Telecom Union Got Hoodwinked Into Supporting AT&T's Shitty Merger

from the ill-communication dept

You may be shocked to learn this, but nearly all of the promises AT&T made in the lead up to its $86 billion merger with Time Warner wound up not being true.

The company's promise that the deal wouldn't result in price hikes for consumers? False. The company's promise the deal wouldn't result in higher prices for competitors needing access to essential AT&T content like HBO? False. AT&T's promise they wouldn't hide Time Warner content behind exclusivity paywalls? False. The idea that the merger would somehow create more jobs at the company? False.

Of course the press and public aren't the only folks AT&T misled. To glean the support of the telecom sector's biggest union, the Communications Workers of America, AT&T apparently promised that newly acquired Time Warner (and subsidiary) workers would be able to join the union. But when the time came to actually allow those employees in, guess what? AT&T suddenly declared that wouldn't be happening for the vast majority of them:

"Of about 22,000 U.S. employees who previously worked at Time Warner, AT&T claimed the agreement applies to at most 82, a union official wrote in a letter attached to a June court filing. CWA, which already represents about 90,000 AT&T employees, has asked a judge to order arbitration. In May, the company asked that the case be dismissed, saying the company has “the right to determine” which employees are covered by unionization provisions."

Granted if you spend five seconds looking at the history of major mergers in the telecom and media space, none of this should be surprising.

Merger after merger, a universe of amazing promises are revealed that post deal, never actually materialize. Any conditions that are affixed are usually theatrically hollow, and adherence to them is rarely enforced. In AT&T's case, not a single merger condition was affixed to the deal, thanks in large part to a comically-myopic ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, who was oblivious to AT&T's plan to use the death of net neutrality, regulatory capture at the FCC, and ownership of essential content as a competitive bludgeon in the streaming wars to come.

At some point, you'd think that major telecom unions would stop supporting megadeals that almost uniformly result in higher prices, less competition, and fewer jobs (given redundant positions are pretty uniformly eliminated a year or two after the ink is dry). But the CWA pretty routinely can't help itself; it also breathlessly supported AT&T's 2011 merger with T-Mobile, which was ultimately blocked for being exceptionally terrible. Fortunately the CWA seems to recognize the latest megamerger proposal, T-Mobile's planned $26 billion merger with Sprint, is going to be bad for the sector as well.

At some point you'd think that everybody in the chain, from unions and consumers to the press and antitrust enforcers, would realize these industry megadeals are almost always uniformly harmful. Pre-merger promises never materialize, prices routinely go up, and job losses abound; yet each and every time there's a new megadeal proposed we appear to have learned nothing, just like some purgatorial version of Charlie Brown and Lucy football.

Filed Under: mergers, promises, telcos, unions
Companies: at&t, communications workers of america, cwa

Fighting The Future: Teamsters Demand UPS Ban Drones And Autonomous Vehicles

from the giving-unions-a-bad-name dept

As I've occasionally mentioned in the past, my undergraduate studies were in (of all things) "industrial and labor relations," which involved many, many courses of study on the history of unions, collective bargaining and the economics around such things. I tend to have a fairly nuanced view of unionizing that I won't get into here, other than to note that a big part of the reasons why unions get a bad name is when they take indefensible positions that they think will "protect" their members, but which actually are long term suicidal. This is one of those stories. Reports are coming out that as the Teamsters are entering negotiations on a new contract with shipping giant UPS, their demands include a ban on both drone deliveries and on the use of autonomous vehicles. These are, not surprisingly, both technologies that UPS has been experimenting with lately (as has nearly every other delivery company).

You can understand the short term thinking here, of course, UPS drivers see both of those options as potential "competition" that would decrease the number of drivers and potentially cause many to lose their jobs. And that might be true (though, it also might not be true as we'll discuss below). But, at the very least, demanding that the company that employs you directly choose not to invest in the technologies of the future is demanding that a company commit suicide -- in which case all those jobs for drivers would likely be eliminated anyway. While there are obviously a lot more variables at work here, it's not hard to see how a competing delivery company -- whether Fedex, the US Postal Service, Amazon or someone else entirely -- could get drone/driverless car delivery right, and suddenly UPS's service is seen as slower, more expensive and less efficient in many cases. If that's the case, UPS would likely have to layoff tons of workers anyway.

