Saturday, December 19, 2009

More With Less

Last week I walked into one of our fine animation studios and heard this from a director:

"We're getting hammered around here. The schedules are tightening up, and the production people are piling on more and more to do. I'm working way longer hours Monday through Friday, but I refuse to come in on weekends.

I used to take more time to polish the work. Now I just slam it out and grab my paycheck. Funny thing is, the last couple of months they've had less criticism of the work I've pushed through fast ..."

I hear variations of this all over town. And I hear variations of it from my union compatriots in the live-action community. Hard as it is to believe, this is apparently going on nation-wide:

Many U.S. workers are being pushed to toil harder and shoulder the load once carried by colleagues who've since been laid off. That can mean long days without overtime pay or raises, less family time, and more mental and physical fatigue.

Don't like it? Walk out the door and you'll join 15 million unemployed Americans, the largest segment of whom have been idle for more than three months. Your former boss will have plenty of replacements to choose from. There are about six job seekers for every opening.

The workload for many survivors is likely to mount in coming months. As business cycles accelerate, companies get busier, but employers are typically reluctant to add staff until they're convinced the good times will last ...

The fact that everyone in Toon Town is hunkered down, working their tails off, is not news at this site. The fear of layoffs is not news. But it's always useful to step back and look at the forest instead of just the different bits of bark on the trees.

But there's another tough reality for unions just now , and that's in the area of organizing.

Such workers would seem likely to welcome approaches from unions to gain bargaining power with their employers. In fact, it's just the opposite. ...

"It makes it more difficult for unions to organize because people are grateful to have any job," ....

Yep, I'm familiar with this dynamic. People are happy when they have a paycheck, any paycheck. And in that frame of mind, there is a reluctance to rock the boat.


Anonymous said...

Just as many business owners are guilty of making short-term decisions at long-term expense, workers are also guilty of thinking only of the short-term in not more actively organizing.

Yes, you may incur short-term pain, but actively working to unionize these workplaces will mean longterm improvement.

In addition, those working in union studios who are passively allowing their bosses to subvert union rules about overtime are only thinking short-term instead of longterm gain for themselves and everyone else. If people are not actively filing grievances when these offenses happen, this is simply short-term "gain" (though not really), long-term deterioration of workplace wages and respect.

Anonymous said...

This is what the bush economic debacle has brought us to. 8 years of sheer ignorance in charge of our country. It's gonna take a LONG time to undo the mess he left this country in.

Anonymous said...

And like bush, what he's left us with encourages workers to lower their standards.


Anonymous said...

Gee, I seem to remember that,under Bush, we had a booming economy, low unemployment, low inflation, and that my 401K was doing gangbusters.

Then the Dems took over Congress, and then Obama got ordained (oops, elected) and everything is now in the tank.

Anonymous #2 (and possibly 3, probably the same person) it's painfully obvious that you are DESPERATE to prop up your paper tiger. Forget it, dude, the Chosen One has made things much worse with his pathetic far-left policy decisions. Government spending has skyrocketed, none of the stimulus has worked, and now we've got a health care bill engineered to make more people dependent on the gov't, which is the usual Dem game plan of keeping them in power. Plus Obama - who the left was counting on to make the world like us again - has failed in that regard too. The world is laughing/spitting on him. That's some hope and change, there.

There is going to be a major backlash come 2010. Hopefully then, some of the damage can be repaired and the mouthpiece for the left can keep talking but will have little power to continue to harm this country. Me, I'll be first in line at the ballot box.

Oh, and I'm all for unionizing animators. Artists are being exploited at a fearsome rate, and no, that's not a Bush policy.
That's just business as usual.

Anonymous said...

Under idiot bush, a SURPLUS budget disappeared in less than 8 months, more jobs were "outsourced" overseas than under any president in history, and the White House and republicans spent more than any administration in history.

Oh, and bush allowed terrorists to attack America, and then lied to start a war in Iraq, which wasn't needed, diverting trillions of TAXPAYER dollars, while letting the enemy escape into the mountains of Afghanistan.

Like most of his "jobs (that 'daddy' got him)", he ran this country into the ground and then took his ball home. History will not forget.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own FACTS.

