This is the level we're now at

[Paul Bruening]

me an unqualified little shmuck that should STFU?

[Annie Wengenroth]

David's mention of healthcare got me thinking...I don't want to threadcrap too bad, but one of the things that bugs me about Local 600 is that you must work x number of hours to qualify for their health plan (f*cked if I know, I haven't qualified yet! haha) , and then if you don't get those hours in per month, you risk "falling off" the plan again. So this means that if a union member gets sick or breaks a limb or whatever and CAN'T WORK, they are poop outta luck. I think that totally sucks and I would gladly say it to Steven Poster's face any day. For what we pay simply to carry that cute little card in our wallets, the union should at least offer some kind of system where you get your health care through them, but by paying a little extra each month instead of having it be dependent on whether or not you work. Am I right? I mean come on. For those of you who get all your hours, great, I'm happy for you, but what about the people who don't? It just seems a little backwards to me, to make like, one of the biggest understatements of the year. Yeah. You don't want to get me started on the union right now.

[Phil Rhodes]

For what we pay simply to carry that cute little card in our wallets...

 

Then why do it?

 

The usual response I get to that question is "so we can work on better shows", which is quite simply a protection racket, a financially closed shop, and quite pan-galactically anticompetitive. I'm astonished that the country that invented McCarthyism has such alarming labour law.

 

P

[Scott Fritzshall]

Healthcare... it is not the employers responsibility to supply you with healthcare... it is your responsibility. If the union offers a 'group rate' and you want to pay in.. fine... but demanding that employers must subsidize their employees healthcare is socialism at it's core. This applies to every business large or small. It is especially horrid against small businesses as they not only have to worry about meeting payroll they also have to pay for their employees healthcare too! .... oh ya I forgot... all those 'bosses' are evil wealthy people who all drive Ferraris... :rolleyes:

Healthcare is a human right and should be available to everyone. Forcing businesses to pay for their employees' healthcare is actually the complete opposite of socialism- it's mandating that everyone give money to the insurance companies.

[Brian Dzyak]

Healthcare is a human right and should be available to everyone. Forcing businesses to pay for their employees' healthcare is actually the complete opposite of socialism- it's mandating that everyone give money to the insurance companies.

 

Exactly! Being forced to pay private for-profit companies is the definition of a Corporate State, quite the opposite of Socialism. I've found that most Conservatives... hell, MOST people everywhere really don't understand definitions and economics and reality. The Milton Friedmanists of the world want Corporations to run everything, governments to be dissolved, and workers to earn less, work more, not complain, and go away and die after they can't take care of themselves anymore.

 

The rest of us rational people see that civilizations need structure, order, and safety nets to protect societies. That's why the US has such Socialist programs like the NIH, the FDA, the NSA, the Armed Forces, DOT, libraries, etc, but you don't hear the myopic Capitalists screaming to get rid of those. We also need to add Universal Healthcare to other such successful programs like Medicare and the GI Bill which has helped so many vets get a quality education. Nobody is screaming for complete Socialism, but many Socialist programs and policies provide safety and security to maintain a stable society. The lack of any government involvement as Conservatives constantly whine for, would result in chaos and ultimately, rebellion as history has shown in so many other top-heavy societies.

 

When "workers" have rights (safety, hours, etc) and real wages (that enable them to at least make a real living without working 80 hour weeks), then society is more stable, safer, happier, and consumers have money to spend on the things Corporations are trying to shove down their throats. The problem is that there are too many selfish people who just want it all... sharing isn't an option, so they'd just as soon see people drive into ditches after working long hours or die from lack of adequate health care than create an economy where a strong Middle Class is allowed to grow and thrive. Consolidating too much wealth into the top 1% of the population is a recipe for disaster as we're seeing right now.

 

The key is balance. Not complete Socialism but not complete Capitalism either. This affects everyone including those of us in the entertainment/film/TV industry. When economies stall, people don't have enough money to pay for entertainment. When economies stall, Producers can't get financing (loans). Our economy stalled because too much wealth was handed over to the wealthy in the past thirty years. It'll take a redistribution of wealth back to everyone before everybody can be happy and working again. There is no other way. In the meantime, people will get fired, not get hired, get sick, die, etc while just a few at the top continue to reap the rewards of Corporate Welfare and other loopholes designed to enrich the already wealthy.