The other key point: the idea that these technologies are simply going to destroy all the jobs is almost certainly highly overstated. They very likely will change the nature of jobs, but not eliminate them. Professor James Bessen has been doing lots of research on this for years, and has found that in areas of heavy automation, jobs often increase (though they may be changed). That links to an academic paper he wrote, but he also wrote a more general audience targeted piece for the Atlantic on what he calls the automation paradox. As Bessen explains:

Automation reduces the cost of a product or service, and lower prices tend to attract more customers. Software made it cheaper and faster to trawl through legal documents, so law firms searched more documents and judges allowed more and more-expansive discovery requests. Likewise, ATMs made it cheaper to operate bank branches, so banks dramatically increased their number of offices. So when demand increases enough in response to lower prices, employment goes up with automation, not down. And this is what has been happening with computer automation overall during the last three decades. It’s also what happened during the Industrial Revolution when automation in textiles, steel-making, and a whole range of other industries led to a major increase in manufacturing jobs.

He does note that the nature of many jobs can change, and also recognizes that just because this has happened in most industries in the past it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing will happen in the future.

But, if we were to game out the scenarios here, which one makes more sense? As explained above, forcing UPS to put a complete ban on these technologies will be devastating for the company and the people it employs should the technology take off. If, instead, as Bessen suggests, jobs change and demand increases, then wouldn't the union's membership be much better served by working with the company together on a program that enables the experimentation and deployment of these technologies combined with programs to help its current workforce transition into new or related jobs around the likely increased demand for shipping? Even if we see the worst case scenario that the union clearly believes, of drones/autonomous vehicles destroying jobs -- as already discussed that will happen anyway if the Teamsters ban UPS from innovating while their competitors do.

This is, yet again, an example of short term thinking on the part of the union, and a near total lack of strategic vision for what will best serve membership in the long term. It is focused on pretending the future doesn't exist, and if everyone just covers their eyes and ears and pretends these technologies don't exist, they somehow, magically, won't change the market. If I were a member of the Teamsters I'd be quite angry at this kind of short-term, destructive thinking by my union, rather than being forward-looking and aiming for solutions that will actually help the members in the long run.

Filed Under: adapting, autonomous vehicles, competition, drones, future, innovation, teamsters, unions
Companies: teamsters, ups

Singer Sues Google For Not Asking Her Permission To Use A Licensed Song In Its Cell Phone Commercial

from the so-much-stupid-and-so-many-layers-of-permission dept

Darlene Love, the voice on the Phil Spector-produced hit "He's A Rebel," is suing Google and its ad producer, 72 & Sunny, for violating her publicity rights by using a song she recorded in one of its ads without her permission.

The lawsuit seems to revolve around California's much-maligned "right of publicity" law, which allows plaintiffs to sue entities for using pretty much anything about them, rather than just for bog standard copyright infringement.

That's going to be key because it seems clear Google cleared the rights to use a song of hers in its Nexus ads. That would just leave the extra "permission" Love feels she's been screwed out of: the "right" to block Google from using a legally-licensed track.

A voice does not end up in a commercial advertisement by accident. Rather, a number of people are involved in the creation of commercials. The voice of a famous performer, singing a famous song is selected for the express purpose of trading on the performer’s goodwill. Defendants consciously and deliberately selected Love’s vocal performance of It’s a Marshmallow World for their commercials.

However, Defendants refused to take any steps to obtain Love’s consent and had no reason to believe she had or would consent to such use. Instead, Defendants took deliberate measures to evade contacting her or obtaining her permission.

Love's voice was used, as it was part of the licensed track. Her goodwill remained where it always was -- loaded like a spring trap, apparently. She accuses Google of deliberately using a non-union ad producer to ensure her union-granted "rights" (whatever they are…) were routed around.

An honest company, doing business in good faith, would not attempt to deprive Love of the benefits of the union protection and would have engaged a SAG-AFTRA affiliated advertising agency so that the performer (and the background singers) would receive at minimum, the union-mandated benefits.

