Saturday, February 11, 2012

"Fair" and "Unfair"

The Economist offers an example.

Suppose I'm a surgeon pulling down six figures. Perhaps doing my fair share is to pay 33% of my income in taxes. But, hey, wait! My sister, who could have been a surgeon, chose instead to make pottery in a little hippie arts colony. She makes only as much as she needs to get by, works relatively short hours, smokes a lot of weed with her artist friends, and pays no federal income tax at all! If paying 33% of the money I make saving lives is doing my fair share, then it's hard to see how my sister—who could have been a surgeon, or some kind of job- and/or welfare-creating entrepreneur—is doing hers. But if she is doing hers, just playing with clay out there in the woods, benefiting next to no one, paying no taxes, then clearly I'm doing way more than my fair share. Which seems, you know, unfair. ...

Years back, the Animation Guild was in the middle of a contract negotiation. TAG's negotiating committee was expending a lot of time and energy trying to get the usual suspects -- Warner Bros., Fox, Disney, and the rest -- to revamp the contract to include residual payments. But all the parties on the other side of The Table kept saying "No." Over and over again.

When the negotiating committee repaired to the caucus room, participants complained about how stubborn and unfair the companies were being. How unjust it was that animation story creators didn't receive mail box residuals like the DGA, SAG, and the WGA. This went on for several months, and along about month four it dawned on me:

There is no fair, there is no unfair, there is only what you have the ability/leverage to get.

In 1960 and 1961, Hollywood unions were successful in negotiating residuals after years of proposing them. They went on strike over the issue, and the Hollywood studios, not yet monster conglomerates, couldn't afford a long work stoppage. So they (grudgingly) agreed.

Please note that residuals came about not because it was "fair," but because labor had the juice to secure them.

Weeks ago, a gay member who had married his Significant Other in New York (where the state legislature voted that same sex marriages were fair and legal), complained to TAG that the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plan doesn't recognize his union because the MPIPHP follows federal law which declares same-sex marriages are unfair and illegal.

Because as we all know, only men and women can be married to each other. (Except when it's been otherwise.)

And there is now --as reflected in the long quote up top -- a lively back-and-forth over who should pay what in taxes. When I was in shorts and high-topped tennis shoes, Ike had the top marginal income tax rate pegged at 90%. Today, Barack Obama want's to push the top marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39.5%. And is greeted with bellows of outrage.

Is Eisenhower's tax bracket fair? Is Obama's unrealized 39.5% unfair? I would submit that, despite the screams of various politicians, neither is one thing or the other, but products of the political dynamics and pressures of their times. (Is Mitt Romney's income tax rate "fair?" Depends who you ask. But it's what's legally allowed.)

What I have come to understand is that "fair" and "unfair" changes from one individual, group or time period to the next. When a politician natters on about "fair," he is usually selling his vision of how he -- or more likely the interest group paying him -- wants things to be.

Tune out all the propaganda, and you begin to figure out that most things from the mind of Man are arbitrary, and everything is temporary.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

So the question begs to be asked...

...now that the studios ARE all huge multi-national conglomerates, why haven't they forced their leverage and ended residuals to SAG, WGA, and other direct-cash recipients?

Anonymous said...

You mean, like the residuals they don't get when their work is streamed online?

Anonymous said...

So what's your point other than "nothing's fair"? You bring out examples that each can be argued in one way or another. If the post is about residuals, why bring up about the taxes you pay at the high end or the low end....gay marraige in states that accept it or dont accept it.....
I just knew that the conclusion, coming from you was going to be "nothings' fair". But I can choose from the three subjects to harp about that are within your post, or can I add onto the subject list of unfair? And why? Cuz it's fun?

Anonymous said...

America wasn't founded to make life fair. It was founded to make men free. The more laws that are passed to make things "fair" the more freedoms we lose.

Steve Hulett said...

... now that the studios ARE all huge multi-national conglomerates, why haven't they forced their leverage and ended residuals to SAG, WGA, and other direct-cash recipients?

As it's been explained to me: The industry -- particularly higher up the ladder -- is built on relationships. Studio heads fear destroying relationships with talent they believe they MUST have for their projects.

