| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/11/2010 06:07:42 PM · #1 |
The Oscar win by Sandra Bullock for her portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy in the Blind Side has really got me pissed. Donât get me wrong, Bullock is quite likable as an actress, albeit a bit of a lightweight when it comes to more serious fare, but itâs not the actress I have major problems with but the character.
Iâve heard Leigh Anne Tuohyâs story quite often being a Memphian, and even had the opportunity to listen to her speak in person. She is about as self-righteous as they come, and even had the audacity to challenge the 300+ members of her audience to make a difference like she did. What did she really do? From the film and her BS you get the impression that out of the loving kindness of her generous heart, she saved an impressionable young African-American from homeless gang life. It just so happened that he turned out to be a collegiate and ultimately a NFL level player. Of course it was just luck that he ended up signing a letter of intent with the same school that the Tuohyâs are huge supporters of, Ole Miss. The idea that they didnât influence his decision is just laughable, and the situation was even investigated by the NCAA.
I donât begrudge Michael Oher from taking advantage of his natural abilities. Poverty in Memphis or any other inner city is a brutally cruel environment and it is no wonder that many who arenât 6â 5â and 300 plus pounds turn to petty crime just to survive. Trying to pass off the Tuohyâs intentions as purely philanthropic is insulting to the point of being offensive. The football coach that recruited Oher to the private school in the first place isnât publically challenging others to emulate his good deeds.
The travesty (and my point) of this story is ironically the Tuohyâs are in the position to REALLY make a difference in MANY under privileged lives. Sean Tuohy had a privileged childhood; even the gym in which he was a standout in high school is named after his father. After having an outstanding record setting college basketball career, like many former sports stars, Tuohy found that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is in restaurants and broadcasting.
The Tuohyâs own more than 80 fast food restaurants including Taco Bells, Long John Silvers and Kentucky Fried Chickens. Franchises known for exploiting their workers with below poverty wages, unsafe work conditions, high turn over, and virtually non existent benefits such as health insurance, paid vacations, incentive pay, regularly scheduled wage hikes, etc. Instead of their self-lobbying for sainthood for helping one individual, it is within their power to change the lives of hundreds of their employees and their families by being decent employers.
Pay a living wage. Provide the health insurance that allows the peace of mind that an employee is not going to lose everything they have if they get sick. Give the employees who are creating their vast wealth a fair piece of the pie.
Once those heroic goals are met, that would be a story worthy of an Oscar nomination. However, Iâm not sure if Sandra Bullock would be available for the sequel, as she might be shooting All About Steve 2. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 06:25:02 PM · #2 |
| that's eye-opening. I think you are rightly outraged at that sort of self-serving self-righteousness. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 06:35:26 PM · #3 |
| Seems to me that your retribution is a bit misplaced. Any misrepresentation or spin-doctoring is the shared responsibility of the Writer, Director. and (ultimately) Producer of the film -- the actors are just doing what they're told. |
|
|
|
03/12/2010 12:25:52 AM · #4 |
@ hyperfocal - Take a breath, man. The movie's entertaining. Sandra Bullock did a good job in her role and she's easy on the eye. If I were king for a day, I'd have given it to Meryl Streep for her role in Julie and Julia, but I digress.
I know your point was about the real life story of the Touhys. But is all the vitriol really necessary? Don't get me started on your condemnation of franchisers. At least they are providing jobs to folks that are often otherwise borderline unemployable. And if you've ever run a restaurant, you'd know it is brutal and certainly not the end of the rainbow in most cases. |
|
|
|
03/12/2010 12:43:11 AM · #5 |
| Sandra Bullock also accepted the award for worst movie the day before winning the Oscar. Different movie though. |
|
|
|
03/12/2010 09:04:09 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Don't get me started on your condemnation of franchisers. At least they are providing jobs to folks that are often otherwise borderline unemployable. And if you've ever run a restaurant, you'd know it is brutal and certainly not the end of the rainbow in most cases. |
The state of Maryland here a couple years back decided they were going to crack down on Wal-Mart about their practices of hiring only part-time employees to avoid paying benefits that were state mandated. Wal-Mart asked them if they wanted them to leave because the way the company was structured, they simply were not interested in incurring the costs. Fortunately, someone with good sense pointed out that they were the largest employer in the state of Maryland and they might have a bunch of angry constituents of they pulled out.....
In all too many cases, these are JOBS......yeah, there's no super benefits package, no golden parachute. But the franchisers give a lot of people work that wouldn't have it otherwise, and if you're making ends meet because of that 25 hour a week job at the department store, it sure is nice to have.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2010 09:12:49 AM · #7 |
What a bizarre but entertaining rant. I like how it goes from Hollywood and Bullock to Mrs. Tuohy to Mr. Tuohy's father having a sports complex named after him to the evils of fast foot restaurant franchises and then back to Bullock and a final slam at All About Steve. That's quite a ride.
