This is the level we're now at

[Brad Grimmett]

It is not as simple as that Paul. I simply stated that Brad's comment is a gross over-generalization. Reading anything more into that would most likely be in error.

My comments were very obviously an exaggeration. Not a big exaggeration though. To these people, "it's just business, it's not personal". A company cannot grow it's profits quarter after quarter and year after year in perpetuity, it's impossible, but they're expected to by their investors. So they cut costs as much as they can get away with as often as possible. And the first to get those cuts are the staff. The bosses sure as hell aren't gonna take a pay cut! This happens every single day of the year. It's not exactly a secret.

 

You like to read my statements and take what you want from them, but when you're questioned the person doing the questioning "would most likely be in error". I guess you just want to make comments and never have anyone disagree.

[K Borowski]

You're wrong yet again about the days getting longer since the inception of overtime for film workers. Do a very quick and simple google search and you'll see how wrong you are.

 

I know Google is a powerful search engine, but it is not the font of all human knowledge.

 

I started talking about Unions. I didn't bring in any political parties, either. . .

 

This isn't about "greed". Take a simple economics class (notice I didn't say "Google it") and you will see that there are very simple forces at play. On a tight budget, a production is going to want to get the most bang for its buck. That's not greedy, or exploitative, it's smart.

[K Borowski]

And the first to get those cuts are the staff. The bosses sure as hell aren't gonna take a pay cut! This happens every single day of the year. It's not exactly a secret.

 

Again, sorry for the buzz-kill, but white-collar workers, like accountants, get laid off too. Just because they don't get their hands dirty doesn't mean they all sit around in offices thinking of ways to screw people out of money, while raking in six figures.

 

In fact, I forget if it was Ford or GM, but I read in the paper a few days ago that one of these two was going to lay off several thousand more white-collar workers.

 

As for movies, where does "The Man" start, the DP, Director, Producer level? Which members of the production staff are the "GREED" coming from?

[Scott Fritzshall]

Again, sorry for the buzz-kill, but white-collar workers, like accountants, get laid off too. Just because they don't get their hands dirty doesn't mean they all sit around in offices thinking of ways to screw people out of money, while raking in six figures.

 

In fact, I forget if it was Ford or GM, but I read in the paper a few days ago that one of these two was going to lay off several thousand more white-collar workers.

Umm, white collar workers aren't "the bosses;" they're workers too. That thousands of them are getting laid off is more proof of what Brad was saying- that those who are actually in charge, ie the owners and executives, will lay off thousands of workers before taking a paycut themselves.

[Brian Dzyak]

I heard a story on NPR about professional actors in H-wood. It seems they are getting pushed down the pay ladder to a point that they can't really make a living. This has never been an industry known for its kindness. But, with the economic shrink going on, more and more stories of survival woe are surfacing. I get the general impression that there is an intentional and systematic dissolution of the middle class in the US and Europe. It's showing up all over. I don't mean to sound paranoid. I'm just saying...

 

You're not paranoid at all. It's all described expertly in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine." I urge EVERYONE to read it, but the gist is that the "Chicago School" with Milton Friedman decided about 40 years ago or so to start remaking the world in their Free Market Capitalist image. The theory is that if EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is subject to free market ideals (meaning NO government involvement in ANYTHING economic) the price controls will take care of themselves, the strongest businesses will survive, prices will be reasonable (due to competition), and EVERYONE will live in comfortable income utopia.

 

Of course, that is impossible for LOTS of reasons, but these jackholes have gone around the world doing it anyway. They started their experiment in South America where violence was the tool to drive working economies and societies into this free market ideal. Other tools have since been employed, such as WTO and World Bank strong-arming nations into abandoning WORKING socialist policies in order to be money that they need to fix problems caused by these guys in the first place.

 

It's not a "conspiracy theory" and nobody is "crazy." It has been happening since at least Reagan and is still happening now. While the intent of unfettered Free Market Capitalism may be genuinely good, the reality is far from that, yet the nightmare continues. The reality is that most of the wealth is held by about 1% of the population and the "trickle down" effect they've promised has yet to materialize... and it never will. So the Middle Class in the US is being decimated as it has been around the world since they started their "war against socialism" in their search for never ending profits. They don't really care who gets hurt or dies as long as the profits keep coming in. Whether it's a dictator "disappearing" opposition members or film crews driving into ditches and dying after too-long days, it's all part of the plan where the strong survive and live well while the weak just go away and die.

