In a Variety article, polls showing that the vast majority of Hollywood professionals feel that the WGA strike is losing cause.
"The town's opinions have budged a bit since the November survey on the question of whether the WGA's decision to go on strike was a "tactical mistake."
Among all respondents, 57% said no while 35% said yes -- not much different than the divide in November (57%-31%). WGA respondents are holding fast, with only 16% agreeing that going on strike was a tactical miscue.
But among DGA respondents, 42% now agree it was a tactical mistake, compared with 34% in November. Doubts among SAG members are also rising, with 25% agreeing that the strike was a tactical mistake, compared with 15% in November. Half of IATSE members are convinced the work stoppage was a tactical error, inching up to 50% from 47% in the November survey."
A lot of figures and percentages are thrown around as proof that the WGA strike is failing and creating a lot of hostility among other entertainment unions. According to Variety, half of all IATSE members are convinced that the dispute is a tactical error. Well, sorta. You see only 616 Variety subscribers responded and of that 616, 7% were IATSE members. So 3 1/2% of all the respondents who also happen to be IATSE members and subscribers thought that the strike was a "tactical mistake". And how many real people are we talking about? 7% of 616 is 44. So half of that is 3.5% or 22 people. Which means that in an industry consisting of hundreds of thousands of people Variety makes a statement that there is a large percentage of opinion against the strike and represents that "half of all IATSE members" are against it. The opinions of 22 PEOPLE now pass as consensus! Looked at another way, with it's circulation estimated at 31,000, Variety is making that statement based on the opinions of 0.07% of it's readership.
I'm not in the middle of the fight but from the outside, thats worse than sloppy, thats disingenuous. That's Corporate Media posing as a free press.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Monday, December 24, 2007
So Much For Holiday Cheer
Paul Krugman has an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times today.
But what really happened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate America, which had previously had a largely cooperative relationship with unions, in effect declared war on organized labor.
Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which published an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps Unions at Bay.” The article explained that “over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups.” It then described the tactics — some legal, some illegal, all involving a healthy dose of intimidation — that Wal-Mart and other giant firms use to block organizing drives.
These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political environment that has been deeply hostile to organized labor, both because politicians favored employers’ interests and because conservatives sought to weaken the Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a political entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist, once declared.
If the past is prologue then how did the body politic of the New Deal change into Neo-Conservatism? In a book published in 1995, The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics Dan T Carter argues that the George Wallace tapped into the growing white backlash against the civil rights movement that was sweeping the country and blaming godless liberals for ruining our American values. Wallace, who consistently gathered favorable poll results of 8% outside the Deep South and gathered 30% to 43% of the votes in early primaries in 1968, represented a deep feeling of helplessness that many working and middle class Americans felt in the 60's. He also represented a threat to Richard Nixon's support among Republican voters. Nixon used an IRS investigation to force Wallace to run in the Democratic primaries instead as an independent, which would have drawn off Nixon voters.
While Nixon viewed Wallace and the sentiment he represented as a threat, Ronald Reagan saw this helplessness as an opportunity to restore and improve upon the Conservative Coalition that brought together the conservative Republicans with Southern Democrats and had ruled Congress from 1939 through 1964. The Southern Coalition was against Communism, atheism, unionism, liberalism and stood as a bulwark against the Civil Rights movement. When Reagan campaigned for President in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, he used the racist code phrase “I believe in states’ rights,” When he did, he picked up Wallace's flag in the city where civil rights workers were killed, using the language of the "Old South”, the money of supply side corporations and the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation with it's attacks on the "liberal media". Thus when Gingrich took over for Cheney as Republican House Whip in 1989 and with Reagan in the White House, the union movement was stopped in its tracks. The support unions had from the government in 1935 with the passing of the Wagner Act (NLRB) had turned hostile in 1939 with the Conservative Coalition and the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. With Reagan and Gingrich, the conservatives and the business community were out to destroy organized labor altogether and roll back the Civil Rights movement.
Today it's not politically correct to openly racist but saying "damn, there sure are a lot of illegal immigrants, let's build a wall" " is perfectly acceptable. A wall for New Mexico and not Minnesota.
