IATSE Strike Discussion Thread | Deal ratified

[The GOAT]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVHIK-PLlo1/   

https://www.facebook.com/iatse/ 

 

Look at all those angry comments

[lorddemaxus]

2 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

people with a blatant agenda to say no to whatever is/was agreed to so they can have their day on strike in the media spotlight.   

No.

[Val357]

1 minute ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Yes, in that case I hope those people become more engaged with their local leadership and that their leadership communicates well with them. In some cases I feel like some local leadership may not have managed expectations prior to any deal. I feel very comfortable with Local 700 at the moment but of course each situation is different. 

Great point about managing expectations. I work with people so that's something I do know a thing or two about and I know that management 101 is levelling with your workers all the time - especially in labour disputes like this - and not letting them get too far with their own preconceived notions. That's when you potentially lose them because they develop their own expectations.

 

So yes, communication and management is key here in the process, especially if you want to maintain the optics that you've always been in the workers' corner.

[Jamiem]

23 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

I completely agree, which is why I'm a bit heated here.  We haven't even seen the details yet and already one side is hitting up their media contacts and making a giant stink of how bad the deal is and trying to preemptively kill it and garner the support of the public.  

You were the one saying that they should take the deal no matter what … before the Variety article came out though. 
 

Any way as I said in my original response we should let members speak to leadership and other members then decide if they should vote for or against this deal.

[EmpireCity]

8 minutes ago, Jamiem said:

You were the one saying that they should take the deal no matter what … before the Variety article came out though. 
 

Any way as I said in my original response we should let members speak to leadership and other members then decide if they should vote for or against this deal.

 

Yeah, I do think they should take a deal that got them a lot better terms than before that the leadership they put in place negotiated.

 

I don't back off that at all.  

[EmpireCity]

11 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

No.

 

Well, from the comments coming out, very clearly yes.  

 

You're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a larger than insignificant number of people who want war, not peace.  

[EmpireCity]

This is on topic, but sort of off topic as well.  Some of the stuff that is made as a hard sticking point also can be very counter productive.  For example, in many industries you have a work day for periods of time that can be longer or on the weekends if the job requires it.  

 

If you have a big sequence of shooting, sometimes it is better to get in 4 or 5 16 hour days in a row or need to shoot on a Saturday/Sunday.  As long as there is time given back to make up for it, should be something that can be done.  

 

What has sucked is when there is a hard stop when you could have just shot for another hour and gotten it done with.  

[dudalb]

It will be a couple of weeks before the vote takes place, and the work will continue. Interesting to which films the studios give priority to in hopes they get finished before the vote takes pllace.

[dudalb]

I rpeat: if it was just a money dispute..though money is important...I would not be as strongly pro union. This is mianly about working conditions:to put it bluntly, it's often a hi tech sweatshop.

[dudalb]

Maybe Tele could enlighten me but could changes be made to the agreement with more tlaks before the vote takes place, or will it have to be rejected before changes are made?

[Plain Old Tele]

6 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Maybe Tele could enlighten me but could changes be made to the agreement with more tlaks before the vote takes place, or will it have to be rejected before changes are made?

I don’t know. I suspect the vote would need to happen first, but I don’t know. 

[Cap]

2 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

Half of the problem is this ridiculous narrative that film sets, editing rooms, etc... are like a slave labor camp.  

 

Uh, it’s not a ridiculous narrative. You’ve clearly never worked as PA before. 
 

2 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

 

It's not a bad deal, but they seem to want their day to scream and yell and the pound of flesh.  

This sounds like pot, kettle, black, sir. To be honest. We get it. You think they should vote yes. Unless you have anything else to say, I think we’re done here. 

[lorddemaxus]

37 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Well, from the comments coming out, very clearly yes.  

 

You're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a larger than insignificant number of people who want war, not peace.  

Sure, they might want war, but not for social media clout. The fact that you're reducing people working for their rights to people chasing media attention is just very, very shitty. You don't deserve this industry if that's how people like you treat the people working in it.

[Val357]

Honestly, I don't think any of us here can speak for ANYONE (well, except @Plain Old Tele I guess). For all we know the deal IS good and we're dealing with a group of malcontents on social media. None of us know. Porthos had the best advice which is to wait until we know the details. And even then, who are WE to say if it's good or not. 

