Jump to content

Hollywood preps for Teamsters walkout


Tim Tyler

Recommended Posts

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. If it’s not, when we raise everyone’s price, the price of gum triples. Meaning the cost of everything catches up. Meaning, we’re back to square one with higher numbers.

 

Harry S Truman once said he wished he could meet an economist with one arm because they always say, "....but on the other hand."

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. If it’s not, when we raise everyone’s price, the price of gum triples. Meaning the cost of everything catches up. Meaning, we’re back to square one with higher numbers.

 

 

It means we go back to pre-Reagan days and get rid of the obscene tax cuts for the wealthy. The idea of "trickle down" economics was a sham. The idea was sold (and they are still trying to sell it) that if we give MORE money to the wealthy and to Corporations, that that money will magically "trickle down" to the proletariat in the form of jobs.

 

The problem with that theory is that by TAKING money from the proletariat for "social" things (like police, fire, military, roads, bridges, schools, etc), but taking LESS from the wealthy to pay for those things, it means that the wealthy keep more of their own money and the Middle Class and Poor have LESS money of their own at the end of the day. That means that would-be consumers don't have as much money as they used to to buy things. And when consumers don't buy things, Corporations don't have a reason to hire people to make things. So, all those "tax breaks" that were meant to "trickle down" in the form of jobs go to waste. The wealthy wind up hoarding those tax savings instead of just creating jobs out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

Point being, in a civilization, we need a government to provide infrastructure and "order" lest the entire thing collapse into anarchy. And that means paying taxes to fund the infrastructure. You just can't allow 10% of the population to hoard 90% of the wealth and expect society and the economy to function. It just can't sustain itself. If the Conservative "Milton Friedman/Reaganomics" model is allowed to continue unabated, it is inevitable that the USA, and other nations, WILL collapse economically and potentially, on a societal scale. Violent revolution by the proletariat against the Aristocracy HAS occurred before in history and it certainly can again. Maybe not anytime very soon, but there's no reason to believe that it can't happen again.

 

So, there HAS TO be a leveling of the playing field. While everyone argues over whether or not some people in the Middle Class deserve a couple hundred bucks extra a day or not, people like this http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/ and other CEOs (and many politicians) are laughing their a$$es off while sipping martinis by the pool.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. It IS a great thing that so many people in developing nations have a chance to be lifted out of poverty. But leveling the playing field does mean that some people have to lose some ground. The problem with the current Reaganomics system is that ONLY the Middle Class is bearing the full weight of the pain. So, I can see why some people are upset that a van driver makes "so much," but I never see any similar venom directed toward Corporate CEOs who literally suck TRILLIONS into their personal accounts that never "trickle down." If Globalization is intended to "level the playing field" so that more people can live better lives, then EVERYONE in the developed world should lose, not just the Middle Class. Jokers like these http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/ have no justification for "earning" that much money. Maybe a van driver doesn't "deserve" the money he/she makes, but neither do Corporate CEOs whose only job is to sit on their butts all day dreaming up ways to screw over workers in order to increase their own bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is making my blood boil. I dont understand where this guy, Tom, has gotten his outrageously incorrect $1500 a day figure. And once it becomes settled later in the thread that Teamsters make $32.41 to 8, 1.5x @ over 10, and 2x over 12 he continues to use it and nobody calls him out! This becomes $608 for a 16 hour day, merely $3000 a week if they work every day. You can still argue "Oh but 26 hour days blah blah blah" but come on, that does not happen that often. And even if it does the 10 hour turnaround makes you lose half of a day later in the week anyways.

 

I'm glad for the unions otherwise we would probably have this guy Tom driving us around for $300 a day driving like a jackass.

 

I don't believe it is a highly specialized position, but every position on a set has a set of sort of "unsaid" rules (for lack of better word). They know how to present themselves to actors, they understand the tendencies of these types of people and can accomodate them quickly. They know where to park if we are shooting on New York Street at Warner Brothers, because frankly, I don't want a passenger van in my shot and I don't want to have to tell somebody to radio somebody to radio the college kid to come back from crafty and move the damn van.

 

Sure, I could go drive the van, but I may not know the shortcuts around town, around traffic, etc. I may not know that you have to park at a meter for Location Sound because they don't have a parking lot (and only one loading zone spot). When you pay these people, you are paying for their experience and knowledge; for what? To save you time. SAVE TIME. TIME TIME TIME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CEOs (and many politicians) are laughing their a$$es off while sipping martinis by the pool.

 

Just out of curiosity, has any one examined the compensation packages for the union heads? How much does the top guy at the Teamsters or AFLCIO make a year?

 

Do they have to work a certain number of hours to qualify for healthcare and pension benefits?

 

I found this: http://www.tdu.org/2009salaryreport

 

It seems every one is not very happy.

 

"President Hoffa received the most total compensation of any Teamster official: $383,132."

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I drive a 3/4 ton Ford Super Duty E250 Super Cargo van for my business.