Today it's not politically correct to criticize the globalization of the economy, which sends American jobs overseas, but it is all right to blame unions for sending those jobs to places where workers can be exploited.
Today it's politically correct to support the troops in Iraq and be against the war while at the same time it not correct to point out that the majority of those volunteers who have been killed in Iraq come from the Rust Belt in the upper Midwest and the poorest sections of Texas, California, Virginia, Georgia and Florida. In places where there used to be jobs other than the military. Good union jobs.
That's enough for now. Have a better New Year.
But what really happened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate America, which had previously had a largely cooperative relationship with unions, in effect declared war on organized labor.
Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which published an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps Unions at Bay.” The article explained that “over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups.” It then described the tactics — some legal, some illegal, all involving a healthy dose of intimidation — that Wal-Mart and other giant firms use to block organizing drives.
These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political environment that has been deeply hostile to organized labor, both because politicians favored employers’ interests and because conservatives sought to weaken the Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a political entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist, once declared.
If the past is prologue then how did the body politic of the New Deal change into Neo-Conservatism? In a book published in 1995, The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics Dan T Carter argues that the George Wallace tapped into the growing white backlash against the civil rights movement that was sweeping the country and blaming godless liberals for ruining our American values. Wallace, who consistently gathered favorable poll results of 8% outside the Deep South and gathered 30% to 43% of the votes in early primaries in 1968, represented a deep feeling of helplessness that many working and middle class Americans felt in the 60's. He also represented a threat to Richard Nixon's support among Republican voters. Nixon used an IRS investigation to force Wallace to run in the Democratic primaries instead as an independent, which would have drawn off Nixon voters.
While Nixon viewed Wallace and the sentiment he represented as a threat, Ronald Reagan saw this helplessness as an opportunity to restore and improve upon the Conservative Coalition that brought together the conservative Republicans with Southern Democrats and had ruled Congress from 1939 through 1964. The Southern Coalition was against Communism, atheism, unionism, liberalism and stood as a bulwark against the Civil Rights movement. When Reagan campaigned for President in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, he used the racist code phrase “I believe in states’ rights,” When he did, he picked up Wallace's flag in the city where civil rights workers were killed, using the language of the "Old South”, the money of supply side corporations and the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation with it's attacks on the "liberal media". Thus when Gingrich took over for Cheney as Republican House Whip in 1989 and with Reagan in the White House, the union movement was stopped in its tracks. The support unions had from the government in 1935 with the passing of the Wagner Act (NLRB) had turned hostile in 1939 with the Conservative Coalition and the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. With Reagan and Gingrich, the conservatives and the business community were out to destroy organized labor altogether and roll back the Civil Rights movement.
Today it's not politically correct to openly racist but saying "damn, there sure are a lot of illegal immigrants, let's build a wall" " is perfectly acceptable. A wall for New Mexico and not Minnesota.
Today it's not politically correct to criticize the globalization of the economy, which sends American jobs overseas, but it is all right to blame unions for sending those jobs to places where workers can be exploited.
Today it's politically correct to support the troops in Iraq and be against the war while at the same time it not correct to point out that the majority of those volunteers who have been killed in Iraq come from the Rust Belt in the upper Midwest and the poorest sections of Texas, California, Virginia, Georgia and Florida. In places where there used to be jobs other than the military. Good union jobs.
That's enough for now. Have a better New Year.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Hucksterism and The Religious State
You know, I want to like Mike Huckabee. He and I agree on at least one topic and that's the need to greatly increase arts spending in the schools. He's the only candidate talking about creating an educational system that teaches young people to be able to create content in the digital age and not just be data processors for the digital mill. At one appearance in Iowa, he got on the stage with the school band, put on a bass guitar and played "Louie, Louie" and "Sweet Home Alabama". How cool is that? He wants to create "instruments of mass instruction" in order to challenge some of the 6000 students that drop out of school each day. At least one of the candidates is talking about the subject.
However, being a musician, he is, as is wont with musicians, subject to some pretty daffy ideas. On the subject of evolution, he apparently not only disputes the theory of evolution but that "anyone who wants to believe that they are descended from primates is free to do so". I guess that when asked the old multiple-choice question about if he's animal, mineral or vegetable, his response is "none of the above".
