So Gina finally got fired

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Filthy

the High commander
Jun 28, 2016
17,412
21,800
SAG is a union. They should be fighting studios for their members to have better protections. #GodBlessThe FreeMarket
yeah - i don't think the solution to "Cancel Culture" is to make the Screenwriters union in to the Thought Police Union.

EDIT - unions are big business
 

JorgeMasvidalsBeard

Super Necessary
Jul 22, 2015
43,661
41,178
yeah - i don't think the solution to "Cancel Culture" is to make the Screenwriters union in to the Thought Police Union.
You were referring to making laws. Unions don't make laws, they (allegedly) look out for the best interests of their members. Workers organizing and fighting for themselves to ensure their freedom of speech from studios is as free market as it gets.
 

Filthy

the High commander
Jun 28, 2016
17,412
21,800
You were referring to making laws. Unions don't make laws, they (allegedly) look out for the best interests of their members. Workers organizing and fighting for themselves to ensure their freedom of speech from studios is as free market as it gets.
I think what kneeblock @kneeblock was suggesting was that SAG and other unions be given more legal headroom, like the firefighters' union.
no?
 

JorgeMasvidalsBeard

Super Necessary
Jul 22, 2015
43,661
41,178
I think what kneeblock @kneeblock was suggesting was that SAG and other unions be given more legal headroom, like the firefighters' union.
no?
I don't see anything about laws here:

People should support stronger labor protections for speech from SAG and across all industries to prevent their workers from falling prey to circumstances like this.
Personally, i think unions should be granted the legal protection to exist. The free market, although really kickass, does have some short comings.
 

Filthy

the High commander
Jun 28, 2016
17,412
21,800
stronger labor protections for speech from SAG and across all industries
that's what I read as "needs more laws".

and I agree with free association and collective bargaining, they're pillars of a free market.
what I don't agree with is things like the police union writing their own policies on use of force, and then pointing to those policies as evidence that their force was legal. Or teachers' unions keeping pedophiles on the payroll.

Public sector careers exist to serve the community, but public sector unions exist to serve the union, and they leverage the health/safety of every member of society to get benefits and advantages for their members.
 

JorgeMasvidalsBeard

Super Necessary
Jul 22, 2015
43,661
41,178
that's what I read as "needs more laws".
Not, how I read it, but it's certainly not a hill I'm prepared to die on.

what I don't agree with is things like the police union writing their own policies on use of force, and then pointing to those policies as evidence that their force was legal. Or teachers' unions keeping pedophiles on the payroll.

Public sector careers exist to serve the community, but public sector unions exist to serve the union, and they leverage the health/safety of every member of society to get benefits and advantages for their members.
Free market, gonna free market.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
11,069
20,452
I think what kneeblock @kneeblock was suggesting was that SAG and other unions be given more legal headroom, like the firefighters' union.
no?
No it has nothing to do with legal processes and more to do with what they negotiate into contracts. When SAG collectively bargains, they set terms for termination, including timelines for termination and payouts. A clause in the SAG contract against ideological removal could accomplish this without any policy intervention other than general laws protecting the right to organize and bargain in good faith, which technically already exist under the National Labor Relations Act, but are often selectively enforced depending on administration.
 

Filthy

the High commander
Jun 28, 2016
17,412
21,800
No it has nothing to do with legal processes and more to do with what they negotiate into contracts. When SAG collectively bargains, they set terms for termination, including timelines for termination and payouts. A clause in the SAG contract against ideological removal could accomplish this without any policy intervention other than general laws protecting the right to organize and bargain in good faith, which technically already exist under the National Labor Relations Act, but are often selectively enforced depending on administration.
What would SAG give up to gain a clause against "ideological removal"?
Also, how would this be any less selectively-enforced than the current laws?
 

Filthy

the High commander
Jun 28, 2016
17,412
21,800
What laws?
laws like the National Labor Relations Act.

it's one thing to say "can't be removed for ideological expression" but what about the business's right to dissociate themselves from controversial or inflammatory positions?
 

