The Hobbit in Danger Due to Labor Squabbles
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Imagine being able to watch in one day the LotR trilogy and the Hobbit back to back on the same day. Think of the happiness you will be able to have.The Root Beer Guy said:
I know you want to see Smaug on the big screen.
Baaah, unions evil
Just kill anyone qualified to work on this project and there's no risk of unions getting into the mess, and no, human rights don't apply to humans anymore, it's inconveniant for the employers and the consumers.
Just kill anyone qualified to work on this project and there's no risk of unions getting into the mess, and no, human rights don't apply to humans anymore, it's inconveniant for the employers and the consumers.
This is clearly a case of the Australian Unions pulling some real bad acts just for some extra pull in how things get done. Frankly I am getting tired of labor unions as their message got lost a long time ago when they let themselves get exploited by gangs and politicos. Either the objective here is to claim territory in New Zealand which is breaking national laws and possible international treaties and trade acts, or they actually don't want PJ making the Hobbit in NZ and are acting in this manner to drive the production out. I don't see the first having any success, and would be stupid to act on as the government would use any ammo they could to suppress the abilities of unions to act. Which would harm their members who are more interested in a paycheck and less on some stupid agenda. The second is just as stupid as if this does cause PJ to move production to Eastern Europe, other studios and producers might see a sign that New Zealand and Australia just ain't worth the effort right now to produce movies in. Which would pull a lot of tax dollars out of both countries and put locals out of work.
Yeah, way to protect hard working people there, dumbasses.
Yeah, way to protect hard working people there, dumbasses.
My thoughts exactly. The switch of Dumbledores after Harry Potter 2 was jarring enough. You will never, EVER get a better gandalf than Ian McKellen.Hithlain said:
EDIT: Actually, Christopher Lee wants to do it. No doubt he would be thrilled.
LoneGunmanO23 said:
I think your attitude sort of illustrates the problem given that it is fairly naive and ignorant. I'm sure a lot of people in organized labour feel that way.
Don't be insulted, rather look at it this way:
When it comes to anything in society there is an attitude among people that they should be able to get something for nothing, with no real risk or effort on their part. When it comes to unions people fail to realize that the entire power of such groups is based on force. Just like how non-violent protest is also based on the threat of violence. When dealing with people in a position of power there is no reason why they have to listen to those who do not have power if they do nothing but talk. The law doesn't matter in such cases as those at the top of the social food chain are the ones who control the laws due to having the money and control.
Once the people in power cease to fear unions, or protestors, they lose their power. Even strikes can be ignored if an employer doesn't feel that a union is going to do anything to the scabs, or effectively prevent them from simply replacing the people involved.
The problem today is that people increasingly feel that all the big fights have already been won, and there is no real reason why they should have to do anything more than show up with the occasional sign, or mention a word like "union" and get fair treatment. Sadly it doesn't work that way. For things to work employers need to feel that if they don't deal fairly with the employees they are going to be hurt, killed, or lose their holdings. They also need to feel that the law (which they buy) is not going to be able to stop this. Then when the employees sit down to negotiate the employer is going to seriously weigh the employee demands against the potential costs, and perhaps seek a middle ground since this kind of action is still painful for the employees to engage in.
The lack of respect/fear for employees is exactly why businesses can move overseas yet still use American markets to sell products, engage in profit based layoffs, and all of the other things we see going on.
Right now the people who resort to strong action, like violence, are typically regarded as aberrants, yet arguably those are people that have the right idea, but can't accomplish anything on their own. Today people tend to just sit there and go "well I'm glad that wasn't me" when someone is fired unfairly, or even a group of people are let go. Then when their turn comes around, nobody else does anything and just looks at them and goes "I'm glad that wasn't me".
EVERYTHING has a cost, and fair employment is one of those things. The cost is the constant willingness to fight in a very literal sense for those rights. When a union, or employee group ceases to keep the employers on their toes and starts worrying about the laws and such above and beyond their purpose, things go to pot like we're seeing now.
See, it's easy for the authorities to arrest a few people, but if hundreds or thousands of people act in concert, one of the demands of the union is also going to be that the Governor effectively pardons those involved in the action. What's more smart people in unions are going to wear masks and the like when they actually do anything. Arresting hundreds or even thousands of people isn't practical with prisons that are already overcrowded, especially when these people have reasonable demands and are easy enough to deal with.
On top of this, one has to understand that nowadays police have unions and such too. One has to remember that having a volunteer police force, recruited from the population, one of the benefits is that if things are done right the police might not exactly be excited to risk their lives to oppress what is a just cause. That kind of perception is very important. If say a hundred union people in masks storm a factory after an unjust layoff of whatever and start shooting or beating the crud out of scabs, supervisors, etc... the police *might* very well decide to show up an hour or so late. People tend to forget the kinds of things that went down (both support from, and resistance by the police) to establish unions. It happened that way, because there is no other way.
People need to understand that violence and the threat thereof is a big part of human society and overcome their resistance to use it leverage. There is such a thing as causing problems by becoming too civilized. There are contexts in which it's perfectly right and acceptable.
Things like price fixing and cartel activity are something that should be policed seperatly. An entirely differant subject which would derail this something fierce.pinchy said:
In this case what your dealing with is an unjust law, an exception that was probably put into place by those who want to exploit the workers. Things like stage actors guilds, screen writers guilds, and similar things exist for a reason. Entertainers and those who support them have frequently been exploited throughout history using exactly the same logic. Independantly contracted or not, the people have the right to fair treatment, and if they are being abused in numbers sufficient to raise resistance like this it's an issue that needs to be addressed.
As far as whether or not union activity benefits people outside of the union, that is more or less irrelevent overall. The inconveience caused is ultimatly balanced by the benefits accrued by other workers being taken more seriously for fear of the same thing happening. It's easy to curse out a union for causing problems that affect something you want/like, but at the same time when it comes your turn to be on the receiving end of mischief by employers your going to be happy that things like this have happened. Unless of course unions become toothless which is something else I've been talking about here.
Whenever there is a real issue with workers, the law is inevitably going to be on the side of the employer. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any kind of serious employe rally to begin with. The union would simply do things legally with it's own lawyers and PACs (Political Action Commitees).
Eastern Europe would completely kill the grand open feeling of Middle Earth. Do we really want a Middle Earth filled with grey forests and bogs? If they want to hire a vampire to play the Necromancer, then it will be fine. Otherwise, you gotta keep the original's proper visual feel.
Right on. You just said everything I was going to say and more in defense of these astounding films. Many people criticise what they don't fully understand or comprehend whether through simple ignorance or stupidity and post these thoughts on internet forums not caring too much about what they say because they often see such posts as fleeting and temporal in comparison to real verbal discussion.oliveira8 said:
Theru, the point you're missing is that when an organization commits criminal acts, it ceases to be a legitimate, legal organization. Unions have their place, which is to represent their workers. If the employer cannot find laborers willing to work when the union ceases to, then the union has a case and the problem will be fixed or the employer will no longer be able to turn out a product/service. If they can still find labor, then the union's demands are shown to be more than what is necessary for the labor, as some are willing to work for less. This is balance, and it works within the system to keep power with the employer who is in charge of and responsible for the business at the end of the day, while making sure that conditions for the labor do not become unreasonable. The moment that criminal acts become standard practice, negotiations become extortion, which is illegal, making the union or subgroup thereof a criminal organization, no better than a street gang, and they lose the legitimacy of any argument they're trying to make.