So… medical coverage? Prevailing wages? This part isn't explicitly spelled out, but Eriq Gardner points out that union members may be eligible for separate payments. But Love's lawsuit never claims Google refused to pay her. She only alleges it did not seek her permission to use her "goodwill."

Defendants actions were despicable and in conscious disregard of Love’s rights. They turned her into an involuntary pitchman for products of dubious quality. They created a commercial that falsely implied to the public that Love had endorsed Google’s products.

That's a stretch. It's obvious Google chose the song for its lyrics (advertising a new phone containing its "Marshmallow" version of the Android operating system), rather than for Darlene Love's $75,000-worth of "goodwill."

Love gets her shots in at the nationally-acclaimed ad agency as well, claiming it colluded with Google to screw her out of something the lawsuit fails to specifically name. (But apparently worth $75,000+)

Google engages in anti-labor advertising practices and in an effort to harm Love, hired Sunny, a scab shop that utilizes recordings of artists created under the protection of collective bargaining agreements, without themselves becoming signatories and complying with the union-mandated obligations for the reuse of phonograph records in commercials.

[...]

Google’s conduct was so loathsome that it intentionally hired a disreputable non-union affiliated advertising company and the two of them deprived Love of her union protections, all to enrich themselves at her expense.

As you can see, some parts of the lawsuit read like someone's emotional blog post and -- I can't state this enough -- there are no accusations in the filing that Love did not receive compensation for the licensed use of her work. The agreement she cites as the basis for her beef with Google and its "scab" ad agency says nothing about seeking an artist's permission. It only notes they may be entitled to an additional, separate royalty. Nowhere in the suit does Love claim she did not receive the royalties she was entitled to. Instead, she's trying to use a bad law to extract $75,000 from Google simply because if they'd asked if she would like to be in its ad, she would have said no.

Can she win this? Anything's possible. The unauthorized use of someone's likeness -- which includes their voice -- can be considered a violation of the right of publicity under the local law. There's a good reason why she's brought this lawsuit in California, rather than New York, where she lives and Google has an office. In California, her suit isn't pre-empted by federal law, which means she can use the friendlier local law to pursue damages.

But she'll have to make a stronger case that Google intentionally traded her goodwill for thousands of dollars -- rather than simply licensed a song with "marshmallow" in the lyrics. It really seems like her beef should be with her union for not ensuring her the chance to reject the use, rather than Google, which apparently paid the licensing fees and handled everything correctly on its end of the deal.

Filed Under: android, copyright, darlene love, licensing, marshmallow, marshmallow world, music, publicity rights, unions
Companies: 72 & sunny, google

Dear Sheldon Whitehouse: Do You Really Mean To Put Activists In Jail?

from the questions-to-ask dept

Last week, we noted that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (who has a bit of a history of really flubbing key tech issues), was downright angry that people were pushing back on his plans to expand the possible punishment under the widely abused Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Whitehouse pulled out the usual tropes, saying that the DOJ supports his amendment, and he couldn't understand why anyone could possibly be against ratcheting up punishment for "cyber criminals." Except, that shows an astounding level of ignorance on the part of Senator Whitehouse, because the CFAA is regularly used against people who most would not consider to be traditional "cyber criminals."

A group of activist organizations recently sent Senator Whitehouse a letter protesting his CFAA Amendment, and noting that while he thinks it's just being used against nefarious computer hackers, that's not the case. The CFAA is regularly used against plenty of others as well, including some people that Senator Whitehouse might even support. For example, the letter points to a case from a few years ago, Pulte Homes v. Laborers' International Union, in which the 6th Circuit decided that a union telling its members to call and email a company they were protesting violated the civil portion of the CFAA. The case involved the union telling its members to call and email Pulte Homes, which apparently slowed down their computer systems, and the court ruled that was enough "intentional damage" to qualify as a CFAA violation:

The following allegations illustrate LIUNA’s objective to cause damage: (1) LIUNA instructed its members to send thousands of e-mails to three specific Pulte executives; (2) many of these e-mails came from LIUNA’s server; (3) LIUNA encouraged its members to “fight back” after Pulte terminated several employees; (4) LIUNA used an auto-dialing service to generate a high volume of calls; and (5) some of the messages included threats and obscenity. And although Pulte appears to use an idiosyncratic e-mail system, it is plausible LIUNA understood the likely effects of its actions—that sending transmissions at such an incredible volume would slow down Pulte’s computer operations. LIUNA’s rhetoric of “fighting back,” in particular, suggests that such a slow-down was at least one of its objectives. The complaint thus sufficiently alleges that LIUNA—motivated by its anger about Pulte’s labor practices—intended to hurt Pulte’s business by damaging its computer systems.