I work with musicians and I was married to a musician so I’ve seen and talked to quite a few of them. Sweet people but I’ve learned three hard and fast rules about them. Don’t let them dress you, decorate your house or balance your checkbook.
As far as Huckabee being a minister I have far fewer qualms about that than the whole subject of religion in politics in the US. Dwight Eisenhower was a Jehovah’s Witness and Richard Nixon was a Quaker and we survived that administration, Red Scare and all. If Huckabee were elected, I doubt that we would start seeing baptisms in the Reflecting Pool but it will give some credence to the recent talking point that has been developed by the Religious Right that this country was founded on “Christian Principles.” If that were the case then I think that we would be seeing a lot more of “feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick and freeing the imprisoned”. Driving the moneychangers from the temple is pretty low on the order of priorities today.
When you go back and look at the historical data you find that among the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the majority of them were Anglicans. When Constitution was signed there were none. Why? Because the head of the Church of England was also the King of England and he expelled them for being treasonous rebels to the State and heretics to the State religion. Thus the majority of signers to the Constitution were newly created Episcopalians who had to form their own church as a result of the excommunication. Also bear in mind that this was The Age of Enlightenment and thinkers everywhere throwing off the shackles of the Roman Catholic Church, the official religion of many European states and kingdoms. Read in this light the Bill of Rights takes on a whole different context. The Freedom to Assemble, the Freedom of Speech and others Rights speak more to freedom from a religious state and the subsequent religious intolerance than the creation of a “Christian” state.
I think that the founders of this country were religious and spiritual men and women who were determined from their past experiences to keep a wall between the clergy and the government. Pretty wise people, our founders. Even if not one of them played rock and roll.
However, being a musician, he is, as is wont with musicians, subject to some pretty daffy ideas. On the subject of evolution, he apparently not only disputes the theory of evolution but that "anyone who wants to believe that they are descended from primates is free to do so". I guess that when asked the old multiple-choice question about if he's animal, mineral or vegetable, his response is "none of the above".
I work with musicians and I was married to a musician so I’ve seen and talked to quite a few of them. Sweet people but I’ve learned three hard and fast rules about them. Don’t let them dress you, decorate your house or balance your checkbook.
As far as Huckabee being a minister I have far fewer qualms about that than the whole subject of religion in politics in the US. Dwight Eisenhower was a Jehovah’s Witness and Richard Nixon was a Quaker and we survived that administration, Red Scare and all. If Huckabee were elected, I doubt that we would start seeing baptisms in the Reflecting Pool but it will give some credence to the recent talking point that has been developed by the Religious Right that this country was founded on “Christian Principles.” If that were the case then I think that we would be seeing a lot more of “feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick and freeing the imprisoned”. Driving the moneychangers from the temple is pretty low on the order of priorities today.
When you go back and look at the historical data you find that among the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the majority of them were Anglicans. When Constitution was signed there were none. Why? Because the head of the Church of England was also the King of England and he expelled them for being treasonous rebels to the State and heretics to the State religion. Thus the majority of signers to the Constitution were newly created Episcopalians who had to form their own church as a result of the excommunication. Also bear in mind that this was The Age of Enlightenment and thinkers everywhere throwing off the shackles of the Roman Catholic Church, the official religion of many European states and kingdoms. Read in this light the Bill of Rights takes on a whole different context. The Freedom to Assemble, the Freedom of Speech and others Rights speak more to freedom from a religious state and the subsequent religious intolerance than the creation of a “Christian” state.
I think that the founders of this country were religious and spiritual men and women who were determined from their past experiences to keep a wall between the clergy and the government. Pretty wise people, our founders. Even if not one of them played rock and roll.
Monday, December 17, 2007
And Now For Something Entirely Different
Over here on the Right Coast, we've got that whole New Yorker magazine cover thing going on. Things diminish in importance the get further away they get from the Hudson River. So one wonders about the whole WGA strike thing with it’s lack of progress in contract negotiations and the catfight that’s going on with all the unions out there. There’s a continuing turf war going on and somehow they seem to think that this is going to benefit organized labor in some way.