[Annie Wengenroth]

TL;DR: Make sure you have a union job before you join the union, because it is awfully expensive. Don't do what I did. ;)

[Phil Rhodes]

The key is balance. Not complete Socialism but not complete Capitalism either.

 

What he said.

 

I have a very good friend of long standing who, of late, has become a real socialist bore - at every opportunity he'll spout ill-considered ramblings shoving left-wing politics in everyone's faces, based more on the fact that he's decided that's going to be his philosophy than on actual consideration of the facts at hand. It's vastly preferable to not having a personal philosophy, of course, but I'm always very suspicious of anything ending in "-ism" - it seems to beg prejudgement of every situation, the attitude that no matter what the problem or situation is, your particular "-ism" is absolutely always the best solution. Party politics itself is the commonest form of this particular thought disease; it's a bane of the modern world, a form of idiot prejudice, a formalisation of blinkered thinking, which makes no more sense than racism.

 

I think it's clear that every situation should be judged on its merits, without undue up-front deference to any overriding principle beyond common decency. Unfortunately, even morality itself really has no absolute and universally-accepted features and is defined largely by an individual's upbringing and life experiences, so we're unlikely to find universal agreement even then, though it's likely to be easier to gain consensus on simple human rights than points of the political compass.

 

Regardless, it's a vastly better approach than walking up to every problem with the attitude that you'll deliberately seek out the solution that best fits a arbitrarily predefined moral code regardless of that solution's other merits. Some circumstances are best handled with what would be considered left-wing political thinking, some with right-wing political thinking but I'm not the slightest bit interested in where a particular piece of thinking falls along this ridiculously oversimplified one-dimensional spectrum so long as it's a solution that makes sense.

 

P

[David Rakoczy]

TL;DR: Make sure you have a union job before you join the union, because it is awfully expensive. Don't do what I did. ;)

 

I had several opportunities to join (twice as a Grip and once as a DP)... never did...

[K Borowski]

XXXX YOU Paul.

 

Keep playing with film cameras in a closet in the middle of nowhere that you can't afford to buy film for. . . :angry:

[K Borowski]

Karl, you are making blanket statements again when it comes to unions. Local 600 doesn't have that kind of prestige, maybe on the west coast but not here.

 

Annie, let me just clarify: I am NOT bashing Local 600; I am talking about Unions in general.

 

 

I would say the film union is a good thing, but it is a classic union. It keeps people out of the workforce to attain higher wages for those that are currently a part of the workforce.

 

That isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

[Chris Fernando]

They're bringing in as many new members as they can, as fast as they can, in order to get the initiation money.

 

So how long before someone off the street sees a return on thier investment in the way of steady employment?

 

As a former 683 member I know the benefits of unions, but as a non-union 1st AC what exactly does my $4000 (or whatever it is these days) to get in as a loader get me? Will I still be sitting around typing up cinematography.com posts or will I be working?

[David Rakoczy]

So how long before someone off the street sees a return on thier investment in the way of steady employment?

 

That all depends on you.. being a card holder doesn't mean a thing except that you will now have to pay dues.

[David Rakoczy]

quote name='Scott Fritzshall' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:46 PM' post='294807']Healthcare is a human right and should be available to everyone. Forcing businesses to pay for their employees' healthcare is actually the complete opposite of socialism- it's mandating that everyone give money to the insurance companies.

 

 

Just finished rereading our Constitution and I don't see that anywhere.... and how about all those uninsured who simply choose not to buy health insurance (even though they can afford it) because they are young and feel fit? How about all those who refuse to downsize their homes and buy a cheap car and get out of their car payments to place those funds towards health insurance? That number is very large as well. How about all the illegal aliens? Sure the system needs fixing but it sure as hell doesn't need to be run by the government! The idea of our government running healthcare is enough to make me sick :wacko:

 

Since when did 'big brother' become so cool anyway?.. but I do get a kick out of your twisted logic :lol:

 

It is just sad that so many are lined up for the kool aid. :o

[David Auner aac]

The key is balance. Not complete Socialism but not complete Capitalism either.