And thanks for introducing me to the word "Memphian." |
|
|
|
03/12/2010 09:53:17 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
In all too many cases, these are JOBS......yeah, there's no super benefits package, no golden parachute. But the franchisers give a lot of people work that wouldn't have it otherwise, and if you're making ends meet because of that 25 hour a week job at the department store, it sure is nice to have. |
That's quite naive considering that it's companies like Wal-Mart that eliminated most local jobs in the first place. Under employment is often worse than unemployment. Companies, IMO have a moral duty to pay a living wage.
It's funny you mentioned golden parachute. Since the Regan administration, CEO pay has grown from 42 times the average worker to a high of over 500 times the average worker in 2000 (it has since dipped slightly due to the recession to a little over 300 times the average worker). Adjusted for inflation real wages for working class Americans has remained stagnate since the early 1970s, at the same time productivity for workers have increased over 60%. So, the corporate world is getting more for less.
The whole point to my rant was that I find it offensive that the Tuohyâs want to be patted on the back for helping a single individual (with questionable motives) at the same time being exploitive employers to their hundreds of employees and the fact that Hollywood deemed them worthy of a movie.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2010 10:00:02 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Sandra Bullock also accepted the award for worst movie the day before winning the Oscar. Different movie though. |
That was for worst actress, actually, but yeah :-) Very funny acceptance speech.
R. |
|
|
|
03/12/2010 10:40:29 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
In all too many cases, these are JOBS......yeah, there's no super benefits package, no golden parachute. But the franchisers give a lot of people work that wouldn't have it otherwise, and if you're making ends meet because of that 25 hour a week job at the department store, it sure is nice to have. |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
That's quite naive considering that it's companies like Wal-Mart that eliminated most local jobs in the first place. Under employment is often worse than unemployment. Companies, IMO have a moral duty to pay a living wage. |
*I'M* naive???? Moral duty??
No, companies have a fiscal responsibility to make money and stay in business. There is nothing moral that a business has to do. That's naiveté at its worst.
If you want to be moral, if you want to be a place where everyone wants to work, super, you're a humanitarian, but on no level is that why businesses are created.
Do you have any idea what it costs to have employees in general and the kind of financial burdens you bear by doing so? The objective is to get the best employees you can for the least you can and hope that you establish a balance, keep your doors open, and make some money for the efforts.
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
It's funny you mentioned golden parachute. Since the Regan administration, CEO pay has grown from 42 times the average worker to a high of over 500 times the average worker in 2000 (it has since dipped slightly due to the recession to a little over 300 times the average worker). Adjusted for inflation real wages for working class Americans has remained stagnate since the early 1970s, at the same time productivity for workers have increased over 60%. So, the corporate world is getting more for less. |
Okay.....what's your point? You want to do a share the wealth thing? Limit what a corporate bigwig is allowed to make? How do you think you'll manage that?
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
The whole point to my rant was that I find it offensive that the Tuohyâs want to be patted on the back for helping a single individual (with questionable motives) at the same time being exploitive employers to their hundreds of employees and the fact that Hollywood deemed them worthy of a movie. |
Is that what's going on here? This is all about the Tuohys? The movie was a non-profit, the actors got paid minimum wage, and did the movie for the moral benefit of portraying these modern day heroes? Do you know for a fact that the Tuohys are exploitive employers, or is that just your assumption based on a little knowledge of general stats thrown around for franchisers?
You want to look at money thrown away, look at an expenses sheet for a movie.
I'm not sure what it is you're mad about. It sounds like you've assumed a set of circumstances based on a pile of assumptions.
BTW, I don't think Sandra Bullock's anywhere near as much of a hack as you make her out to be. Look at her list of flicks and she's not only versatile, but obviously she has a sense of humor, too, considering a lot of the roles she's done. I've always quite liked her. She's no Meryl Streep, but she's no hack, either.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2010 12:46:23 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
That's quite naive considering that it's companies like Wal-Mart that eliminated most local jobs in the first place. Under employment is often worse than unemployment. Companies, IMO have a moral duty to pay a living wage. |
Interesting, the people Wal-Mart hires ARE local ... you think they truck those part-timers in from Calcutta? Nope they board the bus at the corner of Main and Park streets, in your home town.
Moral duty to pay a living wage? Grow up. They may have a moral duty to pay a fair wage for the value of the work performed. But if a person has neither the aptitude, nor the skill, nor the education, nor the work ethic to perform work whose value equates to "living wage," it would be unfair to owners/shareholders/competant workers to over pay for the work. In some contexts it would be criminal.
