• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass AFM...your thoughts?

#42
ChuckCorbisiero said:
Keep in mind, 55 is the youngest you can be and live in a senior mobile home community in Huntington Beach, California. My wife is 55 and I'm 50. Serious. We checked it out last week.:smug: They said I have to go. Nobody allowed under 55. I can't stay more than a week. Perfect. Right. :)
Click to expand...

:D You can visit, right?
 
#44
My dad is a union electrician, but as a pedstrian/public transit user I became pretty anti-unoin living the San Francisco Bay Area where train/bus drivers, waste employees and the like can't be fired whether or not they do their job so they mostly don't.
Not to drive the thread into politics, but it really amounts to socialism for some and not all. It is at that point thatt I'd like the arts funding we'd get in a socialist system.
 
#46
Good point Chuck, so I have to wonder what the value is? The basic function of a union is to protect workers jobs. In this industry they are ineffective.

So, they go the other route and rather than protect your job, they exclude you from any jobs until they get paid. Kinda makes them the enemy.

A solid contract is all that is needed between the venue and the performers.

-eSmith.
 
#47
eSmith said:
That's not true, I'm a worker. I have an Employer. No union required. the second I don't like what my employer is doing I can leave. If they don't like what I'm doing, they can fire me. (within reason, they need just cause)

See, if I can do whatever I want like quit anytime without reason and leave the employeer hanging but he cannot do the same without legal justification then the laws have addressed it and unions are not required.

It's already slanted in the employees favor, why do you need unions? to make it even more unfair to the employeers?

See, Where I grew up has one of the largest unemployment rates in Canada. The reason is that nobody can set foot there without the unions greeting them with demands. Other companies closed up shop only to have unions try to claim company assets. It's become a real problem there. People have to either live unemployed or move away from home for work.

Taken to either extreme on either side, it is not good. Labor laws aim for a center point between workers and companies, Even then, they side with workers far more often than not.

If either the employer OR the union get there way, one is just as bad as the other.

-eSmith.
Click to expand...

I don't know what country you live in but labor laws are most definitely not in the employee's favor in the United States.

I worked as a level 3 network tech but still classified as temporary so the company could avoid giving me raises and any type of healthcare. That is only one of many instances over the course of my life were my employer screwed me. Fighting unemployment claims when I was laid off, being fired for no reason other than a boss did not like my political beliefs (public institution), etc, etc, etc.
 
#48
Wow Kuys, that sounds rough. I'm in Canada. We do have different laws and unlike the USA where money is ALWAYS the first consideration, Canadians like to look after each other. For example, we love our healthcare, it's a huge benifit in Canada. BUT, you seem to be getting sold a lot of misinformation regarding yours. The only people who will suffer is those generating huge profits at the expence of peoples well being.

What totally blows my mind is how the general line of thought in the USA is that profit is sacred. You put the welfare of the majority of your population at risk to protect the obscene profits of less than one %. This really is odd.

If your government, you know, the one "of the people, by the people" Actually was geared towards "the people" and not "the rich" then you wouldn't need the unions anymore at all.

-eSmith.
 
#50
For clarification the pension is 1% per month and that is on current earnings. Over the years there have been rates of $4.65, $3.50, $3.25, $2 and now $1. When the rates are reduced one still collects at the rate when the contribution was made.

Wally

Eric Hochberg said:
I'm a career-long member. On the insurance, not really an advantage as I'm finding out now. Prices/benefits seem to be the same as with my insurance guy (who was an AFM member...). On the pension, while it was an excellent program, with the economic downturn, the plan is in distress and the current benefits are down to 1% of contributions. Not good as they were 4.65% until 2004 or so. Hopefully, this will be temporary.

One advantage of the union is legal representation if you are doing contracts. And as has been said, union shows, recording sessions, etc. require it, but you can join when you get one.
Click to expand...
 
