you are missing the point here everything in new york is more expensive and people make more money also. it is a great city and i enjoy every day .
No, I understand the point. Realizing it's more expensive may explain the unusually high pay of some strikers. I wouldn't want to live in NYC or other big cities because of a variety of reasons. Nice, fun places to visit; wouldn't want to live there. I'm sure there are millions that flourish in that environment and I see nothing wrong with that; more power to them, it's just not for me.
Back on topic... What exactly is it about a stage hand job that warrants such a ridiculously high amount of pay? And does it really take 5 stage hands to do the work of 3? That is after all what the strike is about.
you don't know how much is the cost of living where these people work.you dont know what they do and still make a comment about their pay and on top of that you want to say how many people they need to perform their job while you admit that you don't know what they do. maybe you should start to comment on things that you have at least an idea about.
The stage hands are striking because they want to be able to dictate to their employers how many stage hands are required to perform a given task... Even if one person can perform a task, (at an inflated rate of pay I might add), they want to be able to tell their employer that more stage hands are required. So again, why on earth does it take 5 stage hands to do the work of 3? Why are these guys paid so much for work a 5th grader could do part time?
Does anyone have the link to the news report? Here's Wikipedia's wording: It looks like the term 'stagehand' is generic and can include many types of skilled labor. They are paid well, if unionized. They also don't appear to work consistently, so maybe it's the equivalent of $115,000 per year, if working all the time. Being that they can be injured frequently, the unionization probably allows them to have some form of healthcare. How many people would want to be a stagehand if they didn't have the hope of relatively high pay? Probably not nearly as many.
Thank you... Nice post... I remember dealing with McCormick Place in Chicago years ago.. The unions there (teamsters) were hired out to set up the booths and other jobs as they were required... We could not set up our own display, we had to hire a carpenter. If we wanted our sign hung we had to hire a decorator. If we wanted our lights in our booth display plugged in, we had to hire an electrician. You get the picture.. On top of all this, each person required at least one helper, and then a supervisor. So here is how it went: 1. Decorator would attach our pre-made sign to our pre-made both via the already previously attached velcro. Took all of 1 minute.. charge, $75/hr. charged at the full hour. 2. Helper would stand back and make sure it was level. Charge, $75/hr, charged at full hour. Took all of the one minute that it took to hang it. 3. Supervisor would stand around, smoke and fart... Charge, $150/hr., full charge, including of course the fart, for the hour. Took again, all of the 1 minute, not too mention that 15 minutes of farting around talking to the helper and decorator about where they were going for lunch. So to have a sign hung in our booth was $300... We tried to do it once ourself only to have the teamsters steal the sign and return it smashed to bits. unions, IMO.. harbor scum.. They protect no one but those who are in charge of the, making them rich, all the while supporting democratic candidates who find new ways to socialize everything...
no you may not add anything in regard to their salary as your opinion is based on lack of knowledge. they are negotiating as to how many people they need to perform a job. some of these jobs are dangerous and these rules are usually decided in labor negotiations.
That, probably, is why organized crime got involved. I know this isn't real, but it reminds me of the Soprano's tv show and how they took advantage of the system. The problem with the good intentions of socialized anything is that there's always someone out there ready to abuse it, thus ruining it for those that are not abusing it and that would truly benefit. Unions are a form of socialization.
every one has to make a living this is what you do not understand. these kind of work is not a every day thing and that is the reason for these charges. you do not realize that there were work done in puting the venue together and the owner negotiated this deal with them. it is kind of like waiter and waitresses tip is because the owners do not want to pay them a full salary.
No, that is pretty much how it works.. Yes, you are right in drawing a parallel between organized crime and unions.. There is no difference. I see no benefit in paying 5 people too much money to do the work of 3 over paid people... And people wonder why things cost more on the east coast...
the unions were created to stop the workers from being abused . it kind of levels the playing field . if they were not so weak maybe we wouldn't have lost all of the jobs to china.
Seems at this point they are around to make sure the employer gets abused. Ah, unions are one of the main contributors to jobs going elsewhere...
paying the market value for work is not abuse what is the point of having jobs that do not pay a living wage. the jobs moved because corporate america decided to use cheap labor abroad rather than paying living wages to Americans.
corporations are just as bad, if the employers of the union were figuring out a way to screw the employees to make more money you would applaud it as good business practice but since its going the other way you think its wrong, its really funny you cannot see a union is just a corporation whose product is labor. They are in the business of getting as much as they can for their labor
for some one that don't have a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out you sure worry too much about the multi millionares making more money
To use a biology analogy, 'water finds it's own level'. I find it ironic that the jobs moved overseas are beginning to become expensive as the foreign country's cost of living increases and the value of the US $ becomes lessened. Now a lot of the skill and experience was sent overseas, the US is kind of getting screwed. Like I said though, good intentions were abused. The original reasons for unions were good, but are now abused. Also, unions lost power as the world became globalized. Unions had very little control or lost control once the job moved overseas. Once the foreign country's workers then formed their own unions and would strike, the appeal of having the job in the foreign country becomes questionable to the company. <edit> The company then may move to another country where there are no unions, has no employee protection laws, and possibly has a dictatorship for government (crushing any employee strikes or unions). Have you read about the women in Mexico losing their eyesight from working on puny parts for 12-16 hours per day? This is what unions were originally trying to protect our workers. Workers, including children, were working ridiculous hours in unsafe conditions for a poultry wage. Unions, along with new laws, protected the workers. Part of the reason for moving jobs overseas is it saved the company managers/exec's from the 'headache' of dealing with unions and employee protection laws. Hardly a saving grace of the management.
remember nike they didn't want to pay fair wages even in china. i don't remember but didn't they use child labor? that shows me that if there were no unions or laws there would be nothing to hold back these people
yeah labor laws are for sissy's, they should bring back child labor and maybe pay retarded people in candy to work in dangerous factories where there are no safety standards