Comic Genesis Forums

ANOTHER blacklisted employee? I think I see where this is going. Fat ass only hires blacklisted actors and crewmembers so that he can force them to do whatever ethically and morally questionable stuff he wants. 'Cause what are they going to do? Threaten to quit the only guy who would hire them? It's a real dilemma; the sense of right and wrong vs. the need to survive.

Mike Fang wrote:ANOTHER blacklisted employee? I think I see where this is going. Fat ass only hires blacklisted actors and crewmembers so that he can force them to do whatever ethically and morally questionable stuff he wants. 'Cause what are they going to do? Threaten to quit the only guy who would hire them? It's a real dilemma; the sense of right and wrong vs. the need to survive.

Get another job, another line of work. Foolish to rely on acting for your entire life.

I agree with you there that if you can't find a job doing a certain occupation that doesn't require you to compromise your integrity, you need to find a different job.

But some people would argue that the time and training it would take to switch careers isn't available to them.

ya know if this guy has hired enough blacklisted people they may be able to just say they don't need him and work as an acting troup together independent of him hiring their own director and such...

...or am I just talking about something I know nothing about again?

If the director is using only non union and blacklisted people wouldn't the union put him on a blacklist and try and make sure no union members work with him?

Just think of it, Evil people doing evil to other Evil people.

shyal_malkes wrote:ya know if this guy has hired enough blacklisted people they may be able to just say they don't need him and work as an acting troup together independent of him hiring their own director and such...

...or am I just talking about something I know nothing about again?

Wouldn't that make them...*gasp* a Union? The same thing that has done them wrong before and forced them to work for the pig?

Namrepus221 wrote:

shyal_malkes wrote:ya know if this guy has hired enough blacklisted people they may be able to just say they don't need him and work as an acting troup together independent of him hiring their own director and such...

...or am I just talking about something I know nothing about again?

Wouldn't that make them...*gasp* a Union? The same thing that has done them wrong before and forced them to work for the pig?

Uhm... Nope, except in the dim, fuzzy, theoretical world of labor propaganda.
A labor union operates by threatening businesses with strikes and damaged property. What Shyal Malkes describes is an independent group of laborers working together to benefit each other and themselves by selling their services to those same businesses.
It's the difference between someone on a street corner offering to sell you a soft drink from a cart, and someone grabbing you by the lapels and demanding you buy their soft drink for three times the cost or be taken into an alley and beaten.

The difference is subtle, I'll admit.

I thought the *gasp* would suffice to allow someone to catch teh under lying meaning of what I said.

Looks like i'm gonna have to go back to using the </sarcasm> tag.

Or they could just make their OWN movies....

RHJunior wrote:Or they could just make their OWN movies....

If they're content with having their film played in extremely limited distribution and discarded by the general public, then yes they can. The SAG controls the theaters as well as the studios. They have a stranglehold on every cineplex in the nation. Never mind the stigma that "if it's not Hollywood it must be some low-budget backyard piece of trash that isn't worth watching".

What was that phrase, about the revolutionary eventually putting back on the crown of the tyrant? How long ago was it, when the term 'Robber Baron' was used, and now have unions have jsut decided to join them?

This isn't an overnight phenomenon. The unions have been like this from the get-go. NEA, UAW, SAG, Teamsters, they're all the same. They extort the business (or the schools in the NEA's case), and they extort their members. The top bosses get paid HUGE cash, and in most cases the union has a stranglehold on the industry. Try to find a non-union teacher in a public school. Or a non-union trucking company that isn't local-only. Or an American auto plant that isn't UAW-led. (Foreign car companies never dealt with the UAW and exclusively run non-union shops)

jwrebholz wrote:

RHJunior wrote:Or they could just make their OWN movies....

If they're content with having their film played in extremely limited distribution and discarded by the general public, then yes they can. The SAG controls the theaters as well as the studios. They have a stranglehold on every cineplex in the nation. Never mind the stigma that "if it's not Hollywood it must be some low-budget backyard piece of trash that isn't worth watching".

Well . . . What of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and all the "B", "C", and "Z" movies ever made?

Namrepus221 wrote:I thought the *gasp* would suffice to allow someone to catch teh under lying meaning of what I said.

Looks like i'm gonna have to go back to using the </sarcasm> tag.

Or, alternatively, you could just say what you mean.

While unions might be bad, you should be careful to not paint professional bodies with the same brush. Bodies such as the various bar associations and Engineers Australia (to name a few: check out "Professional Organizations" at wikipedia to see a bunch).

Granted, most of these bodies are different to unions in their goals, though some can, like unions, blacklist individuals from working in their feild. While unions are aimed towards getting things like "worker's rights" and better pay, professional bodies are there to promote the professional development and skills of their members, promote their profession to the public, and ensure that all of their members are possessing of a basic level of ethics and skill.

So, when a professional body blacklists someone, it's because they have committed some sort of ethical breach (either by pretending to be qualified, or by breaking the organization's code of ethics). When a union blacklists someone, it's because they've weakened their hold by working with non-union people.

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

jwrebholz wrote:

RHJunior wrote:Or they could just make their OWN movies....

If they're content with having their film played in extremely limited distribution and discarded by the general public, then yes they can. The SAG controls the theaters as well as the studios. They have a stranglehold on every cineplex in the nation. Never mind the stigma that "if it's not Hollywood it must be some low-budget backyard piece of trash that isn't worth watching".

Well . . . What of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and all the "B", "C", and "Z" movies ever made?

A lot of the classic B movies were still "hollywood" made, even ones not filmed in the area.

Mike Fang wrote:
But some people would argue that the time and training it would take to switch careers isn't available to them.

McDonalds and Wal Mart are always hiring.

SolidusRaccoon wrote:

Mike Fang wrote:
But some people would argue that the time and training it would take to switch careers isn't available to them.

McDonalds and Wal Mart are always hiring.

That's true. And if you work at both for 40 hours a week you might make enough money to live on.

SolidusRaccoon wrote:

Mike Fang wrote:
But some people would argue that the time and training it would take to switch careers isn't available to them.

McDonalds and Wal Mart are always hiring.

But Solidus, could YOU be content, or even at peace, so long as you were not following your calling?

Acting and performing get just as much under the skin of their practitioners as any other career path. ... even if it means living on soup six days a week and ramen noodle the seventh, even if it means living in a total hole in the wall, even if it means constant struggle. God knows I would be miserable if I couldn't cartoon. Even if I made a six figure income i'd be sneaking off to post webcomics whenever I could.

There is no substitute for what you were born to do. And anyone from stage, screen, or film, no matter how petty or puny or off-mainstream they are, can tell you they'd rather live with missing limbs than live without being a part of it.

"What, and give up showbiz?" .... NOT just a joke.

Hmmm.

On the one hand, I agree that most unions these days are corrupt, ineffectual, or both. I hesitate to say "all", 'cause there's always the odd bunch of folks who actually believe the line they're selling, but the overwhelming trend is not a positive one.

On the other hand, workers do need some means of collectively representing themselves. On an individual basis, the worst one can do is quit - and there will always be someone willing to tolerate horrible working conditions, soak up mental and even physical abuse, or simply work a hundred-hour week for a thirty-hour paycheck waiting to replace you.

To a certain extent, legislation attempts to address these issues; f'rex, it's illegal for an employer to demand sexual favours, assign lethally dangerous tasks, pay less than a certain number of dollars per hour, and so forth.

However, the argument can be made that these basic provisions are not sufficient - and yet, I think we can all agree that legislation is not the appropriate tool to implement what remains needful.

What's the alternative?

(That's not a rhetorical question - I honestly want to know if anybody here has a better idea.)