 

The SOLUTION given the state of the world is a WORLDWIDE UNION for every profession. Right now, the media corporations can play regions against each other in order to drive down labor rates and working conditions. State and nations that hand over corporate welfare via "tax incentives" only add to the problem as the corporations keep more of their money and pay workers less than they're worth. There's at least thirty years of economic damage to fix from what these bozos have done to the entire world and there are powerful and rich forces working very hard to keep the status quo.

 

In the meantime, we're all just trying to make a living doing the things we love to do. But every time an individual chooses to sell himself short and work for less or work longer hours, it just sets a precedent where nobody except the greedy corporations win. Change begins with each of us saying "no, I won't do that."

[Brad Grimmett]

Just because they don't get their hands dirty doesn't mean they all sit around in offices thinking of ways to screw people out of money, while raking in six figures.

I think there are quite a few people who would disagree with you about this. And there are plenty of examples that support that feeling.

In fact, I forget if it was Ford or GM, but I read in the paper a few days ago that one of these two was going to lay off several thousand more white-collar workers.

I read that article, which also noted that it's the first time in twenty years this has happened.

As for movies, where does "The Man" start, the DP, Director, Producer level? Which members of the production staff are the "GREED" coming from?

You keep writing "greed" with the quotes around it, as if I had ever used the word in any of my posts in this thread. I haven't. I also wrote "the man" when quoting YOU, yet you act as if I used the term first. Please don't quote me incorrectly.

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

Being or having been oth employer and employee i can tell what overtime is...

For me the most interesting fact was (and is) the strange working situations and that is still present.

 

SUNNY DAY EXT (but it is actually RAINING like hell)

 

PRODUCER

It is scheduled. We gotta shoot.

 

DIR

But it is raining...

 

A.C.

I can set up another two 4 KW HMI from the truck to fake the sun.

 

DIR

But it's not gonna look good. It f*#%ing windy and raining. We will see that on all the shots.

 

Well. guess what, the whole shoot is looking like crap and is re-shot on the next sunny day.

I have worked overtime mostly when the situation was something like that.

No comment about the endless discussions if that is gonna paid for or not.

[K Borowski]

I think there are quite a few people who would disagree with you about this. And there are plenty of examples that support that feeling.

 

I read that article, which also noted that it's the first time in twenty years this has happened.

 

You keep writing "greed" with the quotes around it, as if I had ever used the word in any of my posts in this thread. I haven't. I also wrote "the man" when quoting YOU, yet you act as if I used the term first. Please don't quote me incorrectly.

 

Did I specifically pick you out? Did I say that you used " 'greed' " or " 'the man' " first. How can you tell what I am thinking or what I am acting like through the printed word? That's like deriving emotional inferences through a garbled telegram.

 

Don't take it so personally when someone disagrees with you. I think that argument is healthy and constructive, as long as each side bothers to at least acknowledge the validity of the points of views of the other. If not, then this dialogue is a waste of both of our time.

 

 

I consider myself an independent, and I get really tired when people see it as a battle between the rich and poor in a country that is mostly middle class, like the United States. We live in a complicated, shade-of-grey world, not one that is stark black & white.

 

As for this being the first white-collar layoff in 20 years, I happened to have worked in the auto industry at one time, blue collar. I pushed a button and made a repetitive motion all day. And people feel those jobs should be making $25/hr.? Crazy. It's another thing entirely, a sad one, when the skilled workers get the axe.

 

But, at least as a white-collar worker you have a degree. I think skilled trades, arguably most of filmmaking deserves some job security too, but as it is specialized, it will never be as secure as a degree that is versatile and can be used elsewhere.

