spread across the United States. The next week, federal troops were called out to force an end to the nationwide strike. At the "Battle of the Viaduct" in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago, between protesting members of the Chicago German Furniture Workers Union, now Local 1784 of the Carpenters Union, and federal troops (recently returned from an Indian massacre) killed 30 workers and wounded over 100.

 

[edit] 1880s

 

5 September 1882 (United States)

Thirty thousand workers marched in the first Labor Day parade in New York City.

 

1883 (Canada)

The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada (TLC), a Canada-wide central federation of trade unions was formed.

 

1884 (United States)

The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, forerunner of the American Federation of Labor, passed a resolution stating that "8 hours shall constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886."

 

March 1886 (United States)

The Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886 was a labor union strike against the Union Pacific and Missouri Pacific railroads involving more than 200,000 workers.

 

1 May 1886 (United States)

Workers protested in the streets to demand the universal adoption of the eight hour day. Hundreds of thousands of American workers had joined the Knights of Labor.

 

1 May 1886 (United States)

Bay View Tragedy -- About 2,000 Polish workers walked off their jobs and gathered at St. Stanislaus Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, angrily denouncing the ten hour workday. The protesters marched through the city, calling on other workers to join them. All but one factory was closed down as sixteen thousand protesters gathered at Rolling Mills. Wisconsin Governor Jeremiah Rusk called the state militia. The militia camped out at the mill while workers slept in nearby fields. On the morning of May 5th, as protesters chanted for the eight hour workday, General Treaumer ordered his men to shoot into the crowd, some of whom were carrying sticks, bricks, and scythes, leaving seven dead at the scene, including a child.[2][3]

 

The Milwaukee Journal reported that eight more would die within twenty-four hours, adding that Governor Rusk was to be commended for his quick action in the matter.

 

4 May 1886 (United States)

The Haymarket Riot, in Chicago, Illinois, is the origin of international May Day observances.

 

4 October 1887 (United States)

The Louisiana Militia, aided by bands of "prominent citizens," shot 35 unarmed black sugar workers striking to gain a dollar-per-day wage, and lynched two strike leaders.

 

June 1888 (United Kingdom)

The London matchgirls strike of 1888 was a strike of the women and teenage girls working at the Bryant and May Factory in Bow, London. The strike was prompted by the poor working conditions in the match factory, including fourteen hour work days, poor pay, excessive fines, and the severe health complications of working with yellow (or white) phosphorus, such as phossy jaw.

 

[edit] 1890s

 

25 July 1890 (United States)

New York garment workers won the right to unionize after a seven-month strike. They secured agreements for a closed shop, and firing of all scabs.

 

6 July 1892 (United States)

Homestead Strike -- Pinkerton Guards, trying to pave the way for the introduction of scabs, opened fire on striking Carnegie mill steel-workers in Homestead, Pennsylvania. In the ensuing battle, three Pinkertons surrendered; then, unarmed, they were set upon and beaten by a mob of townspeople, most of them women. Seven guards and eleven strikers and spectators were shot to death.[4]

 

11 July 1892 (United States)

Coeur d'Alene miners' dispute -- Striking miners in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho dynamited the Frisco Mill, leaving it in ruins.

 

1894 (United Kingdom)

History of Trade Unionism, the influential book by Sidney and Beatrice Webb is first published.

 

7 February 1894 (United States)

In Cripple Creek, Colorado, miners went on strike when mine owners announced an increase from eight to ten hours per day, with no increase in wages. This strike marked perhaps the only time in American history that a state militia was called out to protect miners from sheriff's deputies.

 

11 May - 10 July 1894 (United States)

Pullman Strike -- A nation-wide strike against the Pullman Company begins with a wildcat walkout on 11 May after wages are drastically reduced. On 5 July, the 1892 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago's Jackson Park was set ablaze, and seven buildings were burned to the ground. The mobs raged on, burning and looting railroad cars and fighting police in the streets, until 10 July, when 14,000 federal and state troops finally succeeded in putting down the strike, killing 34 American Railway Union members. Leaders of the strike, including Eugene Debs, were imprisoned for violating injunctions, causing disintegration of the union.[4]

 

1895 (France)

The Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), was formed. This French union is the oldest confederation still in existence.

 

21 September 1896 (United States)

The state militia was sent to Leadville, Colorado to break a miner's strike.

 

10 September 1897 (United States)

Lattimer Massacre -- 19 unarmed striking coal miners and mine workers were killed and 36 wounded by a posse organized by the Luzerne County sheriff for refusing to disperse near Hazleton, Pennsylvania. The strikers, most of whom were shot in the back, were originally brought in as strike-breakers, but later organized themselves.

 

1898 (United States)

A portion of the Erdman act, which would have made it a criminal offense for railroads to dismiss employees or discriminate against prospective employees based on their union activities, was declared invalid by the United States Supreme Court.

 

[edit] 1900s

 

12 October 1902 (United States)

The Anthracite Coal Strike -- Fourteen miners were killed and 22 wounded by scabherders at Pana, Illinois.[2] The miner get to raise their wages 10% higher and 9-hour day.