I drove through Los Angeles one day back in the early 70’s in a VW van on my way to San Francisco so I’m not really up to date on the subtleties of labor relations out there. But I have done a little reading about it. For an interesting historical perspective I can point you in the direction of a book called “Class Struggle In Hollywood 1930-1950 Moguls, Mobsters, Stars, Reds and Trade Unionists”.
Another good book is Hollywood's Other Blacklist: Union Struggles in the Studio System . Neither one paints my union in a very flattering light but labor history is rarely as good as it’s painted nor as bad.
One side of why things are the way they are (at least with cartoonists) can be found in a recent post by Mark Evanier in the second “WGA Stuff” entry.
The other side is in a business article in the LA Times . It tells of the relationships and history of the Animation Guild the WGA and the networks.
In keeping with our self-criticism theme, here is a post with a view from the outside of the fray about certain labor leaders in Hollywood. In the Open Left Matt Stoller takes a dim view of the proceedings with When a Labor Union Goes Rotten It’s an unfortunate title since he’s talking about the leadership and not the 115,000 people, who make up the entertainment union.
You know, I feel like taking a shower.
I drove through Los Angeles one day back in the early 70’s in a VW van on my way to San Francisco so I’m not really up to date on the subtleties of labor relations out there. But I have done a little reading about it. For an interesting historical perspective I can point you in the direction of a book called “Class Struggle In Hollywood 1930-1950 Moguls, Mobsters, Stars, Reds and Trade Unionists”.
Another good book is Hollywood's Other Blacklist: Union Struggles in the Studio System . Neither one paints my union in a very flattering light but labor history is rarely as good as it’s painted nor as bad.
One side of why things are the way they are (at least with cartoonists) can be found in a recent post by Mark Evanier in the second “WGA Stuff” entry.
The other side is in a business article in the LA Times . It tells of the relationships and history of the Animation Guild the WGA and the networks.
In keeping with our self-criticism theme, here is a post with a view from the outside of the fray about certain labor leaders in Hollywood. In the Open Left Matt Stoller takes a dim view of the proceedings with When a Labor Union Goes Rotten It’s an unfortunate title since he’s talking about the leadership and not the 115,000 people, who make up the entertainment union.
You know, I feel like taking a shower.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Medium Is The Message
Many in the business world or right wing nut jobs (not that they are mutually exclusive) would have you believe that unions are an anachronism of a past Industrial Age. Hate to have to tell you this but collective bargaining and action are alive, well and seemingly getting stronger.
First there was the recent unpleasantness on Broadway. The "New Economy" and its adoration of the investor met an old-line craft union. Generations of relationships with the direct employers and the people who make them their money were tossed aside in pursuit of short term profit by, in essence, the renters of the employers property. The Producers resented the symbiotic relationship required of everyone in the communal art form that is theatre. Wharton School of Business doesn’t have a theatre department, which would have taught the students that Gordon Gecko was a fictional character in an art form designed to create illusions, the movies. Or perhaps it’s a knee jerk reaction to the liberal part of liberal arts. But I digress.
For those “New Economy” folks, what has happened in Times Square this week could be even more foreboding than an old union winning a strike against concessions. The creative types that Viacom exploits to sell its teen oriented products got tired of being punching bags for the bottom line and took to the streets in collective action. The use and abuse of those employees defined as freelancers, part time, independent contractors or long-term temps is an aspect of labor relations that the “New Media” relies on. Workers are viewed as a drag on profits and a managerial headache. Not only are office workers not viewed as a valued employee or even as a human but rather a disposable component of a multinational whole.
On Monday Viacom and MTV employees demonstrated a new willingness to take on the boss when Viacom bean counters, chasing the corporate mantra of getting more for less, starting another round of swapping around benefit plans in order to get less for less. The result would be that these permatemps would have to wait even longer for benefits. Oh, and another new paper employer, Cast and Crew that would keep the workers at a legal arms length. This kind of employer is a service common in the entertainment business where events are short term affairs and the contractor allows the service to do the back office tax and payroll duties. Large corporations, however, use them as a way to avoid paying benefits and reduce their own back office staff. Contract Out Everything 101 is a freshman requirement at Wharton.