[EmpireCity]

37 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Sure, they might want war, but not for social media clout. The fact that you're reducing people working for their rights to people chasing media attention is just very, very shitty. You don't deserve this industry if that's how people like you treat the people working in it.

 

Some do though.  Sorry that hurts to hear.  

 

I'm not reducing people working for their rights to that, I reducing the ones that are doing it to chase media attention.  They exist, not everyone on the union side is a good actor in this situation.  

 

By the way, I work in the industry.  I'm part of it.  

 

The industry has been through a whole ring of shit the last 18+ months and the last thing it needs AFTER the leadership agreed on a deal is to vote it down.  

 

It doesn't just affect them, it affects hundreds of thousands of others as well that get shit on if this goes completely sideways.  

 

And it isn't like I am saying they should just take any deal if they were still in a back and forth negotiation.  I'm saying this AFTER the leadership agreed to a deal.  

 

Some here aren't getting that point.  

[EmpireCity]

45 minutes ago, Cap said:

 

Uh, it’s not a ridiculous narrative. You’ve clearly never worked as PA before. 
 

This sounds like pot, kettle, black, sir. To be honest. We get it. You think they should vote yes. Unless you have anything else to say, I think we’re done here. 

 

Let me know up front if this is a you are done with me or as a mod you are now threatening to give me points or whatever it is.  I have stayed on topic in this thread and discussed the issue.  I'm not trolling anyone.  Just because you don't like my opinion on it doesn't mean I should start getting mod threats to silence me.  

[ThomasNicole]

I think people shouldn't make conclusions about others without proof.

 

Nobody have to agreed with everyone, implied that someone that have problems with the discurse is on studios side or agreed that workers must keep being treated unfairly is ridiculous and arrogant.

 

Personally, i disagreed workers need to accept the deal just because a it's acceptable by their representation. If someone think is not enough then it's not and they must vote no, period. If the deal gets rejected it should be respected, majority needs to be happy and feeling good about it, not feel forced to agreed. 

 

Still, i read the Variety article. There are lines saying that not using the strike is a wasted opportunity, or saying that feels like some crew members need the strike to "let out all the frustration", or implying a feeling of fever because they're supposed to come back to a brave new world and this "historical moment" didn't happen, and to me this is questionable indeed.

 

A strike isn't cool or fun, the whole industry will lose with that and not only these workers, saying that not doing it is a waste is absurd, the best option is reaching a deal without that (which happened), if it's not enough it's more than fair to go back to discussions and reach a new deal until workers are satisfied, make a new deadline if needed but a strike must be avoided and happen only if a deal isn't reached, this shouldn't be used to justify personal frustrations or agendas, and sorry but to some people seems to be the case, not everyone involved is a pure person without any bad intention. Of course this is exceptions and not the rules, but still it exists.

 

Overall i strongly disagreed with EmpireCity and the way he express some thoughts, but he's not a monster for questioning the nature of some discurses, there are room for that based on some of the things available to us.

 

Anyway, i think we have nothing to do but wait. I'm confident this will be solved and workers will feel good about their demands, if not with this deal, with another one. This deal was made in days, they can make another if needed.

[EmpireCity]

That is a good and well thought out post Thomas.  

[lorddemaxus]

9 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Still, i read the Variety article. There are lines saying that not using the strike is a wasted opportunity, or saying that feels like some crew members need the strike to "let out all the frustration", or implying a feeling of fever because they're supposed to come back to a brave new world and this "historical moment" didn't happen, and to me this is questionable indeed.

You really trusting these studio puppets, espescially when just a couple days ago you said that studios use these trades to manipulate information. And sure, there probably are some people who don't want this deal just because they want to strike for fun or whatever, but legit focusing on them only diminishes the legitimate concerns of the rest.

[ThomasNicole]

5 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

You really trusting these studio puppets, espescially when just a couple days ago you said that studios use these trades to manipulate information. And sure, there probably are some people who don't want this deal just because they want to strike for fun or whatever, but legit focusing on them only diminishes the legitimate concerns of the rest.

They really do manipulate information in pretty much everything, this included, i don't take that back. I only used this exemple because it was posted here, but i saw people online saying similar things since yesterday so i think it's fair to believe, i understand everyone is very engaged but still some thoughts out there do seems absurd.

 

And i agreed with you, focusing on them diminish the overall concerns, that's why i make sure to say this is exceptions. I just think in some cases the opinions is really weird and i understand questioning them.