Anti-union movie made by people in unions
So, this is a pro-Charter school, anti-Union film made by people (actors, cinematographers, etc.) in unions themselves.
Makes a lot of sense.
I want to see it!
Crazy isn't it? Movies are one of the most heavily unionized industries in America and they're making a movie which denigrates unions.
"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."
Here's another:
Union-busting Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin made the statement, that the NFL should give the NFL referees union what they want---because the scab refs sucked so bad.
Funny how bringing sports or children into the mix, makes ppl forget their convictions (or lack thereof--in Walker's case).
Also, when lawyer turned actor turned politician turned shill Fred Thompson was a Republican US Senator, he was, of course, anti-union---but maintained his membership in the Screen Actors Guild--a union.
http://www.care2.com/causes/teachers-are-selfish-for-striking-refs-are-fighting-for-justice.html
http://www.alternet.org/education/wont-back-down-presents-ruling-class-wet-dream-teachers-and-parents-working-destroy-their?akid=9451.152569.thRDMt&rd=1&src=newsletter717540&t=9
Carpe Noctem!
Are actors forced to join and pay dues to the Screen Actor's Guild union? Or is it voluntary?
I'm curious because I'd like to know if you are really comparing apples to apples here.
Do you really think someone like Fred Thompson is being a hypocrite if he agrees with the principle concepts behind unionization but can also admit that teachers unions are hindering our kids' education?
If you want to make money, work on quality films, and not work for free on crap productions, then yes, you have to join SAG. Eventually, all actors have to do it. It's for credibility purposes.
It's similar to teachers. If you want to work in public schools, join unions. If not, you must go private or charter.
Almost everyone who worked on this movie minus the production assistants were in a union.
It's laughable if you are for these unions but against teachers.
Yes, I do think Fred Thompson is being a hypocrite. How is he not?
If you want to work in public schools, join unions. If not, you must go private or charter.
BZZZZ! Wrong! Thanks for playing.
In Georgia (definitely) and reportedly in other states, there is no such requirement. And even if a public school teacher *chooses* to join a union, there is a state-level union that provides all the relevant services (e.g. legal representation if a student files a specious charge), that's extremely apolitical and does not drive teacher apathy, greed, or other things that negatively impact education.
Is this the exception, rather than the rule? Doubtless. But please stop making blanket statements about things that you don't know about, just to prop up your own pet theory. share
Loafcat, as usual, you're missing the point.
Fred Thompson is, in no way, involved in this controversy. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of being an anti-union Republican Senator, but retaining his own union membership. He hasn't been a senator for over 5 years.
As to your last question, if one agrees with the principal (not 'principle', loafcat)concepts of unions, one might see a reason to reform the union---not destroy it. I've been a member of a union. We were betrayed by the negotiator, during negotiations. The next week, he was promoted to management. That's what CAN happen when you elect representation. I still believe in unions.
Also, about your last question--the way you worded it, suggests that the teachers unions are entirely to blame. To suggest this, totally ignores that teachers get a range of kids extremely different, than 40 years ago. The teacher can't be responsible, if the child has a crappy home life, or comes to school hungry.
There are too many variables to attempt to turn this into a simple, easy formula for good students. It isn't an assembly line--a factory. I'm not saying unions are totally void of fault. I'm saying there are factors @ play, over which they have no control.
I've seen where police officers, during their last year, before retirement, will work lots of overtime, so they get a much larger pension. I think this should be averaged over, say, their last 10 years, to prevent this abuse.
As for ANY union member, going against any other union---they're setting a stage for their own defeat during later negotiations.
Remember, this film isn't a documentary. It isn't a docudrama.
It is a fiction. It isn't balanced.
See my other post--'The Worst Teacher in Chicago'. Most enlightening.
Carpe Noctem!
Where do parents and their parenting skills, or lack thereof, fit into the equation?
sharePlease explain to me how teachers' unions hinder education. Do you not feel that teachers, who are all college graduates (many with Masters degrees) do not deserve a decent wage commensurate with their education and experience?
Look at what happened with the NFL refs...you want cheap, you got cheap. Same thing will happen with teachers.
If that education and experience does not in turn result in children learning, then they do not deserve a decent wage. They deserve to be unemployed.
shareWell yea, if he agrees on the concepts of unions (and is a member) but then blames that same concept on ruining eduction, he's being a hypocrite.
Unions aren't the problem. In fact, bad teachers aren't even the problem. But yes, a bad teacher *is* a problem and I think one could argue that we can work towards fixing that particular problem.
The problem is that the GOP is using that one particular problem as an argument to get rid of Unions completely. Which is absurd. Albeit, likely effective--at least for their constituents.
It's not the same kind of protesting union as others like Teacher's Unions. They don't protest so that the millionaire actors get more money. If and when they do protest it's for the just starting actors base salaries to be raised. Go ahead and mention the last actor/writer strike and compare that to how many teacher strikes have occurred.
shareWhat do you mean by 'protest'? Do you mean 'strike"? Ever heard of the writer's guild strike?
"If and when they do protest it's for the just starting actors base salaries to be raised."
RIght. They protest when working-class salaries are too low. The thing is, there are no millionaire public school teachers. They are ALL working-class salaried, so yea, they'll likely have more issues than Brad Pitt might have in terms of fighting for a paycheck.
You can choose which movies you go to, and they are not paid for with your taxes, as are the teachers in public schools. There is a big difference. If the people in the movie industry were as slip-shod with their work as are the tenured teachers depicted in this movie, then they wouldn't have their job longer than it would take some Hollywood executive to say "You're fired"!!! So stop with the idiotic comparisons.
You can choose which movies you go to, and they are not paid for with your taxes
Uh, wrong. Most Hollywood films are paid with your taxes these days. Was the movie filmed in Michigan? New Mexico? Etc? If so, it was because they were given huge tax rebates to film there.
as are the tenured teachers depicted in this movie
True. Actors aren't tenured.
share
Not paid for by your taxes. They are rebated by politicians choosing winners and losers. Kinda like how leftist politicians cave to unions and their desires in return for money and votes.
share