 

Called Social Market Economy here. Works quite well, not perfect either but way better than having to sacrifice your savings when you're hospitalized!

 

Cheers, Dave

[Scott Fritzshall]

Just finished rereading our Constitution and I don't see that anywhere.... and how about all those uninsured who simply choose not to buy health insurance (even though they can afford it) because they are young and feel fit? How about all those who refuse to downsize their homes and buy a cheap car and get out of their car payments to place those funds towards health insurance? That number is very large as well. How about all the illegal aliens? Sure the system needs fixing but it sure as hell doesn't need to be run by the government! The idea of our government running healthcare is enough to make me sick :wacko:

 

Since when did 'big brother' become so cool anyway?.. but I do get a kick out of your twisted logic :lol:

 

It is just sad that so many are lined up for the kool aid. :o

Hey whoa I just read the Constitution as well, except I actually read it instead of just claiming to, and look what I found in Section 1, Article 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

The public health of the nation is unquestionably encompassed by "general Welfare," and Congress can tax to provide for it. So the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional is completely false.

 

The uninsured who choose not to buy health insurance is a portion of what makes it so expensive in this country. Healthy, young people balance out everyone else in the risk pool, which means less cost for everyone. This is just one of many reasons why single-payer health care is the cheapest possible option- because it has the largest possible risk pool. People should not be forced to compromise their whole lives in order to pay for medical necessities. You portray people with health care debt as irresponsible, yet most of these people ended up in these situations through accident or illness. Putting them massively in debt to the point where they've got to sell their possessions to survive severely compromises their economic positions, which hurts the economy overall, which actually hurts you. It's cheaper for you just to pay taxes to help them out than to suffer the indirect economic effects of their mass bankruptcies.

 

To give you a personal example, 6 years ago I developed a condition called Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, which required a weeklong hospital stay and an eventual invasive surgery to correct. This was not brought on by any sort of irresponsible behavior on my part, but was the result of an undiagnosable genetic predisposition, combined with the fact that i was exercising a lot. The total bill came to nearly $70,000. Had I not been covered by my dad's insurance plan at the time, this would have bankrupted my entire family. My Dad works full-time at a credit card company, my mom owns her own business, I went through 6 years of rather expensive schooling and currently am fortunate enough to currently work full-time in my chosen field, and my brother just completed college at a prestigious and expensive private school. Each of us are productive, responsible people who work and contribute to the economy, and I'm pretty sure that if you evaluated our lives according to the David Rakoczy "are-you-making-the-right-choices-o-meter," you'd probably put us collectively at a 9 out of 10 (we're likely not religious enough for your liking, sorry ;) ). Despite my dad's insurance, we were nearly on the hook for that $70,000, because they found some technicality that they used to try to argue that they didn't need to cover me. It took months of arguing before they would agree to fill their portion of the bargain. Had we not been successful in getting them to cover me, my family would have lost everything. And because the economy is a complex web of interrelationships, our loss would have ended up being your loss. Not to mention the fact that it's fundamentally unjust to be punished so heavily for something that was out of anyone's control.

 

A single payer plan is the only way to ensure that everyone is covered , and it turns out that it's also pretty much the cheapest possible option. The government already handles many areas of our daily lives, and does so relatively well. The roads you drive on are socialized. The plumbing infrastructure that brings you your tap water is socialized. The post office is socialized. Police and fire departments are socialized. Federal agencies that regulate food companies to make sure your food isn't full of animal feces are socialized. You don't even think about these things because they just work. Many things are, in fact, most efficient in the hands of the market, but large infrastructural things such as those I mentioned are frequently not. Placing a profit motive on your health only serves to make it worse and more expensive, because it gives insurance providers an incentive to cut your coverage while raising your rates.

 

You can bring up narrow, legalistic interpretations of why you shouldn't be forced to be a decent human being and care for those around you, but mountains of evidence show that it is in everyone's favor, including your own, for you to pay taxes to pay for socialized medicine.

