IATSE Strike Discussion Thread | Deal ratified

[EmpireCity]

4 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Speaking of the Deere strike, I do think folks should start thinking more about what's being termed "The Great Resignation".

 

 

More and more workers are saying "enough is enough" when it comes to what is expected of them when it comes to "hard work".  The staffing shortage in the theater industry is just one symptom of a large trend in the service industry (and other industries for that matter).

 

If the IATSE deal is rejected, don't be surprised if the underlying conditions that are leading to "The Great Resignation" are also at play here.  

 

Will it suck if IATSE's negotiators misunderstood the breath and depth of "tired as hell and I'm not gonna put up with this anymore"?  Yep.

 

Will it lead to a "worse" deal down the road?  Maybe! 

 

But, this ain't just happening in the entertainment industry and it's not going to be the only one that might be surprised should workers say "Nope.  Not good enough."

 

 

Right, but there is a very fine line between using something like the current conditions of a "Great Resignation" and overplaying your hand.  

 

This won't last forever, and likely not more than another year.  Could they go all in and get some ridiculously good deal?  Maybe, but these labor conditions are much more likely to correct themselves sooner than later.  

 

Be careful in trying to get so much that it collectively dooms you.  The UAW and other labor unions did that in the 60's and 70's and now you have a country where we manufacturer very little and are beholden to an overseas supply chain that can disrupt everything.  

[Water Bottle]

The workers aren't beholden to accepting a deal just cause leaders negotiated it. That's just silly. If the leaders do their job right, then they get a deal acceptable to union members. Otherwise, well, it's not going to pass just for the sake of it.

[lorddemaxus]

25 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

No, because if they do it right in three years they will have the leadership in place that will negotiate a new deal.  

Getting leadership who actually work for the workers with little initiative taken by the workers is gonna be practically impossible (which has always almost been true with most things). The only way the workers will get what they want done is if they actively fight for it along with whatever the leadership. Being entirely dependent on leadership is going to get them nowhere. 

 

And my guy, why do you care so much about the studios here?

[lorddemaxus]

11 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Right, but there is a very fine line between using something like the current conditions of a "Great Resignation" and overplaying your hand.  

 

This won't last forever, and likely not more than another year.  Could they go all in and get some ridiculously good deal?  Maybe, but these labor conditions are much more likely to correct themselves sooner than later.  

 

Be careful in trying to get so much that it collectively dooms you.  The UAW and other labor unions did that in the 60's and 70's and now you have a country where we manufacturer very little and are beholden to an overseas supply chain that can disrupt everything.  

What kind of world do you live in where labor conditions somehow automatically correct themselves? And fighting for better conditions just means the system will find someone else to do cheap labor for them (you think overseas workers making the products now live in luxury?) is not a good argument for the workers. It more just shows bleak the entire situation is. 

[dudalb]

57 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

You nominate and elect union leadership to act on your behalf.  They have negotiated and come to a tentative deal.  

 

To reject that deal that the union leadership that the members elected is a travesty if it happens.  If your leaders cut a deal you don't like, then get rid of your leaders and do better in 3 years.  

 

I personally don't support the outcome of the vote if they reject it.  If they do reject it, I hope the studios/companies put the absolute screws to them and the union ends up with a worse deal because of it.  

 

There is zero honor in rejecting and refusing to ratify a deal that your leadership negotiated in good faith.  

You reall have no idea bout how it works, do you?

If the leadership betryas the members and makes a bad deal, the members have every right to reject it.

Seems t me you are siding with the studios simply because you want to see your freakikng movies this December.

 

[dudalb]

49 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

Also, lol at some of the quotes and other things in that article.  It sounds like a whole bunch of people didn't think a deal was going to get done and they were looking forward to a break.  Now they have to report back to work on Monday.  

 

Whoops.  

So now it's the workers fault.

Nice to know where you are coming from.