The leverage thing again.

If Director X or Movie Star Y takes the head of a studio into a quiet room and says: "You and your side take out residuals (or whatever), you can bank on me doing no work for your studio ..."

It comes down to cost-benefit. And fear of blowing things up. And the realization that though they dislike paying this residual or that benefit under a guild contract, the know the costs and they're built into the business model.

Added to which, the studios are doing fine by and large. And American entertainment workers are taking an equivalent (or smaller) piece of the action than their European or Australian counterparts.

Example: foreign levies that are collected are split 50/50 between the copyright holders (the congloms) and the creators (writers and directors). Overseas, foreign creators take 100%, not 50%.

When I attended court about the division of foreign levies, I found this factoid out.)

Anonymous said...

"America wasn't founded to make life fair. It was founded to make men free. The more laws that are passed to make things "fair" the more freedoms we lose."

That is, of course, precisely the kind of comment the Constitution of the United States was written to refute.

Anonymous said...

"That is, of course, precisely the kind of comment the Constitution of the United States was written to refute."

Say what??

Anonymous said...

the "surgeon" and his "hippy" sister story is, of course, a right-wing fantasy. We could just as well tell it like this...

"I make art pottery with several other people and we support ourselves with that in addition to paying the same property taxes and sales taxes as everyone else even though our kids are home-schooled and not costing the public school system anything.

My surgeon brother makes more money but half his patients wouldn't be there if it weren't for Medicare or the VA paying their way. I never get any government-sponsored customers but he does. His whole profession is subsidized by government-funded research and government supported infrastructure like the CDC and the NIH. The government doesn't subsidize our pottery.

If my brother leaves someone disabled or maimed with one of his operations or misdiagnoses them the government shields him with liability limit laws that make it difficult to hire a lawyer to pursue him. If anyone does sue him he's still safe because the law lets him have malpractice insurance so he'll never have to pay a dime in punishment.

The government will let him be a screw-up for years with no consequences but if I so much as get caught with a joint I'm looking at serious jail time.

He's getting a pretty good deal for his 33%, which he doesn't really pay because of all the tax dodges his lobbyists have gotten passed. There are no pottery lobbyists.

It's not fair!"

yahweh said...

We all have to keep in mind part of the "unfairness" of it all is that Romney and other 1%ers like him hire lobbyists and bribe politicians to make sure laws and regulations get passed so they can get away with the lower tax rates and the raping of the middle class.

It's not the fact that he makes more than us and can take advantage of tax loopholes and pay a lower rate than us that is unfair.

Anonymous said...

"America wasn't founded to make life fair. It was founded to make men free. The more laws that are passed to make things "fair" the more freedoms we lose."

It was founded to make white men free from other white men.

Anonymous said...

Some people just have a stick up their butt about this country. How about moving to Athens and seeing what unchecked liberalism can do.

Steve Hulett said...

My point is, there is no way to quantify "fair and "unfair." They're fine as persuasion tools, but the words are dependent on your POV.

Anonymous said...

then why bring it up as a topic?

Anonymous said...

Because the Guild likes to bring things like this up when they are in negotiations with the studios.
When they lose even more ground, because they have no "leverage", they can site references like this... And once again say, "Its always been like this...."


.....sigh

Anonymous said...

I agree and I know that. It seems like the word of the day is ARBITRATION. They are arbitrators of our rights and conveniences. They say (to them) "What do you want and what will you give us in return" They say "we want their (the artists') rights limited in this way and that way, and we will allow for 'this'". "This" is often nothing but money at the wage minimum payrate, which is a given for the time it is :negotiations. Hardly an expected skin off their teeth. The Arbitrators say "OK!" and their lawyer-wording is manipulated into the contracts, and hence you say " And once again (they) say, "Its always been like this...."
What is needed is a level of accountablity, where we (the artists) can look at what is going on and see what is happening, and what HAS happened and HOW it happened. Oh yeah, now here comes the sage advise :well, just show up at the monthly Union meetings.

Pablum. Bland, tasteless pablum.

As you said .......sigh

Steve Hulett said...

Because the Guild likes to bring things like this up when they are in negotiations with the studios.
When they lose even more ground, because they have no "leverage", they can site references like this... And once again say, "Its always been like this...."