[Paul Bruening]

Wow, Scott. Well argued. Not that I'm taking sides or think you slam dunked anyone or anything like that. Just, plain, "well argued".

[Brad Grimmett]

Oh, so because I'm not in the union because they wouldn't let me in two year somehow makes me an unqualified little shmuck that should STFU?

No, but since you're uninformed you shouldn't claim that certain things are "facts" when they're clearly not. But if YOU think what you wrote above is true, then maybe you should listen to yourself.

Should I be afraid of you because I am a loader?

Why would you be afraid of me?

Way to go taking it personally again Brad, but, oh, wait, you're not taking this personally, I'm just misreading you, right?

Actually, I get the feeling you're taking it personally, and so you assume I must be too. I assure you, I'm not.

Don't tell me the union is not a non-compete club, because it is and they are incredibly difficult to deal with/get in to.

In my personal experience, and the experiences of most of the people I know in this business, it's not hard to get in at all. 100 days in three years isn't exactly a lot.

If this black lists me for another two years, so be it

Black listed? What a strange comment.

[Brad Grimmett]

...which is typically an absolutely huge amount of money, and, to be almost ridiculously politic, could sort of be seen as a disincentive to joining.

Agreed. I, and every other member I've met I think, wishes that it wasn't so expensive. I guess for some people that may keep them from joining, but I think that would be a very small amount of people.

Really I don't think there's any way around the fact that US style unions make themselves worthwhile by narrowing the labour pool; that's their mode of operation in a sentence; that's what they do, that's how they work. If they didn't do that there'd be absolutely no point.

The film unions really don't narrow the labor pool. Like I said in another post, they really are letting lots and lots of people in and have been for years. Whether that makes them pointless or not, I'm not sure.

I finally got cheesed off with steadicam operators after a bunch of them crowed delightedly about how the union had camera operators sitting on trucks reading papers when DPs or directors wanted to operate. Mere weeks later, the mandatory camera operator position was abolished, and these very same people had the unbelievable brass neck to whine about it.

I never met an operator who was happy about having to sit on the truck while the DP operated, and I certainly never heard anyone "crowing" about it. I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of us love what we do and think we actually bring something to the job and want to actually do it. We disagree with the notion that we're just "the monkey with the camera" which is how we're sometimes treated.

Taking away the mandatory operator position was a way to force DP's to operate on certain shows, which in general takes more time and costs more money. I think the general consensus is that that particular move was bad for everyone, producers included.

[Brad Grimmett]

Karl, you are making blanket statements again when it comes to unions. Local 600 doesn't have that kind of prestige, maybe on the west coast but not here. I mean, let's get real here. They don't care how good you are at what you do...they just want your money. Although the "good ol' boys" part kinda made me LOL because as a chick in this business, that's often how I feel. (Am I allowed to say that?) :P

In your case Annie, it's the "good ol' girls" club.

[Brad Grimmett]

Healthcare... it is not the employers responsibility to supply you with healthcare... it is your responsibility.

No, it IS their responsibility if they've agreed to do that, which they have.

but demanding that employers must subsidize their employees healthcare is socialism at it's core.

No one "demanded" anything. They negotiate the terms of a contract. One of those terms is healthcare. Calling it socialism is just laughable and out of left field.

[Brian Dzyak]

Single Payer/Universal HealthCare IS the best system we could possibly have. Anyone who believes differently has had too much of the Kool Aid.

 

True story: Dr. in Michigan recently gave a patient a drug for his ailment. Patient had a reaction which required blood tests. Insurance Co. denies payment because the claim dealt with a "controlled substance." Any reasonable person would wonder WFT?! A call to the insurance co. from patient results in reiteration of the denial. Patient asks person on other end of phone this: "So, if I was allergic to penicillin and the Dr. gave it to me and I went into shock and required treatment, you'd deny the claim because it's a controlled substance?" Answer: "Yes."