This seems notable, because sending lots of calls and emails is a pretty standard activist/protest mechanism, used all the time. The idea that it might be considered a CFAA violation is immensely troubling. And it should be doubly so for Senator Whitehouse, given that he's received tremendous support from unions in the past. According to Open Secrets, two of his largest funders are the Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters. He's also received lots of money from Ocean Champions, an activist group focused on protecting our oceans. And, yet, at the same time, he seems to be ratcheting up a law that might be used against some of their activism. Meanwhile, his PAC has received lots of support from unions as well, including the Sheet Metal Workers Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

As the letter from the activist groups note:

No government that respects the public's right to speak and organize should ban such behavior, yet that is precisely what the CFAA has been interpreted to do. That activists must work under fear of such exposure redounds to the benefit of corporations that are exploitative of their workers, polluters, and others who stand opposed to our shared progressive values.

The letter further notes that one of the key parts of Senator Whitehouse's amendment, about "botnets," will almost certainly be used against online activists, who seek to bring a bunch of internet users together to speak out. Given the way Senator Whitehouse reacted last week, it seems unfortunately likely that this letter will fall on deaf ears. But it's important to recognize that just because you claim a law will be used against "cyber criminals" doesn't mean that it won't be used to stifle things like activism that you might actually support.

Filed Under: activists, cfaa, hacking, sheldon whitehouse, unions

Unions Want Verizon Investigated For Neglecting Taxpayer-Funded Broadband Networks, But Nobody Cares

from the ill-communication dept

Labor unions would like it very much if somebody would investigate Verizon for its neglect of the company's aging DSL lines. As we've noted previously, both AT&T and Verizon are busy trying to walk away from aging DSL lines they no longer want to focus instead on profitable (read: usage capped) wireless. The problem historically has been that both companies have received billions in tax breaks and subsidies to not only build and support DSL, but to upgrade those lines to fiber. Instead, in case after case, we've shown how Verizon simply took the money and then convinced state lawmakers to forget about the obligation.

Last week, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) wrote letters to six state regulatory agencies and the FCC, urging somebody to launch an investigation into Verizon's "neglect" of its DSL customers. According to the CWA, Verizon's own filings suggest the telco spent "just" $200 million to maintain its copper network in eleven states and DC over the last seven years. Basically, argues the union, Verizon DSL customers pay an arm and a leg for barely-adequate service Verizon can't be bothered to maintain (or repair very quickly when it breaks) because they no longer care about these users:

"Across the Verizon landline footprint, residential and single-line business customers pay between $300 and $370 a year for basic voice service and about $400 a year for DSL service. Even using our conservative calculations, Verizon spends less than one percent of the rate it charges for basic voice service and less than half a percent of the rate it charges for a voice/DSL bundled service on the upkeep of its copper network."

And while the CWA is only looking after its own interests here (it's currently negotiating a new contract and is using community angst for leverage), the union is absolutely correct. For years, Verizon has been literally trying to drive these paying customers away with the clever one-two punch of apathy and rate hikes. Elsewhere, Verizon employees have been complaining for years that they aren't given the tools necessary to do their jobs in these unwanted areas. Classier still, Verizon has consistently been using natural disasters like Sandy as cover, simply refusing to repair storm-damaged customers, telling them wireless service (usually very expensive if it's even available) will have to be good enough.

Basically, Verizon's letting millions of DSL users rot on the vine. If these users don't flee on their own accord, Verizon ultimately sells them to a rotating crop of sucker smaller telcos with disproportional appetites and negligible talent for acquisitions, who (usually thanks to complicated Reverse Morris Trust deals) take on so much debt in the transactions that they won't be able to upgrade these lines for years to come (and in several instances have stumbled into bankruptcy).