 

[dudalb]

Not surprised a Certain member here is blaming the Workers for this mess, given his attitude toward the Covid Pandemic. He just does not want anything interfering with his own little world.

He also seesm to have problems with democracy, thinking people shoudl blindly rubber stamp whatever their leaders do....

[EmpireCity]

3 minutes ago, dudalb said:

You reall have no idea bout how it works, do you?

If the leadership betryas the members and makes a bad deal, the members have every right to reject it.

Seems t me you are siding with the studios simply because you want to see your freakikng movies this December.

 

 

Betrays?  Oh my lord.  

 

This is what I am talking about.  Now we have a conspiracy theory on top of acting like working conditions are a slave labor camp.  

 

It's all absurd.  

[Porthos]

14 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Right, but there is a very fine line between using something like the current conditions of a "Great Resignation" and overplaying your hand.  

 

I mean, true.  And maybe when the dust settles and when the fine print is totally examined, most of the IATSE will look at the deal and consider it "good" or "good enough" or "not bad enough to risk a worse deal".  I really have no idea.  I even suspect @Plain Old Tele doesn't have enough information yet to make an informed decision.  Emphasis on informed.

 

It's all still up in the air right now and I won't be surprised if the devil is in fact in the details, one way or another.

 

All I am saying, really the only thing I am saying, is that sometimes folks will have to calculate for themselves (and for their fellow workers that they might be concerned about for that matter) whether or not the risk of trying to get what they think is fair is worth the possibility of a downside of getting less (or much less) after a lot of strife.

 

This isn't a rubber stamp situation in other words.  

[EmpireCity]

16 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

The workers aren't beholden to accepting a deal just cause leaders negotiated it. That's just silly. If the leaders do their job right, then they get a deal acceptable to union members. Otherwise, well, it's not going to pass just for the sake of it.

 

Right, so the workers are just really really shitty at selecting their leaders I guess.  

 

Can't be that though, has to be someone else's fault.  

[dudalb]

15 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Getting leadership who actually work for the workers with little initiative taken by the workers is gonna be practically impossible (which has always almost been true with most things). The only way the workers will get what they want done is if they actively fight for it along with whatever the leadership. Being entirely dependent on leadership is going to get them nowhere. 

 

And my guy, why do you care so much about the studios here?

Becuase he wants to go see his movies in December, no matter what.

[Water Bottle]

2 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Right, so the workers are just really really shitty at selecting their leaders I guess.  

 

Can't be that though, has to be someone else's fault.  

 

Maybe they did a bad job picking their leaders. That's not really relevant.

[john2000]

i think that we should wait for details before we start assuming things.

[EmpireCity]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Not surprised a Certain member here is blaming the Workers for this mess, given his attitude toward the Covid Pandemic. He just does not want anything interfering with his own little world.

He also seesm to have problems with democracy, thinking people shoudl blindly rubber stamp whatever their leaders do....

 

Holy shit, you must not know what a democracy is.  

 

Democracy is the people (union members) select their leadership through an open vote so they can act on their behalf.  That is exactly what happened here and those leaders negotiated on their behalf.  

 

Now they (supposedly) don't like it and some members as mentioned in the article really just want to go and picket and yell and scream and didn't plan to work on Monday.  Now that isn't the reality and they hate the deal and want to reject it and go back and demand more.  

 

Hey, that is their right.  It's in bad faith in my opinion, but it is still their right.  

 

It is also the right of the studios and others who negotiated in good faith to say the hell with that and offer up the same deal or even worse and drag this thing out through the Holiday and really put the screws to everyone.  

 

I don't have a problem with workers getting better conditions, in fact I encourage it, but to have the leadership reach a deal and then the entire narrative immediately is the deal sucks and use words like BETRAYED shows where union members heads are really at.  

 

They don't want a negotiated deal, they clearly want a few weeks off from work to fight and make media waves.  They are saying as much now.  

[dudalb]

People can be inclurdbly selfish

3 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Holy shit, you must not know what a democracy is.  