Thuglife13

👦🏻🍕🍦🍩🍺
Dec 15, 2018
8,324
12,422
fuck. that bitch is a heinous example of everything that's wrong with politics in America.
Nothing to say except over-the-top insults and dehumanization of "the others".
and Maher is a fuck for putting people like that on. I haven't watched Maher in ages, but I see he had Nick on for that episode - i'll check it out.
She's terrible. To just outright call someone a nazi like that which isn't true at all and get no blowback whatsoever? Oh I Nick fan eh? I've seen him a lot over the years on Fox usually on a show with Greg Gutfeld I believe. I think he goes on Kennedy's show on Fox Business sometimes too I enjoy her a lot eventhough she obviously doesn't like Trump along with Nick and his peeps at Reason. I like watching Bill Maher because we agree on some things and it's a breath of fresh air to see someone considered a liberal go against the grain on things like radical Islam and "cancel culture" (hate the term), and also on certain aspects of the whole covid lockdowns and regulations thing going on in the country...
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
11,069
20,452
laws like the National Labor Relations Act.

it's one thing to say "can't be removed for ideological expression" but what about the business's right to dissociate themselves from controversial or inflammatory positions?
The national labor relations act only specifies the conditions under which workers can organize and collectively bargain for certification as a union. It also specifies some modes of arbitration for disputes.

In my view, a business shouldn't be allowed to dissociate themselves from workers for ideological reasons unless it's stipulated in the contract because the business has some public interest. By that I mean they perform a public service people engage with that could be compromised by a worker's expressions of bias. In this case, I'm thinking of government workers and subcontractors. Businesses that are just in it for the profit should have a right to censure workers and maybe even publicly, but to me the idea that you can lose your source of income due to what you believe just for PR face saving is too easily misused and overwhelmingly favors management prerogative. I've been in the position to have people fired for racist remarks they've made to my face in the past and objected because I believe in this very strongly. In a unionized workplace, workers would stipulate the circumstances they could accept for removal and management could object and they could go back and forth until they reached a compromise, including arbitration procedures and what payout they would have to give a person in the event of needing to sever the relationship. Sadly, in modern US society, only around 6% of private sector workers are unionized at all and the majority work in at will jobs where you can be fired at almost anytime just because the boss doesn't like the cut of your jib.
 

SongExotic2

ATM 3 CHAMPION OF THE WORLD
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
26,027
44,606
The national labor relations act only specifies the conditions under which workers can organize and collectively bargain for certification as a union. It also specifies some modes of arbitration for disputes.

In my view, a business shouldn't be allowed to dissociate themselves from workers for ideological reasons unless it's stipulated in the contract because the business has some public interest. By that I mean they perform a public service people engage with that could be compromised by a worker's expressions of bias. In this case, I'm thinking of government workers and subcontractors. Businesses that are just in it for the profit should have a right to censure workers and maybe even publicly, but to me the idea that you can lose your source of income due to what you believe just for PR face saving is too easily misused and overwhelmingly favors management prerogative. I've been in the position to have people fired for racist remarks they've made to my face in the past and objected because I believe in this very strongly. In a unionized workplace, workers would stipulate the circumstances they could accept for removal and management could object and they could go back and forth until they reached a compromise, including arbitration procedures and what payout they would have to give a person in the event of needing to sever the relationship. Sadly, in modern US society, only around 6% of private sector workers are unionized at all and the majority work in at will jobs where you can be fired at almost anytime just because the boss doesn't like the cut of your jib.
Should've had them fired. I hope you at least punched them?
 

Filthy

the High commander
Jun 28, 2016
17,412
21,800
The national labor relations act only specifies the conditions under which workers can organize and collectively bargain for certification as a union. It also specifies some modes of arbitration for disputes.

In my view, a business shouldn't be allowed to dissociate themselves from workers for ideological reasons unless it's stipulated in the contract because the business has some public interest. By that I mean they perform a public service people engage with that could be compromised by a worker's expressions of bias. In this case, I'm thinking of government workers and subcontractors. Businesses that are just in it for the profit should have a right to censure workers and maybe even publicly, but to me the idea that you can lose your source of income due to what you believe just for PR face saving is too easily misused and overwhelmingly favors management prerogative. I've been in the position to have people fired for racist remarks they've made to my face in the past and objected because I believe in this very strongly. In a unionized workplace, workers would stipulate the circumstances they could accept for removal and management could object and they could go back and forth until they reached a compromise, including arbitration procedures and what payout they would have to give a person in the event of needing to sever the relationship. Sadly, in modern US society, only around 6% of private sector workers are unionized at all and the majority work in at will jobs where you can be fired at almost anytime just because the boss doesn't like the cut of your jib.
I think there's a lot to talk about, but I need to start at -

you don't think government unions are in it for the money?