 

23 November 1903 (United States)

Colorado Labor Wars -- Troops were dispatched to Cripple Creek, Colorado to defeat a strike by the Western Federation of Miners, with the specific purpose of driving the union out of the district. The strike had begun in the ore mills earlier in 1903, and then spread to the mines.

 

July 1903 (United States)

Labor organizer Mary Harris ("Mother") Jones leads child workers in demanding a 55 hour work week.

 

23 February 1904 (United States)

William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Chronicle began publishing articles on the menace of Japanese laborers, leading to a resolution of the California Legislature that action be taken against their immigration.

 

8 June 1904 (United States)

A battle between the Colorado Militia and striking miners at Dunnville ended with six union members dead and 15 taken prisoner. Seventy-nine of the strikers were deported to Kansas two days later.

 

17 April 1905 (United States)

The Supreme Court held that a maximum hours law for New York bakery workers was unconstitutional under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

 

1908 (United States)

The Erdman Act was further weakened when Section 10 was declared unconstitutional. This section had made it illegal for railroad employers to fire employees for being involved in union activities and use "yellow dog" contracts (see 1898).

 

22 November 1909 (United States)

The New York shirtwaist strike of 1909 (Uprising of the 20,000). Female garment workers went on strike in New York; many were arrested. A judge told those arrested: "You are on strike against God."

 

[edit] 1910s

 

October 1, 1910 (United States)

Los Angeles Times building bombing killed twenty people and destroyed the building. Calling it "the crime of the century," the newspaper's owner Harrison Gray Otis blamed the bombing on the unions, a charge denied by unionists.

 

25 December 1910 (United States)

A dynamite bomb destroyed a portion of the Llewellyn Iron works in Los Angeles, where a bitter strike was in progress. In April 1911 James McNamara and his brother John McNamara, secretary-treasurer of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, were charged with the two crimes. James McNamara pleaded guilty to murder and John McNamara pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the dynamiting of the Llewellyn Iron Works.[3]

 

1911 (United States)

The Supreme Court in Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co. (221 U.S. 418) affirmed a lower court order for the AFL to stop interfering with Buck's Stove and Range Company's business or boycotting its products or distributors.

 

On June 24, 1912 in the second contempt trial, the defendants (Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell, and Frank Morrison) were again found guilty and sentenced to prison. The Supreme Court overturned the convictions because the new proceedings had not been instituted within the three-year statute of limitations (233 U.S. 604 1914).[5]

 

25 March 1911 (United States)

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire -- The Triangle Shirtwaist Company, occupying the top three floors of a ten-story building in New York City, was consumed by fire. One hundred and forty-seven people, mostly women and young girls working in sweatshop conditions, died.

 

January-March 1912 (United States)

Lawrence textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, often known as the "Bread and Roses" strike. Dozens of different immigrant communities united under the leadership of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in a largely successful strike led to a large extent by women. The strike is credited with inventing the moving picket line, a tactic devised to keep strikers from being arrested for loitering.

 

It also adopted a tactic used before in Europe, but never in the United States, of sending children to sympathizers in other cities when they could not be cared for by strike funds. On 24 February, women attempting to put their children on a train out of town were beaten by police, shocking the nation.[4][6]

 

18 April 1912 (United States)

The National Guard was called out against striking West Virginia coal miners.

 

7 July 1912 (United States)

Striking members of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers and supporters are involved in an armed confrontation with the Galloway Lumber Company and supporters in the Grabow Riot, resulting in four deaths and 40 to 50 wounded.

 

11 June 1913 (United States)

Police shot three maritime workers (one of whom was killed) who were striking against the United Fruit Company in New Orleans.

 

5 January 1914 (United States)

The Ford Motor Company raised its basic wage from $2.40 for a nine hour day to $5 for an eight hour day.

 

20 April 1914 (United States)

The "Ludlow Massacre." In an attempt to persuade strikers at Colorado's Ludlow Mine Field to return to work, company "guards," engaged by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and other mine operators and sworn into the State Militia just for the occasion, attacked a union tent camp with machine guns, then set it afire. Five men, two women and 12 children died as a result.[4][5]

[robert duke]

I am not saying that corruption has not found its way into the institution of Unions, corruption has found its way into every leg of society, ENRON, Science, government, etc. For the corruption of a few the masses should not be punished.

 

Unions are here to fight for the humanity of a job. Why can't we in the film industry have an 8hr day? why must we sacrifice the quality of our lives for someone else's ART? the IATSE fights to create a balance in the rights of its members and the needs of producers. Overtime and meal penalties are penalties for working long hours. Producers decide when they cross those lines, and they do it consciously. Overtime starts at 8hrs most of the time. producers budget for overtime and meal penalties. why?

[Walter Graff]

Thanks I know quite a bit about the history of labor unions in the US. We could discuss how unions both positively and negatively affected workers rights. But that is for another thread.