Yes, Virginia, bush WAS the worst "president" in U.S. History.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget, W and Cheney made the US the most despised nation in the world. He took the huge out pooring of sympathy nand comradary that was garnered directly after 9/11 and like the surplus budget ran it into the ground.

Whether Obama turns out to be a good president or not it's unlikely he could ever be as bad as W if for no other reason then for returning the US to some of it's previous world standing.

Steve Hulett said...

I'm all for unionizing animators. Artists are being exploited at a fearsome rate, and no, that's not a Bush policy.

Sadly, undermining organized labor and weakening work rules was a Bush policy.

Until Bush, animators were non-exempt from overtime regulations. Now they're not, because the Bush secretary of labor got them re-written.

Anonymous said...

"...under Bush, we had a booming economy..."

65% of the Bush "boom" was the finance industry. We now know what that was built on; air, pure speculation and phony securities. What's more, the economy fell apart BEFORE he left office. "None" of the stimulus is working? Tell that to Ford and the financial institutions that are already refunding the stimulus money along with a taxpayer profit. It's been less than a year. Most of the measures the administration planned have yet to be enacted. It may be just a LITTLE premature to declare it a failure.

Talk about "paper tigers"- the biggest paper tiger on the right is this creepy childish fear of "government control" that Reagan so often articulated. The idea of government "control" of health care (actually no more than the cost and availability of health care) is no more odious than government control of the military or the post office. And don't try that "post office is losing money" number. There is a huge difference between inefficiency and the kind of paranoid, ominous "control" you are referring to. We don't owe the health insurance industry a profit at the expense of our health and survival.

Anonymous said...

The economy imploded in September, 2008. As mentioned before, that's right smack during Bush's watch. And in large part, it was directly due to the unregulated laisse-faire policies of the previous 7 years of governance.

While I can agree that Obama does appear to be a relatively weak president, it is clear he is hampered by having to clean up the overwhelming mess that he inheirited.

Vice-president Cheney famously said in 2001, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Eight years later, we can see concretely just how false this has proven. The laws of physics still apply to the economy, no matter what Saint Reagan thought.

Arlo said...

Obama OWNS this economy. Please stop passing the buck to the previous president. You look desperate and infantile.

But if you want to say that the policies of the previous administration affect the current one 13 months into his job - then okay, I'll be your huckleberry.

But there is just one thing we need to clear up:

"Oh, and bush allowed terrorists to attack America,"

This is not true.

The previous administration inherited a world where terrorist had been trained for years while Clinton ignored them. The 9/11 hijackers had already began their plans before Bush even took his oath. Thats why Sandy Berger was caught stealing and destroying Q level documents pertaining to Al Qaeda. Many of those documents were never retrieved.

Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were ignored routinely under Clinton(except for when he blindly sent a missile into Afghanistan and destroyed a mosque or launched an air strike on an aspirin factory in Yemen).

Bush had 8 months before 9/11 and there is no way on earth he could have undone 8 YEARS of inaction in regards to Al Qaeda.

So please stop whining like a little girl and saying that the previous administration is the boogeyman when Obama has TRIPLED the national debt and brouhgt the unemployment to over 10%. You equations don't add up.

Especially when you want to also blame Bush for an event his administration could not have done anything to prevent.

Bottom line, you're a dunce.

Arlo said...

"Until Bush, animators were non-exempt from overtime regulations. Now they're not, because the Bush secretary of labor got them re-written."

And most low wage workers were NOT entitled to overtime until the 50-year-old laws were amended Steve. Now they are entitled to time and a half. You must have forgotten about the little guys in this one case huh?

Arlo said...

the biggest paper tiger on the right is this creepy childish fear of "government control" that Reagan so often articulated.

I wish you would use a name, because you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.

I'd like just a little bit of satisfaction in the form of rubbing your nose in the pile of the crap you post in here.

You think the government needs to be bigger? Really?!?

How do you get so uninformed? So ignorant and blind?

Go to the DMV and try to get something done sometime. Go to ANY government bureau and pay attention to the ineffective model that the public sector is locked into.