Here's the thing the CWA doesn't get: nobody in state or federal government cares about any of this. Nobody cares that Verizon promised both Pennslyvania and New Jersey symmetrical fiber for all in exchange for subsidies and tax cuts, then walked away from the promises. Nobody in state or federal government cares that Verizon promised to deploy fiber to all of New York City in exchange for a lucrative franchise agreement, only to balk at the obligation. Sure, local communities care that Verizon has a long, rich history of ripping off taxpayers and leaving work unfinished, but both the federal and state governments have shown repeatedly, consistently and indisputably that they really couldn't care less about Verizon's penchant for fraud.

And here's the rub: even if you were to see a significant audit and investigation of Verizon, in many instances you'd technically find that the telco adhered to the law. And that's quite often because companies like AT&T and Verizon have so much political power they're literally able to change the law after the fact (much like they did when their role in wholesale NSA spying was revealed). Verizon convinced both Pennsylvania and New Jersey to simply look the other way when Verizon took state taxpayers for a ride, and now Verizon's kindly asking many states to look the other way while it neglects millions of taxpayer-subsidized DSL lines. And, loyal to the last, state and federal government are happy to oblige.

Filed Under: broadband, dsl, fiber, investment, labor unions, taxpayers, unions, wireless
Companies: verizon

Verizon App Lets Non-Unionized Workers Record, Report Unionized Labor

from the if-you-see-something-say-something dept

There's a number of reasons Verizon is slowly exiting the fixed-line broadband business and focusing on wireless. One, wireless is notably less regulated than Verizon's aging copper lines, which are saddled with "cumbersome" requirements that they keep these services (since they were largely paid for by taxpayer subsidies) active for folks like your grandma. Wireless is also far less unionized, with around 2% or less of Verizon's 38,000 unionized workers employed on the wireless side. Since the data is usage-capped, wireless also has huge profit growth potential as Internet video explodes on mobile networks.

So hanging up on fixed-line assets makes business sense and is something the company has been working hard at, even if, as its treatment of Hurricane Sandy victims illustrated, this isn't always done with much tact or honesty.

Verizon's currently engaged in contract negotiations with the company's 38,000 unionized workers at the CWA and IBEW, whose contracts expired August first. Negotiations haven't been going so well, with the CWA threatening to strike and Verizon busily training 15,000 replacement workers should that happen (though, even with the contract expiring, the parties have agreed to keep negotiating without a strike for now). But Verizon's also taking some other interesting precautions. The company is giving non-unionized workers an app in the hopes that they'll record union workers engaged in bad behavior. Verizon says this isn't to collect useful dirt on union employees, but to protect the company's infrastructure:

"Amy Seifer, Verizon associate general counsel for labor and employment, told RCR Wireless News, “The app serves three primary purposes: the first is a means for our management employees to report or document an unsafe situation, unlawful act, or violation of our code of conduct, and it will also be used by managers who have been assigned to these union positions for the duration of the strike to ask questions about installations or repairs they are handling. It also provides a means for our employees to submit suggestions on process improvements."

In the age of everyone recording everyone else, it's not too surprising that Verizon wants to keep a closer eye on union workers. But curiously Verizon's interpretation of what can and can't be recorded is, you'll be shocked to learn, not exactly equitable. According to Verizon's worker code of conduct (pdf), these union workers being recorded technically can't record Verizon or these other non-unionized employees:

"1.8.2 Use of Recording Devices

In many jurisdictions, use of recording devices without the consent of both parties is unlawful. Unless you are participating in an approved observation program or you have obtained prior approval from Security or the Legal Department, you may not record, photograph, or videotape another employee while the employee is at work or engaged in business activities or access another employee’s systems, records or equipment without that employee’s knowledge and approval. In addition, unless you receive prior approval from the Legal Department, you may never record, photograph or videotape any customer, business provider or competitor without that person’s knowledge and approval."

Apparently, apps that let non-unionized employees track, monitor and report on unionized workers would be one such "approved observation program." Union workers, should they strike next week, apparently won't be enjoying the same privilege.

