This is directly from your link...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For all of the different jobs on the movie that could have used union labor, he used union labor, except for one job, the stagehands, represented by IATSE," said a labor source unauthorized to talk about Moore's decision not to hire members of The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that poorly written first line says they did use union labor except for one job, stage hands. (4 commas in the first sentence is a bit much, lol).
If you'll note, that was from a unnamed "labor source unauthorized to talk about Moore's decision". And I doubt very seriously there was a single stage hand for the whole movie.
On the other hand, Moore's agent said (in the same link):
the filmmaker wished the union included more documentary crew people -- but he did not deny that IATSE members were snubbed in favor of non-union employees.Note emplyees (as in plural).
And this is a pattern for Moore, he's done things like this on his other projects where union labor is involved:
One day during production on the first season of the show [TV Nation], Moore called two of his writers into his office. It was, for both of them, their first job in television, and they had been hired with the title of associate producer. They were not members of the Writers’ Guild, the powerful union for writers in movies and TV, and thus were not receiving health benefits, and would not qualify later for a percentage of video and rerun sales. “Michael said, ‘I’m getting a lot of heat from the union to call you guys writers and pay you under the union rules,’ ” Eric Zicklin, one of the associate producers, says. “ ‘I don’t have the budget for that. But if they keep coming down on me that’ll mean I’ll only be able to afford one of you and the other one’s gotta go.’ ”http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/02/16/the-populistAnd there is a lot more where that came from. I've read similar stories about many of his projects.
But even if it were all non-union people......It's not like they were foreigners making $0.03 a day. They were Americans, probably still making halfway decent money.
Yeah, but that isn't the point. The point is: he'll take shots a corporations for excluding union labor and cutting benefits......but when it's
his bottom line/budget....all the sudden the rules change.
Ignoring: MythicCDXX, Creeping Jesus/Judas, RonPaul_Lies, Digby (and aliases), ibestupid, Holiday_Hobo, sharon_18, TilaMoo, Okie-from-Muskogee/boo321, NorCalNik, Nullifidian
reply
share
doggie_rodriguez
9 years ago
And I doubt very seriously there was a single stage hand for the whole movie.
Stage hand is a job title, it does not mean there was only 1 stage hand on set, lol.
On the other hand, Moore's agent said (in the same link): the filmmaker wished the union included more documentary crew people -- but he did not deny that IATSE members were snubbed in favor of non-union employees.
What's wrong with him wanting DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS to work on his DOCUMENTARY? Making narrative features is a completely different skillset than making documentaries. I shouldn't even have to tell you that.
reply
share
ryan-anderson
9 years ago
Stage hand is a job title, it does not mean there was only 1 stage hand on set, lol.
Yeah but you said "one job". In fact, we could be talking about a number of jobs.
What's wrong with him wanting DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS to work on his DOCUMENTARY? Making narrative features is a completely different skillset than making documentaries. I shouldn't even have to tell you that.
So what is his excuse on the TV Nation example I brought up?
And I don't buy his excuse. The fact is, like a lot of people, he was looking for cheap help.
Ignoring: MythicCDXX, Creeping Jesus/Judas, RonPaul_Lies, Digby (and aliases), ibestupid, Holiday_Hobo, sharon_18, TilaMoo, Okie-from-Muskogee/boo321, NorCalNik, Nullifidian
reply
share
doggie_rodriguez
9 years ago
Yeah but you said "one job". In fact, we could be talking about a number of jobs.
Nice try, but I actually said...
one job, stage hands.
Notice the "s" at the end of "hands". That means more than one.
You guys try to make it sound like the whole damn crew was non-union foreigners getting paid $0.03 a day and that was simply not the case.
So what is his excuse on the TV Nation example I brought up?
Do you mean that 2000 page article you linked for me to read? I skimmed it for a few minutes it was mostly about one of his performances. Don't care enough to read the rest. Keep it lean and mean if you want me to humor you. So you'll just have to ask Michael Moore about that as I don't really know much about it so I'm going to refrain from commenting on it. All I know is I saw something in the first link you posted and I commented on it (
and it only).
I'm not even a Michael Moore fan, but I feel he is necessary to offset the BS coming from the right (people who do the exact same thing as Moore, but scream bloody murder when he does it).
You argue like my dad. You switch topics as soon as you feel your ship is starting to sink. Do they teach you that in conservative arguing school? I showed you how your first link was misleading. If you want to go off the rails onto another topic you'll have to do so with someone else.
reply
share
ryan-anderson
9 years ago
Nice try, but I actually said...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one job, stage hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice the "s" at the end of "hands". That means more than one.
As long as we are clear we aren't talking just one job. To say "one job, stage hands"...it's not clear how many you think we are talking here.
You guys try to make it sound like the whole damn crew was non-union foreigners getting paid $0.03 a day and that was simply not the case.
You've already said that....and like I said (to that):
Yeah, but that isn't the point. The point is: he'll take shots at corporations for excluding union labor and cutting benefits......but when it's his bottom line/budget....all the sudden the rules change. Do you mean that 2000 page article you linked for me to read? I skimmed it for a few minutes it was mostly about one of his performances. Don't care enough to read the rest. Keep it lean and mean if you want me to humor you. So you'll just have to ask Michael Moore about that as I don't really know much about it so I'm going to refrain from commenting on it. All I know is I saw something in the first link you posted and I commented on it (and it only).
The excerpt I provided (in my post) was only a paragraph long. I gave the link (as well) because if I didn't, somebody would scream for it (as is common on here).
I'm not even a Michael Moore fan, but I feel he is necessary to offset the BS coming from the right (people who do the exact same thing as Moore, but scream bloody murder when he does it).
You argue like my dad. You switch topics as soon as you feel your ship is starting to sink. Do they teach you that in conservative arguing school? I showed you how your first link was misleading. If you want to go off the rails onto another topic you'll have to do so with someone else
I'm not a conservative nor am I changing topics. What I actually did was provide yet another example of Moore's hypocrisy when it comes to his help.
There isn't anything wrong with it per se: it's part of the business world. The problem arises when he criticizes corporations for cutting people when they are running profits....and then he turns around and cuts corners on a handful of employees when he could easily dip into his enormous resources to practice what he preaches.
Ignoring: MythicCDXX, Creeping Jesus/Judas, RonPaul_Lies, Digby (and aliases), ibestupid, Holiday_Hobo, sharon_18, TilaMoo, Okie-from-Muskogee/boo321, NorCalNik, Nullifidian
reply
share