Short of doing that, spare us your halfwitted hypotheses, because I can guarantee that by what you have posted that you aren't old enough to have a proper perspective on the issues. You are concocting what you imagine things could be like. They already have been that way bub and they were a catastrophe. Thats why we moved away from big government. Thats why the vast majority of americans do NOT want a larger role for government in their lives - because intelligent americans have direct experience with government institutions and know how bloated and impotent they are. You do now. Because you are young and stupid.

Anonymous said...

Arlo the troll is back, filled with typical misinformation.

I love how Arlo wants it both ways. Obama owns the financial meltdown even though it imploded before he entered office. But Bush is not at fault for 9/11 even though it happened well after he was in office. Arlo's cognitive dissonance is amazing to watch in action.

Of course all his nonsense about Clinton, Bush and Al Qaeda is pure partisan bullshit and historical fiction.

Clinton was very focussed on Al Qaeda, almost to the point of obsession, as reported by Richard Clarke (a guy with infinitely more credibility than you will ever have). He had prepared a complete military operation to roll back them and the Taliban prepared and ready to go. With the blueprint in hand, he had a month left in office, and chose not to saddle Bush with an inheirited military action, so gave the incoming administration a thorough briefing and entrusted the blueprint to them.

The Bush Admin didn't care about Al Qaeda, and didn't want to learn. They ignored the military plan that had been prepared. Richard Clarke tried repeatedly to brief them on the danger, and was ignored. They ignored the numerous intelligence reports coming in about Al Qaeda. They demoted the guy who was monitoring terrorist attacks, and refused to have any high-level meetings with him.

On August 6, 2001, a month before 9/11, Bush personally received a CIA briefing with the heading "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". Bush, having grown tired of all these repeated warnings of a terrorist he didn't care about, laughed at the CIA officer and said "All right, you've covered your ass now."

There's a big difference between being ABLE to stop a terrorist attack, and at least TRYING to. Nobody in the Bush Administration even bothered to try, not because they weren't adequately warned, but because they just didn't care.

As for the idiot Sandy Berger, while I won't defend that Iraq-War-supporter much for anything, I will at least correct Arlo's lies to say that nothing he stole was original, but rather were copies of classified reports. Additionally, they related to the failed 2000 Millennium attacks, and not 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Oh right, Bush and co. didn't care about terrorists. What evidence have you? None, of course, just leftist spew. Whereas it's a FACT Clinton had 3 chances to take out Bin Laden, but didn't because, using your logic, HE "didn't care". Too busy screwing around with interns, I guess.

And Mr. All-Knowing Anonymous From Above, why the hell would Berger steal COPIES of classified material? What possible motive would he have for that? What the hell good would copies do him? Geez, you not only spin, you spin badly.

Jeezus, you leftists are a hoot. Your champion gets elected and still you foamed on about Bush. Now your champion's a washout at about every damn thing he's tried to do, despite his party being totally in control of Congress, and still you rant about Bush. Your nutty complexes are big enough to float an ocean liner on...and also big enough to potentially sink this country, a fact which has become quite evident to the majority of the American people, who will act to toss your sorry butts out of power come 2010. Count on it.

Anonymous said...

Well, Mr. Anonymous Rightwing Wacko Extremist, I didn't bring up Clinton, 9/11, etc., Arlo the Conservative did.

But to address your silly points, it is clear your ignorance is astronomical. If you don't like the facts about Sandy Berger, take it up with the Bush Justice Dept.--they're the ones who's investigation concluded he only took copies.

As for Clinton's responses to Al Qaeda, I will simply repeat. At least he tried. Using the best intel at the time, he retaliated militarily several times, but efforts were always frustrated by a lack of good intel.

Bush, meanwhile, couldn't be bothered even to try. While their counter-terrorism expert was "urgently" trying to get them to just set up a meeting, no one in the Bush Administration would listen, and couldn't be bothered to learn about Bin Laden. Nine months later, when 9/11 struck, almost no one in the Bush Administration knew anything about him.

When they finally had Bin Laden holed up at Tora Bora, they incompetently let him slip away, and then diverted almost all resources to their stupid unrelated war of choice in Iraq. What absolute morons you chose to support. Unbelievable stupidity.

Those are the facts. Sorry they are inconvenient for your pre-established wacko ideology. You people drove our nation head-first into the mud, and now you're upset that WE aren't cleaning YOUR mess up fast enough. You conservatives are nothing but a disease that we true Americans have to carry on our backs.