 

That doesn't mean that filmmaking isn't worth persuing, but everyone should understand, going in, that there is a much higher degree of risk in a specialized field such as this than with a trade that is useful everywhere, like pharmacy, auto mechanic, electrician, accounting, or what not.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Scott Fritzshall]

As for this being the first white-collar layoff in 20 years, I happened to have worked in the auto industry at one time, blue collar. I pushed a button and made a repetitive motion all day. And people feel those jobs should be making $25/hr.? Crazy.

Yeah it's pretty crazy that people should be able to earn a livable wage and lead a modestly comfortable life for performing a necessary function. Do you not see how the argument you're making can be turned around and used against you? "Wow, Karl makes $__/hour? All he does is _____! I can't believe I'm paying him that much!"

 

It's another thing entirely, a sad one, when the skilled workers get the axe.

Not when unskilled workers lose their jobs though. They and their families deserve to suffer I guess.

[Brad Grimmett]

Did I specifically pick you out? Did I say that you used " 'greed' " or " 'the man' " first. How can you tell what I am thinking or what I am acting like through the printed word? That's like deriving emotional inferences through a garbled telegram.

You implied that I had said those things in your post. If that was unintentional, then there's no problem.

Don't take it so personally when someone disagrees with you. I think that argument is healthy and constructive, as long as each side bothers to at least acknowledge the validity of the points of views of the other. If not, then this dialogue is a waste of both of our time.

See, you're insinuating that I'm taking this discussion personally, which I'm not. Be careful about the assumptions you make.

I don't think this is an argument, more of a discussion, but either way, I agree. But I don't agree that each side must acknowledge that the other person's points are valid. That's just counter-intuitive. I will very happily acknowledge that you have your own opinion, and are entitled to it, but not that the argument itself has any validity, because I don't believe it does...at least not the whole argument.

I consider myself an independent, and I get really tired when people see it as a battle between the rich and poor in a country that is mostly middle class, like the United States. We live in a complicated, shade-of-grey world, not one that is stark black & white.

I'm not sure what being an independent has to do with it....I'm not a member of either party either, nor would I be.

I'm tired of people ignoring the fact that it IS a battle by the rich against the poor a lot of the time in this country. Of course it's complicated, but some things are very simple and easy to see.

As for this being the first white-collar layoff in 20 years, I happened to have worked in the auto industry at one time, blue collar. I pushed a button and made a repetitive motion all day. And people feel those jobs should be making $25/hr.? Crazy. It's another thing entirely, a sad one, when the skilled workers get the axe.

Even if the job itself takes no skill, the challenge of actually showing up and doing that (most likely horrible) job every day is a skill in itself. I can't argue about the pay rates, because I don't know enough about it, but I do think people should make a fair wage for the work they do.

But, at least as a white-collar worker you have a degree. I think skilled trades, arguably most of filmmaking deserves some job security too, but as it is specialized, it will never be as secure as a degree that is versatile and can be used elsewhere.

Most people's degrees mean absolutely nothing when it relates to their job, especially when we're talking about "white collar" workers. Many of these people are more clueless than the "un-skilled" worker that sweats all day. No one in the film business cares one bit about what kind of degree you have. They care if you can actually do your job and be a positive influence on the job. Hand some genius with 5 degrees a C-stand and he would probably hurt himself. Put him on a drill press and he would probably kill himself. Give the grip or drill press operator some papers to push around and a phone and I think he could get along, regardless of what degree he may or may not have.

Some people, myself included, still think having an actual tangible skill is a good thing. If the nuclear holocaust happened tomorrow, you wouldn't see many middle managers or salesman surviving for very long. The mechanics, grips and drill press operators would be in charge.

[Brad Grimmett]

Not when unskilled workers lose their jobs though. They and their families deserve to suffer I guess.

That's the crux of the argument. They don't say it, but their actions make it pretty clear.

[K Borowski]

I think there is certainly room for compassion in business, but ultimately, it is about making money.

 

I'd do this work if it weren't paid.

 

A lot of you, then, wouldn't?

 

 

Sure, you have to make a wage to get by, usually, but I do this stuff because I love it, not because it pays well.

 

Whenever I have a job to shoot, a personal job, client job, and I need crew, I always pay them as much as I can afford to.

 

It is amazing how people still slack off even in this instance.