Filed Under: broadband, installation, monitoring, unions
Companies: cwa, ibew, verizon

Copyright Troll And Famed Movie Producer Nicolas Chartier Debunks Entire Hollywood Talking Point About Protecting The 'Little Guy'

from the it's-about-lining-his-own-pocket dept

Nicolas Chartier is the CEO of Voltage Pictures, a very high-profile movie studio, thanks mainly to producing some critically acclaimed films like Hurt Locker and Dallas Buyers Club. For the past five years, Chartier has also been known as an over-the-top, somewhat ridiculous copyright troll, thinking that it's smart to sue thousands of fans of his films. When this began, someone sent him a very polite email, explaining why he thought suing fans was a bad idea that might backfire, and Chartier responded by calling him a moron and a thief. Chartier doesn't seem particularly thoughtful, but is very, very emotional about this stuff.

The Hollywood Reporter has a big interview with Chartier where he continues to make ridiculous statements, often without any foundation, and also undermines Hollywood's carefully crafted narrative about how its fight against piracy is really about protecting the jobs of the little guys, the union workers who work on films. Creative Future, the astroturf group set up by Hollywood to push for stronger copyright laws and to attack innovative services that threaten its obsolete business model, likes to trot out the "little guys" who work on movies, and highlights that it's a partnership between the studios and the unions. Yet, in the interview Chartier repeats his attacks on union works in Hollywood and points out that he films outside of the country to avoid paying them:

Bruce Willis makes a million a day, but we make the movie because of Bruce Willis. But at the same time, when I see a union driver sitting for 12 hours and being really difficult, that's why we end up shooting a lot of movies in foreign countries. People don't understand that without movie stars making big money, there's no movie. It's nice to victimize the big stars, but we need that because otherwise we don't make the movie. I don't make the movie because of the driver.

Yup, this is all about the rich getting richer, and Chartier apparently has no problem admitting that he'd screw over the everyday workers on films when he can. The fight over these things has never been about the everyday worker. They get paid their standard rate no matter what the film does. The issue is over the fat cats at the top. Also, that line about the movie only getting made because of the stars? Yeah, that's not exactly true either. As we've discussed in the past, there's no evidence that having a big name movie star helps a film do any better. It's just because Hollywood is so sucked into this vortex of believing that a "name" makes a movie that it focuses on that. That isn't to say that good acting isn't important. Great actors can make a real difference, but the idea that a big name is necessary to make a big film simply isn't supported by the evidence.

But Chartier isn't big on evidence or facts. He just makes up whatever he wants -- like his claim that the day after they announced plans to sue Hurt Locker downloaders, people suddenly stopped downloading the movie:

And the day after we announced 20,000 lawsuits, the Internet downloads of Hurt Locker went down about 40 percent. So, you know, you frighten people and then they stop.

Yeah, that didn't happen. And, really, in this day and age, if you're still going to claim that every download is a lost sale, it suggests you haven't put much (if any) thought into what's going on:

Hurt Locker ended up winning six Oscars, but at the same time we had 8 million illegal downloads on the movie. And I was like, "Wow, you know, we barely reimbursed the movie and we had 8 million illegal downloads." Well, if everybody had given me one dollar, that would be 8 million dollars, and the movie cost 11, so we lost 80 percent of the movie to piracy. That cannot hold

Or, you know, there are people like me who didn't see the movie, but wanted to. And then you sued all those downloaders and it got crossed off the list of movies I would rent. Ditto for any other Voltage picture. To this day, I've never seen a single one of them, and I know I'm not the only person to do so. Those are true "lost sales" because I absolutely intended to pay to see the movie. But now I won't. Unlike most of the people who downloaded who never would have paid. It's like Chartier doesn't even understand what battle he's really fighting.

He should be looking for ways to get more people to see movies. Instead, he's fighting ghosts: people who would never pay. It's not too different from his fight against the everyday people who work on his movies. He's pushing to keep down how much they pay while happily paying stars many millions. While he may have a knack for picking good movies, he doesn't seem to have much business sense, always fighting the wrong fight.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, dallas buyers club, hurt locker, movies, nicolas chartier, piracy, unions
Companies: voltage pictures

Musicians Union Threatens To Expel Composer If He Doesn't Pay Fine For Unapproved Videogame Work

from the so,-who-protects-members-from-their-representatives? dept

Last summer, the American Federation of Musicians hit videogame composer Austin Wintory (Monaco, Journey) with a $50,000 fine for working on The Banner Saga in violation of its (nonexistent) game music contract. Thanks to the union's own stubbornness and greed, none of its members were allowed to compose music for videogames. A contract put together in 2012 without the input of AFM's members was so skewed towards the union that no videogame producers were willing to agree to it. (It wasn't until 2014 that Microsoft agreed to the terms of AFM's revamped contract. It remains the sole company to do so.)