Anonymous said...

Part of the reason Obama and the Dems are having a tough time cleaning up the mess of the conservatives is because the Repubs are obstructing everything they try to do.

They are so obstuctionist, they even voted against protecting our female troops from getting raped by contractors. Congratulations, rightwing wackos, that's who you're supporting. Rape enablers.

Anonymous said...

Wish I had a dime for every time Arlo pointed to his bad visits to the DMV as Exhibit A of his case against government. How many fucking licenses does one man lose in a calendar year?

Anonymous said...

The facts are indisputable, Clinton cleaned up the reagan-bush mess and created record surpluses, 22 million new jobs, unemployment and core inflation at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, and the longest economic expansion in American history. Then w got APPOINTED and he basically flushed it all down the toilet, then he flushed a couple more times to make sure that even the streak marks were gone. An cheney was there to always clean his butt.

Anonymous said...

No wonder conservatives hate facts. They are always on the losing side of history.

Anonymous said...

I'm no fan of Bush, but giving credit to Clinton for fundamentally sound economic policy is just as myopic as giving Bush credit for sound military policy. Just as many economic weapons of mass destruction were planted during Clinton as were during Bush. Please, they are all fucking politicians. As I lived it, no one embraced the flawed global economic and fiscal policy planted by Reagan after the the Berlin Wall more than Bill Clinton. That man was a whore for Greenspan's FIRE global economic rape. That man bent over backwards to please Wall Street innovation.

Anonymous said...

Funny how this troll hasnt been back to answer the question about the financial crisis somehow being Obama's fault, even though the cold hard facts refute it.

Just disappeared into the woodwork.


Arlo said...

I'm not back because you're an IDIOT and you are spouting garbage. I had to stop at this:

Clinton was very focussed on Al Qaeda, almost to the point of obsession, as reported by Richard Clarke. He had prepared a complete military operation to roll back them and the Taliban prepared and ready to go. With the blueprint in hand, he had a month left in office, and chose not to saddle Bush with an inheirited military action, so gave the incoming administration a thorough briefing and entrusted the blueprint to them."

Now the trrality - from Richard Clarke:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

Please - tell me more about Richard Clarke, or more specifically, make up some things about Richard Clarke. You aren't worth talking to. Its nice to prove you wrong with my morning coffee and I'll leave it at that. Go jump in a lake.

Anonymous said...

You have not answered the question about how the financial crisis is Obamas fault when everything imploded before he even took office.

I can only assume you are selectively reading the comments, and/or only not answering ones you know you cant refute.

Please prove me wrong.

PS) Please do not assume all Anonymous posters are the same posters. This is only my second comment here, the first one being Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:04:00 PM

Steve Hulett said...

Whether you think our recent President was good or bad, there is this from today's Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. stock market is wrapping up what is likely to be its worst decade ever.

In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s.

Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade.

So. Clinton's fault? Bush's fault? Obama's fault? Greenspan's and Bernanke's fault? The reality is that market performance (and employment) was lacklustre over the past decade.

Anonymous said...

Bush, unlike Clinton, never once held a principle's meeting on the subject of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden prior to 9/11. Never once had a cabinet meeting. Condeleeza Rice had never even heard of Al Qaeda before stepping into office. These people were completely disinterested in Al Qaeda, and never took the threats and intelligence they were receiving seriously.

CIA head George Tenet was personally pleading with Bush to take some action, and was ignored.

But Arlo says it's all okay, because Bush continued Clinton's policy. But Arlo forgets that he had previously said that Clinton "routinely ignored" Al Qaeda. Therefore, we must conclude that Bush "routinely ignored" Al Qaeda--which we know is true from numerous independent sources.

Conclusion: Clinton at least tried. Bush dithered and did nothing.

Anonymous said...

Judging from the complete and utter bullshit emerging from every single financial institution now propped up by our tax dollars, I do not see how a rational person could even begin to view market performance as an indicator of anything based in reality. Fuck their data and fuck their dollar. They oppress us all with their incessant numbers.

sc said...

FWIW, regarding the DMV.. I have always renewed my registration easily and efficiently online. and every 5 (?) years when I have had to renew my license, I've made an appointment online, gone into the office and been waited on on-time, and out of there in 10 minutes.
it seems a little disingenuous to complain about the DMV using sit-com stereotypes.