While the anger is real and the needs great, the lack of several generations of protest and organizing became evident at MTV. This generation may have music videos, the Internet and You Tube; the loss of schooling in the history of social upheaval became evident, as did the fear that controls the work place. Where the stagehands refused to talk to the press it was because of the their personal knowledge of how the press twists the truth to fit a preconceived message that the front office wants to hear (every go to a show in preview and then read the review?). The writers and animators and assistants where not giving their names out of fear of retribution. “You want benefits and job security? I can hire the next college kid that walks in the door who would love to work here. What are you some kind of troublemaker?” So they demonstrated on their lunch hour.
Freelancers Walk Out at MTV Networks
But it worked. They attracted a get deal of attention; keep the pressure up and Viacom caved.
MTV to Let Freelancers Stay on Its Insurance
Anyone from the Sixties could have told them they would. They would know that it is people on the streets that get attention and not this load that was issued by Viacom.
"As you know, we’ve been holding information sessions over the past several days to discuss our freelance and temporary employee benefits. We’ve had many insightful conversations and heard a number of your specific concerns.
As a result of the input you’ve given to us directly through the sessions and your managers, we want to announce the following changes:"
Information sessions, my ass. It was your employment practices in the spotlight that did it. Left to your own devices nothing would have changed.
With entertainment being the second largest export today and the inability of the owners to ship out the culture to Asia, the “New Media” worker today have much more untapped power than they are aware of. It’s not the bosses who allow workers to organize into a unit; it’s the workers decision. They may be digital mills rather than steel mills or cotton mills or paper mills but to office workers they are mills nonetheless. And where there’s exploitation, there’s going to be unions.
Freelancers Union
First there was the recent unpleasantness on Broadway. The "New Economy" and its adoration of the investor met an old-line craft union. Generations of relationships with the direct employers and the people who make them their money were tossed aside in pursuit of short term profit by, in essence, the renters of the employers property. The Producers resented the symbiotic relationship required of everyone in the communal art form that is theatre. Wharton School of Business doesn’t have a theatre department, which would have taught the students that Gordon Gecko was a fictional character in an art form designed to create illusions, the movies. Or perhaps it’s a knee jerk reaction to the liberal part of liberal arts. But I digress.
For those “New Economy” folks, what has happened in Times Square this week could be even more foreboding than an old union winning a strike against concessions. The creative types that Viacom exploits to sell its teen oriented products got tired of being punching bags for the bottom line and took to the streets in collective action. The use and abuse of those employees defined as freelancers, part time, independent contractors or long-term temps is an aspect of labor relations that the “New Media” relies on. Workers are viewed as a drag on profits and a managerial headache. Not only are office workers not viewed as a valued employee or even as a human but rather a disposable component of a multinational whole.
On Monday Viacom and MTV employees demonstrated a new willingness to take on the boss when Viacom bean counters, chasing the corporate mantra of getting more for less, starting another round of swapping around benefit plans in order to get less for less. The result would be that these permatemps would have to wait even longer for benefits. Oh, and another new paper employer, Cast and Crew that would keep the workers at a legal arms length. This kind of employer is a service common in the entertainment business where events are short term affairs and the contractor allows the service to do the back office tax and payroll duties. Large corporations, however, use them as a way to avoid paying benefits and reduce their own back office staff. Contract Out Everything 101 is a freshman requirement at Wharton.
While the anger is real and the needs great, the lack of several generations of protest and organizing became evident at MTV. This generation may have music videos, the Internet and You Tube; the loss of schooling in the history of social upheaval became evident, as did the fear that controls the work place. Where the stagehands refused to talk to the press it was because of the their personal knowledge of how the press twists the truth to fit a preconceived message that the front office wants to hear (every go to a show in preview and then read the review?). The writers and animators and assistants where not giving their names out of fear of retribution. “You want benefits and job security? I can hire the next college kid that walks in the door who would love to work here. What are you some kind of troublemaker?” So they demonstrated on their lunch hour.