#51
Taft-Hartley dictates that bars, lounges, etc. are not employers of musicians in the U.S. Once that was brought forward and recognized is when the AFM locals couldn't demand that musicians that did this work had to be union. That is also when the decline in membership began. At that time the AFM membership was over 300,000.

Wally

eSmith said:
The operative word being ANYMORE. At least we agree that it has been standard operating proceedure in the past.

-eSmith.
Click to expand...
 
#54
Joebone said:
.

Many of the neat features one now finds in various schemes -- US or Canadian -- that protect worker rights exist through union activity. Some say that union success with such measures was a strong step in rendering unions increasingly irrelevant - why look to the union if the state already provides the protection? In this regard, consider the extent to which laws can change, and whether change for the worse will quickly follow if the union movement is eviscerated.

So to loop this back to the OP, consider the extent to which union membership helps to neutralize employer excesses across the board, and to ensure legislation does not diminish existing worker rights!
Click to expand...

Well, five months later, and we now have Exhibit A with respect to unions and working people seeing their situation rocked through legislative action...Wisconsin!
 
#55
They tried to bust the hotel workers union in of all places, Santa Monica, California ("the people's republic") as recently as 10 years ago. Gore was staying at the Loews hotel when the whole thing went down. If you even talked to the union rep you were black listed and harassed. To this day there is only one or two hotels that are union there. Unbelievable. With all the out of work union "b" actors living in Santa Monica, in rent controlled housing which was originally ear marked for the poor labor class, you can see how conservatives get there momentum from confusion. For example, the City of Santa Monica's idea of helping minorities is bringing immigrants from Sweden and Russia to occupy section 8 housing. They really did a great job of getting the Latino workers to come forward and stand up for their rights. Instead they felt afraid. Rightly so. Kudos to the Senators who fled Wisconsin to stop the vote. But I can't help but think they should of seen this coming. What can I say Joe? I guess you're a psychic. (just kidding) Yeah. I know ----no politics.
 
#56
Just FYI, there are differences between the degrees of legal protection afforded PRIVATE versus PUBLIC employees. Private employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively under the NLRA, although the courts and various administrations have increasingly limited those rights. Public sector employees, on the other hand, do not come under the jurisdiction of the NLRA and depend on state/local statutes for such rights as may exist. The recent action by the recently elected right-wing governor and his tea bagger cronies in WI has led to this effort to strip public workers of their rights while like minded operatives in other states froth out of their mouths for the chance to do the same.
 
#57
Bass Barrister said:
Just FYI, there are differences between the degrees of legal protection afforded PRIVATE versus PUBLIC employees. Private employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively under the NLRA, although the courts and various administrations have increasingly limited those rights. Public sector employees, on the other hand, do not come under the jurisdiction of the NLRA and depend on state/local statutes for such rights as may exist. The recent action by the recently elected right-wing governor and his tea bagger cronies in WI has led to this effort to strip public workers of their rights while like minded operatives in other states froth out of their mouths for the chance to do the same.
Click to expand...

Yea, verily. But bad mojo all around in the air. Ask not for whom the bell tolls...
 
#58
Point well taken Barrister but read this:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

They are trying to lump the complexities of the 2 entities interests (PUBLIC versus PRIVATE) together into the budget Bill. Pretty clever but not clever enough to suck the Dems into a hasty vote. It has to be amended, before a vote can go forward. They are not going to throw out the window years of work and what some call progress on collective bargaining.
 
#59
Wally Malone said:
Taft-Hartley dictates that bars, lounges, etc. are not employers of musicians in the U.S. Once that was brought forward and recognized is when the AFM locals couldn't demand that musicians that did this work had to be union. That is also when the decline in membership began. At that time the AFM membership was over 300,000.

Wally
Click to expand...
Two questions
What year did you begin working for AFofM?
Re bars, lounges, what year was that?
Taft Hartley was 1947. Are you citing Taft-Hartley or a later NLRB decision?
OK, that's 3 questions. Sue me.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back