I am constantly puzzled by this idea that 'the government can't do anything right'...

Arlo said...

Anonymous dumbass:
"as reported by Richard Clarke, (Clinton) had prepared a complete military operation to roll back them and the Taliban prepared and ready to go.(He) gave the incoming administration a thorough briefing and entrusted the blueprint to them."

Richard Clarke himself:
"there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.


Good day sir!

Anonymous said...

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that [George W. Bush] is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

-Richard Clarke in 2004

Looks like Arlo lost.

Anonymous said...

Still wont answer the Obama question either.


Regarding Richard Clarke: Is it possible that HE is flip-flopping on his position, and both quotes are correct?

Besides, who cares. Anyone defending Bush for practically any reason is probably retarded anyway. They probably have to wear a helmet to check the internets.

Arlo said...

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President"

Work your inverted logic to blame that on Bush. It'll be fun for all of us to read. Retards are funny.

(psst - At the end of his second term President George W. Bush had a 43% disapproval rating.)

Arlo said...

"Part of the reason Obama and the Dems are having a tough time cleaning up the mess of the conservatives is because the Repubs are obstructing everything they try to do."

The republicans in congress can't obstruct anything. The democrats have a 60-40 majority which is filibuster proof.

I don't even have to allege that the posts made by the liberals in here are idiotic. Its self evident. Post after post of total and complete ignorance. Go back to junior high dipwad.

Arlo said...

and btw -
the final policy paper on national security by Bill Clinton makes no mention of Al Qaeda.

So keep writing your own ticket on the urgent, pressing, issue it was when it was handed over to the next administration. Basically, keep lying to yourself.
Ignorance is bliss.

Anonymous said...

(psst - At the end of his second term President George W. Bush had a 43% disapproval rating.)

HAHAHAHAHA!!! More typical lies from a typical lying rightwing extremist whackjob. Bush's disapproval rating at the end of his dismal presidency, according to Gallup, was a whopping 61%. 61%, you fact-challenged liar. Worse than Carter. Worse than any president in recent history except fellow disgraceful Republican crook Richard Nixon.

If you go by the NYT poll, it's even worse. 73% disapproval, worse than anybody in pollster history.

Meanwhile, Bush's approval rating at the end, according to Gallup, was 34%. Contrast that with Clinton, who had 65%. The NYT poll has Bush at 22%--the lowest of any president in modern pollster history (over 70 years). Lower than Jimmy Carter. Lower than Nixon. Lower than Truman.

As usual, Arlo can't be trusted with basic facts. This is what happens when you use sources like the Moonie Times, owned by fellow cultist whackjob Rev. Sun Moon. Biased talking points devoid of reality are all that you know.

Face it, Arlo, you're a total idiot. You're a disgrace to our country. Your mind is diseased with mental illness. It's a wonder you can get out of bed in the morning. You're a sad, pathetic loon who is so fact-challenged that you still haven't explained how Obama created the economic bust of Sept. 2008. Still waiting on that one, Arlo.

Source for polling data:

Arlo said...

Hey brainiac: Thats the Gallup Poll

I was citing the Rasmussen poll.(and the statistics I cited are still accurate)

Its very simple distinction to make if you slow down, take deep breaths, put the bong down, and read the post I made.

Your straw man argument is what? How did Obama create the economic bust? That is glib framing of the issue. The problem with Obama is that he has tripled the national deficit in one year's time and doubled the unemployment rate. He has swept through the largest expansion of government in nearly fifty years- an issue where 2/3s of Americans are on the side of smaller government.

Here is a great question for you: What has Obama done for small businesses?


He's done nothing. And everything he has said he has done is a ruse for diverting funds to large corporations. Huffington Post:

Big corporations that get a huge payday. Like the banks that got a bailout Like big pharmaceuticals that got a sweetheart deal where prescriptions from outside the US are banned. Like big insurance who will get a windfall from legislation that forces everyone to buy insurance(thereby ensuring young america once again will pay through the nose to cover the aging baby boomer's tab)

You have nothing. Nothing but mouth foaming infantile tirades and streams of unimaginative insults. You're sad.

Site Meter