Freelancers Walk Out at MTV Networks
But it worked. They attracted a get deal of attention; keep the pressure up and Viacom caved.
MTV to Let Freelancers Stay on Its Insurance
Anyone from the Sixties could have told them they would. They would know that it is people on the streets that get attention and not this load that was issued by Viacom.
"As you know, we’ve been holding information sessions over the past several days to discuss our freelance and temporary employee benefits. We’ve had many insightful conversations and heard a number of your specific concerns.
As a result of the input you’ve given to us directly through the sessions and your managers, we want to announce the following changes:"
Information sessions, my ass. It was your employment practices in the spotlight that did it. Left to your own devices nothing would have changed.
With entertainment being the second largest export today and the inability of the owners to ship out the culture to Asia, the “New Media” worker today have much more untapped power than they are aware of. It’s not the bosses who allow workers to organize into a unit; it’s the workers decision. They may be digital mills rather than steel mills or cotton mills or paper mills but to office workers they are mills nonetheless. And where there’s exploitation, there’s going to be unions.
Freelancers Union
Monday, December 10, 2007
Rat-ification
I've been holding off posting anything about the strike and the contract until it was ratified. There is a superstition in the business that you don't talk about a contract until it is signed because you could jinx the deal. As with any superstition it is more about fear than reality.
Having gone over the changes there's positives and negatives that, unless you're really in the business and understand how we work, are probably going to be to arcane to go into. There are changes to work rules that at this point don't seem particularly practical but the League fought for them and got them. Changes to lunch hours, changes to rehearsal requirements, show staffing, load-in staffing and more. Some of what has been codified has been in practice for many years and the new crop of Producers were unaware of what they could do. There was chronic problem during the negotiations of the League not understanding technology and terminology. The role of the flyman in particular was difficult for them to understand. After several explanations of how shows physically load-in, the League's negotiators still kept trying to remove the role of the flyman altogether. Several times they wanted the flyman only come for the electrics prehang and do the points later, which is a little like wanting to have the drywall hung before the carpenters have put up the studs.
For me I think that the biggest change occurred when the local theatrical community stood together to protect itself. This clearly defined to me the need for members to have a strong involvement of their Local, not just in the negotiating process but also in the activities of the Local on a day-to-day basis. It is the members who really understand how their work happens and should control the voice at the table if progressive improvements and adaptive changes need to be made. Union administration needs to be from the bottom up if members are going to be protected on the job. The further an officer gets from the load-in door, the more their focus is going to be on getting the deal done so he can move on to the next task/contract. We in Local One were very fortunate to have officers that have day-to-day contact with members and venues and value their input. This wasn’t always true in our Local but that changed. Nor can I say that is true the further up the food chain you go. It’s important that the employers understand what happens to their employees and this can only be done when we negotiate for “our” terms and “our” conditions. Outsiders most often just muddy the waters or worse, have their own agendas.
So if you’re a member of a union, get involved. Join a committee, be it a negotiating, safety, pension or any of the others. Understand how the process works. If you want good people to run you Local, start by running it yourself. Bring the needs of the members to the union and not the needs of the union to the members.
We did it and it works.
Having gone over the changes there's positives and negatives that, unless you're really in the business and understand how we work, are probably going to be to arcane to go into. There are changes to work rules that at this point don't seem particularly practical but the League fought for them and got them. Changes to lunch hours, changes to rehearsal requirements, show staffing, load-in staffing and more. Some of what has been codified has been in practice for many years and the new crop of Producers were unaware of what they could do. There was chronic problem during the negotiations of the League not understanding technology and terminology. The role of the flyman in particular was difficult for them to understand. After several explanations of how shows physically load-in, the League's negotiators still kept trying to remove the role of the flyman altogether. Several times they wanted the flyman only come for the electrics prehang and do the points later, which is a little like wanting to have the drywall hung before the carpenters have put up the studs.