.....sigh



Here's an idea: Why don't you get down in the freaking arena instead of hiding behind anonymity?

If you think I'm full of shit, volunteer for the oncoming negotiation committee. Make your positions known. Fight for something and do some heavy lifting instead of whining (without attribution) in the comment section of a blog.

How about that?

Anonymous said...

Could you please refrain from getting pissy about this? We expect you take on that POV of this, but if I'm not mistaken, our side can only SIT in on the negotiations but not SAY anything. And if I am wrong about this, then who can we talk to, to come in to your office, and examine the policies, procedures and records of how this all came about, going all the way back to the beginning? You know, people AFTER your tenure can have an affect about how the future is run. We can make a difference, but just speaking up in your meetings really doesnt get anywhere. Any more than speaking up here as anonymous.
You are more on their side, in that artists, and the people who really do the labor on these projects, are afraid of speaking up as individuals. You and the studios bank on the fact that we are needing that check more than anything. We are at fault for being human and blue-collar: we have to pay rent and mortgage and food and bills and family. You bank on that. If that wasn't the case, then we would be able to work together and make a stand where it counts. Take away your 'no-strike' clause, sit in on negotiations and speak up, just to name a couple. We need to be able to put a hold on production when unreasonable messages are sent down to indivduals. And of course, any solution you have in response to this is of course, supported by the signers of the contract. Which makes you the arbitrator. Or: is that arbiTRAITOR?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Steve! Why don't you just wave your magic wand and fix everything so this kid will be happy. Make the no-strike clause (that is obviously your fault) disappear and make all of us have secure jobs and better wages. If you don't do these things then you are obviously working for the other side!
And while you're at it stop being mean to the stupid newbies that dare to call you on your union disloyalty!!

Steve Hulett said...

Could you please refrain from getting pissy about this?

Why would I want to do that? I'm arguing with God knows who, so what does it matter?

You're a fifteen-year-old in a Cleveland basement, for all I know.

We expect you take on that POV of this, but if I'm not mistaken, our side can only SIT in on the negotiations but not SAY anything.

You're mistaken.

Negotiation committee members have talked for all the time I've been here. And even argued. And rolled out facts.

And if I am wrong about this, then who can we talk to, to come in to your office, and examine the policies, procedures and records of how this all came about, going all the way back to the beginning?

Talk to me.

(818) 845-7500.

Easiest to reach in the morning hours, before I go out to studios.

You can look at all the contracts, see how far back the "no strike" clause goes. (It's way before I got here.)

The International has to approve any strikes we take. And TAG, as a local, has to get the members' vote for a strike. Just to let you know.

Anonymous said...

I know pee when I smell it:

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Negotiations!

When the trades talk about "below the line," they mean the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employes, the Teamsters, and any other Hollywood union that isn't SAG, DGA or WGA.

In other words, us guys.

What you should note here is that The Animation Guild, Local 839 IATSE, was chucked out of the "West Coast Bargaining Unit" -- the group that Variety is referring to -- back in 1982.

(We were kicked out for being uppity*. TAG has negotiated by its lonesome ever since.)

This time around, I'll be sitting in the big negotiations, but I will be sitting as an observer, not a participant.

As best we can tell, TAG's negotiations will take place in April or May, after the Basic Agreement has been negotiated and (hopefully) ratified.

* As used above, uppity means "Striking too much."

Posted by Steve Hulett at 4:35 PM

Thanks for the invite to call. I'll ask my mom. Till then, I'm only asking about the organization and how it can be better.

Steve Hulett said...

Members participating would be a fine start.

stevenem said...

"Some people just have a stick up their butt about this country. How about moving to Athens and seeing what unchecked liberalism can do."

How "Right" of you. Pure echo chamber/bubble stuff: Equating Liberalism with disloyalty.

Another thing: This Greece thing is getting old and it's an invalid point. Why not cite Germany? How about move to Germany and find out that liberalism and Socialism have absolutely no causal relationship WHATSOEVER with economic prosperity?

They do have a lot to do with basic humanity and compassion, however, of which the Right has a conspicuous shortage.

Site Meter