When Wintry worked on the game without its permission, AFM got angry and threw its toys out of the crib. Its own Local 47 (Los Angeles) took issue with the union's BS and issued a resolution supporting Wintory in October. Perhaps due to this internal pressure, the AFM reduced Wintory's fine to $2,500. Now, it's threatening to expel Wintory because he hasn't paid up.

A long-running dispute between video game composer Austin Wintory and his union, the American Federation of Musicians, has come to a head this week: Variety reports that Wintory has refused to pay a $2,500 fine imposed by the AFM for his non-union work as a composer on The Banner Saga.

The union has threatened to expel him if he doesn't pay up by January 19th. Wintory is investigating his legal options to combat such a decision, and has offered to write a $2,500 check to the L.A.-based Education Through Music charity in lieu of paying the union fine.

Wintory is weighing his options. A good one would seem to be telling AFM where to stick its toys (and contracts) and ditching the union altogether. But that can have an adverse effect on finding work in other union-heavy industries, like movies and regular, old non-videogame music. These entities tend to require the hiring of union members, so the lack of an AFM card could keep Wintory from being hired should he choose to branch out.

Other AFM members have worked around the union's stupid videogame contract by recording in Nashville (Tennessee is a right-to-work state) or overseas. Wintory incensed his "representatives" by ditching Los Angeles -- an area it firmly controls -- in favor of London, which was cheaper, didn't hit the game's producer for additional "future use" fees and didn't force anyone to adhere to a one-sided contract. So, it's still out to get its pound of flesh in hopes of discouraging other members from bypassing the contract they were never given the chance to agree to.

In true AFM fashion, it is implementing another contract and letting its members know the specifics after the fact.

Meanwhile, the Recording Musicians Association (RMA), the “player conference” within the AFM that represents many studio musicians, announced over the weekend that the union had concluded negotiations with the AMPTP on a new multiyear contract for recording TV and film scores.

Details of the pact, however, were being kept under wraps Sunday. Musicians are expected to be informed of the details late Monday during meetings of the RMA and Local 47 membership.

So, who's working for who? Unions are supposed to represent their members. That's why members pay fees. AFM seems to genuinely have no concern about the well-being of its artists. (It doesn't care much for the general public either.) It fines them when they seek to do work they've been locked out of by a contract they never wanted and it keeps its negotiations with other entities secret until the ink has dried on all the signatures -- none of which belong to the members supposedly being "represented."

Filed Under: austin wintory, music, unions, video games
Companies: afm, american federation of musicians

Australian Journalists Union Supports, Then Withdraws Support For, Internet Censorship

from the wonder-how-that-happened... dept

We've been covering the efforts by Hollywood studios to push extreme draconian new copyright laws down in Australia, where their interests are being helped along by the Attorney General George Brandis, who has a cozy relationship with Hollywood, but cannot present any evidence he's ever met with consumer advocates. Brandis pushed out his proposal earlier this year and it was basically Hollywood's wishlist, exactly as many expected. The Australian government has been accepting "comments" on the proposal, and there have been some interesting submissions. Perhaps most interesting was that the Media, Entertainment, and Arts Alliance (MEAA), a union that represents a combination of both journalists and entertainers, put in a comment supporting the extreme proposal for an internet censorship regime via filtering. You can understand why some of the more shortsighted folks on the "entertainer" side of the union might support such a policy, but the idea that a journalist's union would do so as well seems... troubling.

The MEAA proposal said that it "strongly supports the proposal" and even talks up (incorrectly) how useful similar censorship efforts have been in the UK. However, it appears that many MEAA members quite reasonably freaked out to find out that their own union was advocating "strongly" in favor of censorship and internet filters -- because hours later, MEAA withdrew its comments saying that the whole thing was all a big mistake:

It was never our intention to make a submission which could in any way be interpreted as supporting an internet filter.