For me I think that the biggest change occurred when the local theatrical community stood together to protect itself. This clearly defined to me the need for members to have a strong involvement of their Local, not just in the negotiating process but also in the activities of the Local on a day-to-day basis. It is the members who really understand how their work happens and should control the voice at the table if progressive improvements and adaptive changes need to be made. Union administration needs to be from the bottom up if members are going to be protected on the job. The further an officer gets from the load-in door, the more their focus is going to be on getting the deal done so he can move on to the next task/contract. We in Local One were very fortunate to have officers that have day-to-day contact with members and venues and value their input. This wasn’t always true in our Local but that changed. Nor can I say that is true the further up the food chain you go. It’s important that the employers understand what happens to their employees and this can only be done when we negotiate for “our” terms and “our” conditions. Outsiders most often just muddy the waters or worse, have their own agendas.
So if you’re a member of a union, get involved. Join a committee, be it a negotiating, safety, pension or any of the others. Understand how the process works. If you want good people to run you Local, start by running it yourself. Bring the needs of the members to the union and not the needs of the union to the members.
We did it and it works.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Finale
When the money runs out, so do we.
It would appear that the League took the old stagehand joke seriously. They burned through their $20 million in 2 1/2 weeks and promptly folded. And the deal went down along the lines that the Union had said, a fair exchange for work rules but no concessions.
Was a strike necessary? Evidently in the minds of certain Producers who seem to reflect the contemptuous attitude towards working people found among some bartenders, yes it was. There was going to be blood in the streets, one proclaimed.Literally, no. There were 500 people a day walking the picket lines in front of 27 venues for 10 hours a day for 19 days and, to my knowledge,not a single summons. But there was a tremendous display of solidarity from local unions inside and outside of the theatre community as well as support throughout the US, Canada and Europe.
If there was blood on the street, it flowed out from under the closed Box Office doors as productions hemorrhaged from lost ticket sales. If there was blood on the streets it was from restaurants, vendors, delis, hotels, cabs, novelty stores and other small business men and women who lost sales in order for some to gain more flexibility.
As business men and women who have an intimate knowledge of profit and loss statements (sometimes filed under fiction),the primary question will be when will they recoup what they've spent? I don't know the details of the changes in the contract or the potential impact on future productions but from what I understand, it will take a long, long time. Was it worth the disruption to the city? Was it worth the damage to the brand name that is "Broadway" that those of us who actually work in the theatre have struggled for years to attain and maintain?
It late, I'm bone tired and I have a show tomorrow. I don't have any answers to these questions nor is it even my place to try to answer them. There will be experts and pundits who will throughly discuss this in great detail and analysis right up until the start of the next news cycle.
Me, I'm just a stagehand who spends most of his time in the dark. And I'm going back to work.
It would appear that the League took the old stagehand joke seriously. They burned through their $20 million in 2 1/2 weeks and promptly folded. And the deal went down along the lines that the Union had said, a fair exchange for work rules but no concessions.
Was a strike necessary? Evidently in the minds of certain Producers who seem to reflect the contemptuous attitude towards working people found among some bartenders, yes it was. There was going to be blood in the streets, one proclaimed.Literally, no. There were 500 people a day walking the picket lines in front of 27 venues for 10 hours a day for 19 days and, to my knowledge,not a single summons. But there was a tremendous display of solidarity from local unions inside and outside of the theatre community as well as support throughout the US, Canada and Europe.
If there was blood on the street, it flowed out from under the closed Box Office doors as productions hemorrhaged from lost ticket sales. If there was blood on the streets it was from restaurants, vendors, delis, hotels, cabs, novelty stores and other small business men and women who lost sales in order for some to gain more flexibility.
As business men and women who have an intimate knowledge of profit and loss statements (sometimes filed under fiction),the primary question will be when will they recoup what they've spent? I don't know the details of the changes in the contract or the potential impact on future productions but from what I understand, it will take a long, long time. Was it worth the disruption to the city? Was it worth the damage to the brand name that is "Broadway" that those of us who actually work in the theatre have struggled for years to attain and maintain?
It late, I'm bone tired and I have a show tomorrow. I don't have any answers to these questions nor is it even my place to try to answer them. There will be experts and pundits who will throughly discuss this in great detail and analysis right up until the start of the next news cycle.
Me, I'm just a stagehand who spends most of his time in the dark. And I'm going back to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)