 

Democracy is the people (union members) select their leadership through an open vote so they can act on their behalf.  That is exactly what happened here and those leaders negotiated on their behalf.  

 

Now they (supposedly) don't like it and some members as mentioned in the article really just want to go and picket and yell and scream and didn't plan to work on Monday.  Now that isn't the reality and they hate the deal and want to reject it and go back and demand more.  

 

Hey, that is their right.  It's in bad faith in my opinion, but it is still their right.  

 

It is also the right of the studios and others who negotiated in good faith to say the hell with that and offer up the same deal or even worse and drag this thing out through the Holiday and really put the screws to everyone.  

 

I don't have a problem with workers getting better conditions, in fact I encourage it, but to have the leadership reach a deal and then the entire narrative immediately is the deal sucks and use words like BETRAYED shows where union members heads are really at.  

 

They don't want a negotiated deal, they clearly want a few weeks off from work to fight and make media waves.  They are saying as much now.  

and if the people feel their representatives have messed up. they have right to throw them out.

Or in this case, a right to reject the deal.

[Porthos]

4 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Right, so the workers are just really really shitty at selecting their leaders I guess.  

 

Can't be that though, has to be someone else's fault.  

 

The great thing about unions is that, unlike voters, one really doesn't have to wait  a few years to show displeasure with leadership.

 

---

 

Speaking of voters, I do think part of the problem here is looking at unions under the government/voter lens.  A union, or rather a strong union, is closer to a legislative body where most of the time the actual work is left to committees and various leadership groups and then is formally ratified by the rest of the legislature.

 

But, occasionally, legislative bodies will revolt over leadership and either vote down what their leaders came up with, or get rid of said leaders entirely and put a different group in their place to get something different.

 

Is this a sign of "choosing shitty leaders"?  You know what? Fair, if a coarse way of putting it.

 

But much like legislative bodies, union membership can decide to get rid of their shitty leaders if they decided they made a mistake in appointing them in the first place.

 

(once more, with feeling: all of this is predicated on enough of IATSE membership deciding this is a bad deal)

[EmpireCity]

I'm not on the side of the studios, by the way.  I'm on the side of an open and honest negotiation and when the leaders in that negotiation who were appointed by each side to negotiate on their behalf come up with a deal it should be honored.  

 

What I can't stand is when a deal is struck after very long negotiations where both sides did actually give up ground for a deal, that one side almost immediately starts the media circus of rejection and using inflammatory terms and demanding more.  

 

It's unbecoming.  

 

 

[Porthos]

Just now, Porthos said:

 

The great thing about unions is that, unlike voters, one really doesn't have to wait  a few years to show displeasure with leadership.

 

---

 

Speaking of voters, I do think part of the problem here is looking at unions under the government/voter lens.  A union, or rather a strong union, is closer to a legislative body where most of the time the actual work is left to committees and various leadership groups and then is formally ratified by the rest of the legislature.

 

But, occasionally, legislative bodies will revolt over leadership and either vote down what their leaders came up with, or get rid of said leaders entirely and put a different group in their place to get something different.

 

Is this a sign of "choosing shitty leaders"?  You know what? Fair, if a coarse way of putting it.

 

But much like legislative bodies, union membership can decide to get rid of their shitty leaders if they decided they made a mistake in appointing them in the first place.

 

(once more, with feeling: all of this is predicated on enough of IATSE membership deciding this is a bad deal)

 

*sees that EC went straight to the government/voter democracy analogy just as I was typing up how that wasn't really a great analogy after all*

 

[john2000]

1 minute ago, Porthos said:

 

*sees that EC went straight to the government/voter democracy analogy just as I was typing up how that wasn't really a great analogy after all*

 

i mean he answered to another user, and his answer wasnt about the topic you guys talked about.

Edited October 17, 2021 by john2000

[Dementeleus]

The complication here (as it always has been) is that there are 13 locals with a wide variety of needs and demands and job skills.