 

 

 

As for white collar jobs, if you are a clerk, or a salesman, or a yes-man, there isn't much skill involved in these fields in many cases, but the notion that white collar workers just sit in cubicles, fill out paper work and get paid is laughable.

 

THEY are the ones making decisions, often without an ability to fully predict the result that lead to a company's success or failure. They get b&*ched at when times are good, and get b%^&ched at even worse when times are bad.

 

So don't knock the people who are working very hard to make sure that the PHYSICAL work is needed and avaible to the workers that actually show up.

 

You don't get dirty doing these jobs, but your kids don't know you when you come home sometimes, and the wife says you are never around and you wake up in the middle of the night with nightmares about losing contracts that ultimately cost you and your employees money or even their jobs outright. You don't want to lay them off, but can't afford to feed your kids if you keep them on.

 

So maybe you should all have more respect for the people in the trenches of actually securing production money just as I have respect for the (hard-working element) crews that toil long hours too.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Scott Fritzshall]

None of that really addresses what we were saying though.

[robert duke]

You politicized this first, and then people responded. Playing coy doesn't hide that fact.

 

You're wrong yet again about the days getting longer since the inception of overtime for film workers. Do a very quick and simple google search and you'll see how wrong you are. To this day people in all different types of businesses are having to come together and sue or organize in order to be treated like human beings. This is no different than it was 100 years ago.

 

"The Man", as you put it, DOES want his cake and he wants to eat it too. He wants to pay every employee he has $0 a year, have them work 168 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. And they sure as hell better be the best in the business! If you think that's not true, then you live on a different planet than the rest of us.

 

 

Overtime pay is not a "bonus" for working the long hours, it is a deterrent/penalty, As are meal penalties. we as union workers dont want long days. We want to make a living, go home to our wives and children and ensure we are around to see our children grow up.

 

Film days were getting worse and have in many cases begun to shorten. when I started in the industry a 18hr day was almost the norm. now I rarely see a 14hr. I can count on one hand the days in the last 2 years of 16+hrs.

 

The Union doesnt want to work long hours, thats why we charge OT.

 

Now do I appreaciate the extra cash in my check. heck yeah. do I wish I was able to spent that time at home instead Heck yeah.

 

There was a push a couple years back for a moritorium on 14+hr days. It was started when a camera Assistant was killed driving home. I havent heard much in the last couple years about it. I have actually fallen asleep on the 101 after a long night shoot.

 

Phil, your friend should have insisted on production paying for safe transport or lodging. Sometimes the work isnt worth the risk to yourself and other.

[Phil Rhodes]

Phil, your friend should have insisted on production paying for safe transport or lodging.

 

Ha!

 

I appreciate things are different when you're in the US and three "locals" all at once, but that's not quite how it works here. We have no feature industry and as of ten years ago we could claim to be a place that made commercials and music videos. Both of those are entirely optional promotional efforts and in the current economic situation they're more or less gone too.

 

You put up with the situation described because you have precious little choice. My purpose in starting this thread was to highlight that, but it's turned into something entirely different.

 

P

[K Borowski]

I am not advocating long working days.

 

I think that they are on the decline, adn situations where they *are* still very long are due to Union restrictions.

 

Maybe there are some dumb accountants and producers out there, but I'm sure they don't expect a crew to be able to get twice as much work done in a 20-hour day as in a 10-hour day. If people are expecting this on paper, herein lies another problem. Maybe that would be an example of white-collar worker isolation from the "real world".

 

 

Phil, in your account, I think the driver's being high is more of a problem than the long work day though.

 

I've fallen asleep at the wheel too a couple times due to long hours, so they certainly shouldn't be the norm.

[K Borowski]

Not when unskilled workers lose their jobs though. They and their families deserve to suffer I guess.

 

Yeah, and we like to f^&*ing lay unskilled, laboring people off too Scott.

 

Come on man. It's business. It sucks, but sometimes a perfectly qualified person has to be laid off for the good of the company because the money JUST ISN'T THERE.

 

Otherwise, the company as a whole dies and everyone is out of work.

 

This isn't welfare, it's business. Sometimes we have to do sh&* that we hate doing, but hey, that's life man.