 

So, all the supporters of this "for profit" system, please explain to the class how the USA has the "best healthcare system in the world" again. I'm DYING to hear this! :lol:

 

 

The FACT is that both the private insurance system and a government system involve the EXACT SAME pooling of money. The entire REASON for insurance is that very few individuals could ever possibly pay for all of their potential medical care on their own. So even all the die-hard Capitalists out there who pay into an Insurance Plan are A) hoping to never need to draw on their insurance, but B) if they do need it, they'll be using OTHER PEOPLE'S money who also paid into that pot in order to pay for their selfish medical claims. If you're so damn independently wealthy that you don't need to use anyone else's money to cover your costs, then you don't need insurance. But I'll wager that 100% of the Capitalists who post here aren't that rich and indeed pay into Insurance pools of money and plan on using other people's money to pay for their selfish health insurance claims if/when they need to.

 

The ONLY DIFFERENCE between a gvnt plan and private insurance is that while the Insurance industry exists to make a profit, a gvnt plan does not. An Insurance Co. makes money in a very simple way: Collect the HIGHEST premiums possible and DENY as many claims as possible. Period. That's the extent of their business model. The don't make anything and work very hard to deny providing the product they are supposed to. Imagine going to a market, buying 4 bags of groceries, paying for them, then on the way out the door, the market takes three of them back claiming that you are eligible to keep them. Who'd stand for that kind of nonsense? Well, that's the United States Insurance system in a nutshell.

 

A gvnt plan merely collects money into a pool in the same way Insurance Co's do, only without a profit motive, they .. .get this... actually pay for the treatments you need when you need them! :blink: I KNOW! It's f'ing unbelievable! Who would'a thought that you'd actually GET what you're paying for!? It's crazy I know!

 

So again, all the Kook Aid drinking Capitalists need to explain A) how a gvnt system could possibly be worse than what we have now and B) what's so RIGHT about the system we have now.

 

Go! <_<

[Chris Fernando]

That all depends on you.. being a card holder doesn't mean a thing except that you will now have to pay dues.

 

 

So the only way to economically justify the initiation fees is if you already know a union 2nd AC on a union show who is willing to bring you on board, as a loader, for enough work to justify the fees.

 

Seems like I'm the one doing most of the work here and shelling out most of the cash - at least on the front end.

 

Maybe I'm missing something here or haven't gotten wind of enough info. I know that union rates, as opposed to independent non-union ones helps to offset some of the initiation fees and dues - but I've always thought the whole "that all depends on you" concept has always been one hell of business motto/concept. I can't remember the last time I paid $4000 for something where what I got "all depended on (just) me".

 

Can payment of initiation fees and dues be put off until you start working regularly?

[David Rakoczy]

Wow, Scott. Well argued. Not that I'm taking sides or think you slam dunked anyone or anything like that. Just, plain, "well argued".

 

 

You gotta be kidding Paul? Do you honestly believe the Founders thought the government should provide healthcare? If so, why haven't they? It has been over 200 years! Talk about delusional. :blink: You guys are killing me :lol:

 

As far as what Mr. Grimmett said about "it IS if that is the deal they made"... let me say absolutely Brad! I totally agree.. a deal is a deal. If one side wants to make concessions to accommodate a hardship on the other side great... but a deal is a deal.. absolutely.

 

I gotta get back to my giggling now :lol:

[David Rakoczy]

So again, all the Kook Aid drinking Capitalists need to explain A) how a gvnt system could possibly be worse than what we have now and B) what's so RIGHT about the system we have now.

 

Go! <_<

 

 

... you just answered your own question :lol: How can the government do better? Sheeesh! Have you been watching them thus far?????

 

Since when did 'big brother' become so chic?!

[Scott Fritzshall]

... you just answered your own question :lol: How can the government do better? Sheeesh! Have you been watching them thus far?????

 

Since when did 'big brother' become so chic?!

You're clearly making no attempt to even provide an argument for your side, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that you don't even know why you support what you do. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have argued against socialized health care with such brilliant arguments as "it will cost too little and be too good, and private insurers won't be able to compete," which pretty much makes my point for me.

 

And on a personal level, David, I'm really kind of irked that I spent all that time writing a fairly detailed explanation of why I supported single payer health care, and you couldn't even bother to come up with an response other than "haha you really want socialism? lol you're crazy! :blink: "