Union details
Again:
1. It took me many years of sitting on the sideline, listening,
talking, learning, before I would even think of forming an
opinion.
2. It is clear now, most Unions are BAD. Bad for America,
selfish.
(Maybe not all, but certainly the ones I hear about)
Case #1: Unions and the Department of Homeland Security
Case #2: Broadway Musicals - the requirement for number of
musicians
Case #1: Department of Homeland Security
We are talking about the security of our nation. We are talking
about fighting terrorists and protecting all citizens from having
another attack like the trade center towers on Sept 11.
So, good people in the government came up with the concept of
forming a new Department, the Department of Homeland Security.
Here, everything would be more coordinated, information would be
shared more easily, and people at the top would have many pieces
so they could make better security judgements - all for our
protection.
But it was stalled. It was stalled in committees for a long time.
It finally came out what the issue was: Unions!
Yes, the Unions were so selfish, so anti-American, that they
wanted to make sure union rules were put in the formation of this
department.
The worst of these rules had to do with the way people were hired
and fired - union people had to be involved in those decisions.
This is about America. This is about security. This is no time to
be concerned about union rules and union rights. This is not a
car manufacturer, steel or other industry... this is about our
security.
And they are so selfish, they would slow the process (and let a
terrorist cause an attack), rather then be truly American and let
the Department run as it should.
This is the prime example. This is so terrible. Anyone who was
part of putting those union rules into the Department of Homeland
Security should be put in prison as a traitor. That is what they
are, traitors.
Case #2: Broadway Musicals - the requirement for number of
musicians
I've head about this twice now - in a 20 year period!!! (The law
has been there for who knows how long, for how many musicals, but
it has reached my attention twice in these twenty years.)
Basics of the union rule. | Problems with this rule |
Broadway example 1 | Broadway example 2
Basically it goes like this:
No matter how many musicians your Broadway musical has, the
unions say you must hire a certain number.
(Something like 25 musicians.)
I don't know the exact number, but its like that, so let me just
say 25 for the rest of the discussion.
So, say your musical only requires 10 musicians. You still have
to pay 15 more musicians - that is 15 more employees - to do
nothing but sit and take up space every night.
Can you imagine Taco Bell hiring 15 more people, even though they
have no need for them?
Or Walmart, hiring more people, though there are no positions for
them?
There are several problems with this.
1. It is wrong to tell someone how to run their business. That is
meddling, and an outsider has no right to do that.
2. Costs go up. If Taco Bell or Walmart - or a Broadway musical -
has to hire more people, that raises the cost of production. The
cost to the consumer will go up too.
3. People may lose their jobs - the company may go out of
business.
If the costs go up, it might be fewer people will buy it (or go
see the show). Hence, the business fails. (or the Broadway
musical closes). And then no one gets paid.
Similarly, if the cost goes up but tickets are the same, the
production may not make as much money, and hence, it will close.
Again, everyone loses their job.
Thanks to a few selfish people in the unions (who wanted to get
paid for doing no labor), now no one gets steady income.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What examples of Broadway Unions
do I have:
Broadway Unions Example #1
Back in the late 1970s a musical came out called "Best
Little Whorehouse in Texas." (Later made into a movie -
which I do talk about on this site.)
Let me quote directly from an article on the musical and the
effect of unions, written many years ago:
"Whorehouse might have run longer, if early in 1982 its
management had not become embroiled in a fight with the American
Federation of Musicians, which had just won a pay increase of $50
per week for each working member.
"That might not seem like an amount worth fighting over,
except that Whorehouse used only nine musicians but was forced by
the union contract for the 46th street theater to pay 25
musicians.
"That meant paying for 16 'walkers', musicians ho not only
didn't play but didn't even have to attend the performance, the
union rate of $470 each, week in and week out."
"Management announced its plan to move the show to the nine
musician contracted Music Box Theater, but the union insisted
that even if that happened it would enforce its 25-musician
run-of-the-play agreement. An angry management closed Whorehouse
in March and moved it to Boston, where it played until it
returned to New York City's Eugene O'Neill Theater, another
nine-musician house, on May 31.
"The union adamantly contended it had a 25-musician contract
for the show, no matter where it played, and management was
equally insistent it should only be paying nine musicians.
"Finally an agreement was reached, but for management it was
a Pyrrhic victory at best: the 16 walkers were paid, but had to
check in at the theater, stay for the performance and check out,
or forfeit 1/8 of their weekly paycheck.
Whorehouse ran for an additional 63 performances at the O'Neill,
then closed for good."
So, back to my point - if the show were allowed to do the show as
written, and pay only the musicians they needed, the show itself
may have run longer, and those musicians that were employed could
have been employed longer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadway example 2
It is Spring of 2003 as I write this. The musicians on Broadway
are striking - again, it has to do with the same reasons -
musicians want to be paid even if they don't work.
There is show called the Daily Show, which covers real news with
humorous twist. The host made this comment, which makes fun of
the unions and what they are doing.
"I hear now that they people now want to do a remake of the
movie "12 Angry Men" into "24 Angry Men."
"
(The point being of course, the original had 12 people, there was
no need for more. Adding more would be ridiculous.)
(In case you don't know, the movie 12 Angry Men was a movie about
a jury - the difficulty of judging a difficult case. A good
movie, lots of good actors.)
Back to the point:
Follow this "logic" of the striking musicians:
We want people to get paid, for doing nothing, even if it means
the show will close sooner.
And, this point is so important to us, we will be on strike, so
that the current shows will have to close even that much sooner.
Furthermore, we don't mind causing trouble for all the visitors,
who travel hundreds of miles, spend hundreds of dollars in
hotels, and a lot of money on expensive Broadway shows, just to
find out that they've been cancelled.
As long as we get our money for doing nothing, we don't care what
it cost those people who spent so much money and vacation time
just to see the show.
That is basically how it goes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, to summarize the whole
thing:
Unions cause trouble. They cause trouble for business. They
create more expensive products for consumers. They are
anti-American.
I have heard other examples, though I have less specifics.
Unions actually destroy the companies - they hurt the golden
goose. These companies lay off workers, close factories, and move
to Asia.
Then no one in the city is employed.
I'm sure there must be good unions out there, but I haven't heard
of them.
If you are part of a good union, make sure you stand as a shining
example for all the others. Let the American public know of what
you do, and convince the other bad unions to stop what they do.