 

I have a 1 ton F-350 long bed dually with a 4.10 rear end, 30" wheels, and a lumber rack. I just put $3400 into the engine, power steering, brakes, etc. Being 8 feet wide, you have to be a lot more aware of staying exactly centered in your lane. Not much fun as a daily driver, especially at 8-10 MPG, but if you need a couple yards of gravel, or want to pull a tree stump, it's well worth having.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This all reminds me of a line from "The Simpsons":

 

"You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!"

 

Not to mention this one:

 

Homer: "Oh, I always wanted to be a Teamster. So lazy and surly...mind if I relax next to you?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I drive a 3/4 ton Ford Super Duty E250 Super Cargo van for my business."

 

"I have a 1 ton F-350 long bed dually with a 4.10 rear end, 30" wheels, and a lumber rack. I just put $3400 into the engine, power steering, brakes, etc. Being 8 feet wide, you have to be a lot more aware of staying exactly centered in your lane. Not much fun as a daily driver, especially at 8-10 MPG, but if you need a couple yards of gravel, or want to pull a tree stump, it's well worth having."

 

It seems like Hal Smith and John Sprung are having a beautiful male bonding moment. Cue the upswell in the music, and get me a tissue :D

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have a 1 ton F-350 long bed dually with a 4.10 rear end, 30" wheels, and a lumber rack. I just put $3400 into the engine, power steering, brakes, etc. Being 8 feet wide, you have to be a lot more aware of staying exactly centered in your lane. Not much fun as a daily driver, especially at 8-10 MPG, but if you need a couple yards of gravel, or want to pull a tree stump, it's well worth having.

-- J.S.

 

I knew you were my kind of guy! A fellow owner of a big, bad Ford. The frau drives a Hyundai Accent to and fro work. My personal car? A 2007 Mercury Grand Marquis LS Limited...I do like those V8's, my previous ride was a 1995 V8 T-Bird. At least the wife can look Al Gore in the eye. ;)

 

PS to Richard: NO big car bitchin' allowed, the Marquis was assembled north of the St. Lawrence, your people made a buck putting it together. I do wish it didn't smell like old hockey skates on a cold, wet winter's day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, has any one examined the compensation packages for the union heads? How much does the top guy at the Teamsters or AFLCIO make a year?

 

Do they have to work a certain number of hours to qualify for healthcare and pension benefits?

 

I found this: http://www.tdu.org/2009salaryreport

 

It seems every one is not very happy.

 

"President Hoffa received the most total compensation of any Teamster official: $383,132."

 

R,

 

I find the attached chart to be very interesting. http://www.dzyak.com/wealthgapchart_copy.jpg

 

What the chart illustrates is that, adjusted for inflation, the lowest line on the chart represents how much better the poorest in America are doing since 1979. If you're in the bottom fifth of the income bracket, you're only making 16% more today than you did in 1979.

 

If you're in the middle of the income bracket, you're making 25% more today.

 

The top fifth of earners in the USA are making 95% more today than they did in 1979.

 

But the top 1% of earners in the USA are now making 281% of what they would have made in 1979.

 

It doesn't take a genius to recognize the correlation between Reaganomics and the way income disparity has grown. Most people, and most here, are likely in that middle income bracket. And most people are out in the world arguing with each other over whether they "deserve" that extra 25%. And while "we" do that, those top fifth and top 1% are sitting on their yachts enjoying the show.

 

Look at this also:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm

Chief executives at the nation’s largest corporations received $9.25 million in average total compensation in 2009, according to the AFL-CIO’s analysis of available pay data from 292 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. Although average total compensation for these CEOs declined 9 percent from the previous year, executive retirement benefits increased 23 percent.

 

That's on average, a single individual taking home over $9 MILLION dollars PER YEAR! And people STILL believe that it's unions and their hourly workers that are "ruining" the economy? Seriously?! <_< How on Earth can anyone justify this system with a straight face? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brian Dzyak' date='28 July 2010 - 07:24 AM'

That's on average, a single individual taking home over $9 MILLION dollars PER YEAR! And people STILL believe that it's unions and their hourly workers that are "ruining" the economy? Seriously?! <_< How on Earth can anyone justify this system with a straight face? :blink:

 

Just curious, you belong to a union, are your dues voluntary?

 

I have an option whether or not I want to support the salary of a CEO by choosing whether or not I buy the products made by that corp, no one forces me.

 

A couple of key points from that article I posted:

 

"When Hoffa first ran for Teamster General President, he promised to “cut and cap” officer salaries at $150,000. If he had kept his word, that promise would have saved our union $4.5 million last year alone.

The total cost of Hoffa’s broken promise since he took office is now $30 million."

 

"President Hoffa received the most total compensation of any Teamster official: $383,132."

 

"Many Teamster members are laid-off or taking pay cuts. But our union’s highest paid officials gave themselves average pay increases of nearly $10,000 a year."