 

I'm going to leave out concepts like global economy, differential wages, tariffs, embargos, deficits, and things of that nature, because it is totally off topic for this discussion, but the days of strong unions in the U.S. are over, PERIOD

 

Unless we get a tariff, which I think the U.S. and Europe should do, we are going to continue to have wages go down and have the jobs where the unions are too strong disapear entirely because factories will just simply be built overseas in the 3rd world, bypassing unions entirely.

 

 

 

 

 

Back on topic, Robert, you are both right and wrong about Unions and long hours. Long hours are not a penalty, they are, in many cases a result of Unions.

 

Here is the function of a Union: Keep high wages for workers. But it doesn't end there. How does a Union do this? Basically they get teh company to guarantee them higher wages, but as an indirect result of this it keeps new labor OUT of the work pool.

 

Higher wages for fewer people is how the equation balances out. Despite popular sentiment here (although I agree executive wages should be capped to ensure a somewhat higher increase for workers), there is not that much more money that can be paid workers to get a product made profitably. Dividing up a $4,000,000 bonus amongst 200,000 workers is $20 each.

 

So, how does this relate to the film industry?

 

Actors can't be second-shifted, nor directors, nor probably not DoPs though they are, but crew and technicians can be easily replaced after say eight hours.

 

Why WOULDN'T production want to do this? They don't need to pay overtime. Because there are no more available workers because unions cap the size of teh workforce.

 

The only small exception is that of 2nd Units, but again, leading actors can't be in two places at once so their functions are limited.

 

 

Phil, I think your case isn't related to any of this at all, so I am sorry for steering the thread off-topic. Your particular case seems to just come from total ineptitude of the production.

 

Sometimes it really is best (although it is tough in this economy) to say "NO" to a job offer and look for other work instead.

 

There are some things worth dying for, maybe even I'd argue documentary filmmaking, but not gripping a 20-hour day to film some second-rate comedy with a tight budget.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Yeah, and we like to f^&*ing lay unskilled, laboring people off too Scott.

You pretty clearly implied that it was terrible for skilled laborers to lose their jobs but not when it happened to unskilled workers. I don't know what you're getting angry at me about.

 

Come on man. It's business. It sucks, but sometimes a perfectly qualified person has to be laid off for the good of the company because the money JUST ISN'T THERE.

But sometimes, as in your examples, and as in a ton of other recent examples, the money IS there, it's just going to the executives. Gosh, we just don't have enough money to pay our workers anymore, we're going to have to lay all of them off, but we'll give our executives another few million dollars each for being so smart and making such hard decisions. You can ignore that it's the rich vs. the poor all you want, but that's the way it is, and that's where their money comes from.

 

Otherwise, the company as a whole dies and everyone is out of work.

Maybe the executives should slash their own salaries first if they care about the company so much. They don't though; they just care about how much money they can make from it before it crashes and burns and they hop over to the next company they can run into the ground.

 

I'm going to leave out concepts like global economy, differential wages, tariffs, embargos, deficits, and things of that nature, because it is totally off topic for this discussion, but the days of strong unions in the U.S. are over, PERIOD

And with them, the days of the working and middle classes having any sort of say in their own futures. Wages for the middle class have stagnated for the past several decades while GDP has risen- where has that extra money gone? Into the pockets of the wealthy. This correlates directly with the decline of unions in the US.

 

Unless we get a tariff, which I think the U.S. and Europe should do, we are going to continue to have wages go down and have the jobs where the unions are too strong disapear entirely because factories will just simply be built overseas in the 3rd world, bypassing unions entirely.

They're going to send work overseas regardless as long as they are able to find populations they can exploit. But meanwhile they'll continue to pay off their congressmen to pass legislation here that weakens the power of unions even more, thus expanding their own wealth at the expense of the rest of us.

[Brian Dzyak]

Ha!

 

I appreciate things are different when you're in the US and three "locals" all at once, but that's not quite how it works here. We have no feature industry and as of ten years ago we could claim to be a place that made commercials and music videos. Both of those are entirely optional promotional efforts and in the current economic situation they're more or less gone too.

