tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post115091469509592353..comments2024-03-26T22:42:06.412-07:00Comments on TAG Blog: Where's everyone working?Steve Huletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1151385861265157702006-06-26T22:24:00.000-07:002006-06-26T22:24:00.000-07:00Go here to see our employment numbers. We don't h...Go <A HREF="http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/animation-employment-levels.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> to see our employment numbers. We don't have any way to track unemployment numbers.Kevin Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678528568112279975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1151385334887068962006-06-26T22:15:00.000-07:002006-06-26T22:15:00.000-07:00How many people are represented by those percentag...How many people are represented by those percentages? I'd also like to know how many Guild members are unemployed right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1151141453833823282006-06-24T02:30:00.000-07:002006-06-24T02:30:00.000-07:00My bet is that as long as Disney has about half it...My bet is that as long as Disney has about half it's people under one contract, and the other half under a distinct but virtually identical second contract, any such graph will always need some kind of explanation. But your point about improving the clarity of the labels is taken.Kevin Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678528568112279975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1151111466157441162006-06-23T18:11:00.000-07:002006-06-23T18:11:00.000-07:00So, as long as this misleading graph is never prin...So, as long as this misleading graph is never printed and distributed separate from the extensive caveat which it requires, we should be fine. ;-)<BR/><BR/>I'd strongly recommend a better graph - one which requires no explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1151026947806324602006-06-22T18:42:00.000-07:002006-06-22T18:42:00.000-07:00I've corrected the text in the original post to ac...I've corrected the text in the original post to accurately refect the graphic. Hope that clears things up.Kevin Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678528568112279975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1151020823046091332006-06-22T17:00:00.000-07:002006-06-22T17:00:00.000-07:00> I think it's pretty simple math> to add 15.6% an...> I think it's pretty simple math<BR/>> to add 15.6% and 13.8% and come<BR/>> up with 29.4%.<BR/><BR/>Sure... if you're aware that the cream-colored "TSL" is really "Disney", and should be added to the purple "Disney" next to it. To the uninitiated, this is a misleading graph.<BR/><BR/>So again, if the graphic is supposed to portray the signator COMPANY, then follow your premise and list the COMPANY: Disney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1150994428894205212006-06-22T09:40:00.000-07:002006-06-22T09:40:00.000-07:00I think it's pretty simple math to add 15.6% and 1...I think it's pretty simple math to add 15.6% and 13.8% and come up with 29.4%. The advantage of showing the data this way is that it gives some very useful information about our contracts. My guess would have been that the vast majority of those at Disney were now under the TSL contract. Now it's clear that it's only about half. So you have the information about what percentage of Guild members are at Disney, plus the additional information about which contract people are under.<BR/><BR/>I agree that when Jeff and Steve redo this graphic that the second suggestion above ('Disney 839' and 'Disney TSL' labels) would be more clear (just as 'Film Roman' should probably be 'Film Roman/IDT'), but otherwise the graphic is clear.Kevin Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678528568112279975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1150964299927207302006-06-22T01:18:00.000-07:002006-06-22T01:18:00.000-07:00> We break down TSL as TSL because> of the history...> We break down TSL as TSL because<BR/>> of the history of changing contracts<BR/>> at Disney.<BR/><BR/>How 'bout you just call it "Disney", since, as you indicate: "This chart is broken down according to signator COMPANY." TSL is NOT a company. Disney is.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1150952859036103222006-06-21T22:07:00.000-07:002006-06-21T22:07:00.000-07:00We break down TSL as TSL because of the history of...We break down TSL as TSL because of the history of changing contracts at Disney.<BR/><BR/>So, please consider TSL and Disney as "Disney." If we were to break it down by contract, there would be but three colors on ye olde pie chart -- TSL, Sony Pictures Animation, and Local 839. Wouldn't be very useful.Steve Huletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1150917094161328132006-06-21T12:11:00.000-07:002006-06-21T12:11:00.000-07:00Or, the chart could indicate "Disney (839)" and "D...Or, the chart could indicate "Disney (839)" and "Disney (TSL)". I know it sounds like a quibble, but the folks covered under the TSL Agreement work for Walt Disney Feature Animation! :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-1150916878483182002006-06-21T12:07:00.000-07:002006-06-21T12:07:00.000-07:00Hi Steve,If the chart is broken down according to ...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>If the chart is broken down according to signator COMPANY, then all of the TSL folks should be properly listed under "Disney" (the company). If, however, the chart is going to indicate percentages by CONTRACT, then there should be no company names at all. Currently, that chart is a bit misleading in that it seems to indicate that there are less people working union at Disney then there are at Dreamworks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com