 

Seriously Brian, before unions start casting stones at CEO salaries they need to get the salaries of their own executives in order, then, they can throw stones. Right now they are living in glass houses.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NEWS FLASH. . .

 

 

The strike has been averted. I believe the Teamsters conceded in the end.

 

 

I am actually shocked to find that Jimmy Hoffa's son is now president of the Teamsters.

 

 

 

Regardless of the rotten corruption the union has itself involved in, I was reacting to Tom's initial post suggesting the position should be paid $150 for a 16-hour day.

 

I think that at current rates drivers may be overpaid, but they should be making money comparable to what a bus driver makes, at the least. That should be, in the California area, at LEAST in the $20/hour range.

 

I'm not going to get into teachers and their salaries; teachers should get paid twice as much as what they do, especially in private schools. Just because driving a car is relatively simple in most situations, doesn't mean that driving a commercial vehicle is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That's actually untrue. Teachers do not get paid to lounge around in the Summer. At least my wife (a teacher) doesn't. :)

 

I checked with some of my NM teacher / TAs friends, and they DO get paid for the Summer months -when they don't work- IF they sign the agreement to have their yearly salary spread out throughout 12 months versus 10. So it seems to be case to case. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'd like to be pro-union, for many reasons, I really would.

But it seems like most justifications for it, could easily be applied to someone justifying their belonging to the Mafia, or the Nazi Party in 1939.

 

I have no doubt that the opportunities and pay were better for Nazi party members in Germany.

(Yes, I'm using an absurdly extreme example, but just to point out how absurd the argument that 'the worker gets more' is, as if nothing else has any relevance whatsoever.)

 

I think unions made a lot of sense 80-100 years ago, before there were any workplace safety standards in place, Social Security, Workers Compensation, minimum wages, overtime pay laws, etc., etc., - where your employer could (and did) work you 7 days a week, 12+ hours a day, with no breaks, no vacations, deadly working conditions, etc.

 

But all those things the unions fought for originally, are now LAW.

The unions function basically like the mob... and sometimes literally ARE the mob.

 

And the justification, that they are out of work so much, is irrelevanta. In fact, by using that mindset, and jacking prices up, you are actually CAUSING that unemployment you're whining about.

If you hire a gardener one day a week, and he charges you for 5 days a week, you fire him immediately and find another one who won't gouge you.

Producers are 'firing' the unions when they go out of state & out of the country, so this is literally biting the hand that feeds you.

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to be pro-union, for many reasons, I really would.

But it seems like most justifications for it, could easily be applied to someone justifying their belonging to the Mafia, or the Nazi Party in 1939.

 

I have no doubt that the opportunities and pay were better for Nazi party members in Germany.

(Yes, I'm using an absurdly extreme example, but just to point out how absurd the argument that 'the worker gets more' is, as if nothing else has any relevance whatsoever.)

 

I think unions made a lot of sense 80-100 years ago, before there were any workplace safety standards in place, Social Security, Workers Compensation, minimum wages, overtime pay laws, etc., etc., - where your employer could (and did) work you 7 days a week, 12+ hours a day, with no breaks, no vacations, deadly working conditions, etc.

 

But all those things the unions fought for originally, are now LAW.

The unions function basically like the mob... and sometimes literally ARE the mob.

 

And the justification, that they are out of work so much, is irrelevanta. In fact, by using that mindset, and jacking prices up, you are actually CAUSING that unemployment you're whining about.

If you hire a gardener one day a week, and he charges you for 5 days a week, you fire him immediately and find another one who won't gouge you.

Producers are 'firing' the unions when they go out of state & out of the country, so this is literally biting the hand that feeds you.

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you hire a gardener one day a week, and he charges you for 5 days a week, you fire him immediately and find another one who won't gouge you.

Producers are 'firing' the unions when they go out of state & out of the country, so this is literally biting the hand that feeds you.

 

Matt Pacini

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never been paid for days I didn't show up to work, particularly under any union contract. And if requiring a fair wage that keeps up with inflation and cost-of-living for a particular geographic area is considered "gouging," then there more than ever, we need unions to protect the rights of workers from employers who would easily seek ways to undermine wages and working conditions. And that is precisely their motivation when seeking new places to produce their products (movies or otherwise) when leaving "Hollywood." Outside the jurisdiction of US law (and union contracts), Hollywood studios/Producers can drive down wages, demand unsafe working conditions, AND extort governments for "tax incentives" which are truly just bribes handed out to Corporations at taxpayer expense.

 

What the US and the rest of the world needs is MORE regulation against Corporate greed, not less. Getting rid of unions would result in society very quickly reverting to the owner/slave mentality that used to permeate the US which Corporations actively seek out today in places around the globe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Are these the same Teamsters who hold productions hostage here and force them to pay $1,500 a day for passenger van drivers? I know plenty of out-of-work blue collar people who would take those same jobs for $150 a day.

 

These guys should not be asking for raises, they should be taking massive pay cuts if we want to bring production back to LA and California.

*raises hand*

 

I'd take that job for $150 day right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...