 

You put up with the situation described because you have precious little choice. My purpose in starting this thread was to highlight that, but it's turned into something entirely different.

 

P

 

We all have precious little choice to a point so long as the larger "forces" are able to play all of us against one another. Take a look at the headlines on www.realfilmcareer.com and you'll see how some once thriving regions, like Prague and LA, are now struggling while others get one film and think that they're the next "Hollywood." But we all know that in this new age of globalization and corporate welfare, there is no "center" of production anymore. The next production will shoot at the North Pole if Santa Claus offers a big enough tax incentive. The big boys just don't give a sh** about quality crews or experience so long as there is a big enough tax incentive and at least some local crew who can push carts and buttons.

 

The solution is a worldwide Filmmakers Union. If "they" want a global economy, then we workers also have to adapt and realize that if businesses don't recognize borders anymore, neither should we. Everyone's rates and working conditions should be the same world-round so that they aren't able to continually drive down what they pay and think that they can work everyone 24 hours a day. Until then, they'll continue to make more profit and real workers will lose days of work, lose income, and possibly even lose their lives.

 

But it can only happen when "we" make it happen. Because the Corporations don't care who lives and dies and there will always be another young and eager "filmmaker" getting popped out of a filmschool who is willing to work for nothing just for the chance to make movies.

[Brad Grimmett]

Back on topic, Robert, you are both right and wrong about Unions and long hours. Long hours are not a penalty, they are, in many cases a result of Unions.

He's not both right and wrong, he's just right. You're wrong.

Here is the function of a Union: Keep high wages for workers. But it doesn't end there. How does a Union do this? Basically they get teh company to guarantee them higher wages, but as an indirect result of this it keeps new labor OUT of the work pool.

You're obviously not in a union and know very little about what is actually going on within them. If you did, you would know that the rates have basically stayed the same for a long time, but they continue to take away benefits one by one. The union loses in every contract negotiation. And they're doing the exact opposite of keeping people out of the union. They're bringing in as many new members as they can, as fast as they can, in order to get the initiation money.

Really Karl, if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't pretend to be an expert.

Because there are no more available workers because unions cap the size of teh workforce.

Where do you get these ridiculous ideas? Like I said above, this is just patently untrue. How can you be a loader and not know that? Don't you talk to other people at work?

[K Borowski]

He's not both right and wrong, he's just right. You're wrong.

 

You're obviously not in a union and know very little about what is actually going on within them. If you did, you would know that the rates have basically stayed the same for a long time, but they continue to take away benefits one by one. The union loses in every contract negotiation. And they're doing the exact opposite of keeping people out of the union. They're bringing in as many new members as they can, as fast as they can, in order to get the initiation money.

Really Karl, if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't pretend to be an expert.

 

Where do you get these ridiculous ideas? Like I said above, this is just patently untrue. How can you be a loader and not know that? Don't you talk to other people at work?

 

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?

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Unions in general work this way. You're seeing your benefits erode because they bargained for to much and the industry is tanking right now along with a lot of other entertainment fields.

 

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.

 

 

If this black lists me for another two years, so be it, but I am not biting my **(obscenity removed)**ing tongue about your "Good Ole' Boys" club anymore.

[Phil Rhodes]

And they're doing the exact opposite of keeping people out of the union. They're bringing in as many new members as they can, as fast as they can, in order to get the initiation money.

 

...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. 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.

 

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.

 

Whatever else this thread is about, I think labour unions whose membership operates like that deserve all they get.

 

P

[Scott Fritzshall]

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?

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Unions in general work this way. You're seeing your benefits erode because they bargained for to much and the industry is tanking right now along with a lot of other entertainment fields.

 

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.

 

 

If this black lists me for another two years, so be it, but I am not biting my **(obscenity removed)**ing tongue about your "Good Ole' Boys" club anymore.

Which things that the union bargained for were too much? Reasonable working hours? Safety standards? Lunch breaks? Health care?

[Annie Wengenroth]

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

[David Rakoczy]

Which things that the union bargained for were too much? Reasonable working hours? Safety standards? Lunch breaks? Health care?

 

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:

 

They don't care how good you are at what you do...they just want your money - Annie

.

 

Absolutely!