We have previously campaigned against Government proposals for an internet filter and will continue to do so, as we also continue to campaign against data retention.

That's funny, because in the submission itself they directly talked about how amazingly awesome such a filter in the UK was. Huh. It's almost as if someone simply took some talking points from Hollywood without any real understanding of the deeper issues of what they were supporting, and submitted it -- only to realize afterwards that they were a media union endorsing out and out censorship.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, copyright, filters, geoge brandis, journalism, journalists union, unions
Companies: meaa

Redditors Propose Setting Up A 'Consumers' Union' To Fight Back Against Broadband Giants

from the rethinking-collective-bargaining dept

A random factoid about my past that some people don't know is that I have a degree in "industrial and labor relations," which involved an awful lot of learning about the history of unions, collective bargaining and the like. While I firmly believe that most unions today are counterproductive (frequently holding back innovation and flexibility), the idea certainly made quite a lot of sense in the early days, in which you had parties (giant employers) with near total market power over employees who had absolutely no market power. Basically, many companies were market abusers, and they abused freely. Organizing workers for collective bargaining was a way to even the playing field slightly. That it later resulted in vast amounts of corruption and cronyism, let alone hindering the way in which companies could innovate and adapt, are certainly big issues to be concerned about -- but there were reasons why that happened as well (driven by leadership on both sides).

But, still, when you have a vast mismatch in market power, with one side being an effective monopoly, and the other side being dispersed among many people, there is a certain appeal to collective bargaining. And that appears to be the root appeal of an idea percolating over on Reddit right now for an ISP Consumers Union, inspired by a Reddit comment from a few days ago. The basic thinking is that if the FCC and Congress aren't all that interested in preventing big broadband company fuckery, then perhaps the consumers should take it into their own hands, join forces, and negotiate as a unified force with the ISPs. A bunch of folks have jumped into the discussion and are talking about a variety of different facets, from what the "union" would have the power to do to the legal issues to the administrative aspects of the whole thing.

There's something profoundly interesting about this from a few different angles. I have no idea if something like this will actually come together for real, let alone work, but the effective "market conditions" do match those that led to the rise of organized labor, with a few "monopolists" abusing their power to treat people (in that case, workers, in this case, broadband subscribers) poorly. The situation is certainly not identical, but there are parallels. Broadband access today is certainly considered by many to be as important as a job a century ago. In fact, many consider it essential to having a job. And, yet, there remain very few broadband providers and the big ones all have pretty long histories of abusive practices. That said, the "abuses" certainly pale in comparison to the way that big oil and steel companies treated workers in the late 19th century, but it's not a completely crazy concept.

Would people care enough to make a difference? And what legitimate bargaining power would they have? People could "strike" by cancelling their service. Or they could organize to move en masse to a competitor -- if there is a competitor. The whole concept is undeniably fascinating. While I'd still worry about the same ills that later plagued (and still plague, though not always to the same levels) organized labor, one would hope that with some knowledge of what went wrong there, an ISP Consumers Union could avoid some of those pitfalls. Frankly, the biggest problem with unions (and, again, this was often driven by company management) was viewing "management" and "labor" as being diametrically opposed forces, rather than different parties with different needs but an overall focus on a similar goal. That is, even when labor hated management, driving a big company out of business entirely was certainly worse than figuring out ways to get things done. The problem was that the two sides were often so antagonistic, that bargaining itself became a war of spite, rather than each side understanding the overall issues, and working out compromises so that everyone could be better off.

It's entirely possible that an ISP Consumer Union could eventually be plagued by similar issues -- making unwarranted demands on broadband providers that make it impossible for them to remain in business. But, as a way to hack around the current (failed) politics of net neutrality, and present an alternative option, one that is much more bottom up than top down, is absolutely fascinating.

At the same time, it's also profoundly depressing that broadband consumers of today have that much in common with laborers at the dawn of the industrial revolution...

Filed Under: broadband, collective bargaining, fcc, isps, labor history, market power, monopolies, organizing, unions