Lastly, I assume because of the temperature of your rant, that you boycott Wal-Mart, would never shop there or any other discount merchant, that you prefer and choose to pay higher prices to merchants that overpay for the work of their employees. I assume you never buy anything from internet merchants whose prices are lower than brick and mortar local stores.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2010 01:05:07 AM · #12 |
Jeb, I gotta tell ya that sounds a LOT like "the world owes me a living..."
Now, I know you didn't mean it that way, and that sense of entitlement is antithetical to your own particular ethic, but nevertheless... Anytime you talk about a corporation having a "moral duty" to do anything, you're going way off the reservation. Morals don't govern societies, laws do. And law's not a matter of right or wrong, of "justice", no matter how much posturing to the contrary occurs, it's a matter of legal and illegal.
What's the way out of this conundrum? I haven't a clue. But if you REALLY want to talk corporations and morals, let's start discussing factory farming and ranching, because that's what's gonna do us in faster than anything else...
R. |
|
|
|
03/13/2010 01:21:15 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jeb, I gotta tell ya that sounds a LOT like "the world owes me a living..." |
Whoa, I think you are referring to the OP ( hyperfocal). Jeb actually sounds (surprisingly) like he's on the more conservative side of this issue. |
|
|
|
03/13/2010 06:46:29 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jeb, I gotta tell ya that sounds a LOT like "the world owes me a living..." |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Whoa, I think you are referring to the OP ( hyperfocal). Jeb actually sounds (surprisingly) like he's on the more conservative side of this issue. |
I just used what seemed like sense and reason.
Bear ain't used to that coming from me.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2010 01:42:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
It's funny you mentioned golden parachute. Since the Regan administration, CEO pay has grown from 42 times the average worker to a high of over 500 times the average worker in 2000 (it has since dipped slightly due to the recession to a little over 300 times the average worker). Adjusted for inflation real wages for working class Americans has remained stagnate since the early 1970s, at the same time productivity for workers have increased over 60%. So, the corporate world is getting more for less. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay.....what's your point? You want to do a share the wealth thing? Limit what a corporate bigwig is allowed to make? How do you think you'll manage that?
|
That's the role of unions, to force more sharing of the wealth. The existence of unions is one of the only reasons that there is -- or was -- a middle class in this country (the U.S.), or any other country for that matter. So it's not at all surprising that, since Reagan's union-busting days, the average worker is getting squeezed more and more and the income gap between classes is widening, as hyperfocal accurately stated. |
|
|
|
03/13/2010 08:17:10 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay.....what's your point? You want to do a share the wealth thing? Limit what a corporate bigwig is allowed to make? How do you think you'll manage that?
|
That's the role of unions, to force more sharing of the wealth. The existence of unions is one of the only reasons that there is -- or was -- a middle class in this country (the U.S.), or any other country for that matter. So it's not at all surprising that, since Reagan's union-busting days, the average worker is getting squeezed more and more and the income gap between classes is widening, as hyperfocal accurately stated. |
Oh good grief ... the role of unions was originally to create a balance of power between labor and management. And they existed to train and educate workers through the apprentice, journeyman, master system. At the time, there was no monster.com. There was no transparent market for labor. There was no mobility of labor. There was no such thing as internet-based remote work or tele-commuting. Nothing like Mechanical Turk, for example. The work force was poorly educated. In short ... virtually everything about the relationship between labor and management was different and tilted toward mgt.
Today the chief role of unions is to bid up pay and benefits to the point where the cost of labor is company-destroyingly high. Witness General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. Unions have been losing membership for decades because unions are obsolete, power hungry, exploiters of labor's FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.) Union leadership too often exists to perpetuate union leadership ... and check out the pay to the union executives. Makes CEO's look positively philanthropic.
And the reason productivity has gone up??? Because companies have invested in better tools and technologies. Invested ... as in spent company money on. Certainly not because workers are working 60% harder or longer.
I'm not saying unions never had a purpose. they did. I'm not saying they aren't responsible for improving the world. They are. I'm just saying their time is past. If the average worker is getting squeezed, it's because of changing supply and demand for labor.
Message edited by author 2010-03-13 20:21:06. |
|
|
|
03/13/2010 09:23:40 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I'm not saying unions never had a purpose. they did. I'm not saying they aren't responsible for improving the world. They are. I'm just saying their time is past. If the average worker is getting squeezed, it's because of changing supply and demand for labor. |
...and if you had no unions everyone would more than likely be working part time with no benefits. If you really want to see disparity, look at the salary of the average worker and those of executives. Similarly, when factoring inflationary costs, I seriously doubt that workers today take in any more than they did 10 to 15 years ago.
... and no in my 30 some odd years I never belonged to a union... they we not allowed in my working environment.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/14/2010 01:05:32 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I'm not saying unions never had a purpose. they did. I'm not saying they aren't responsible for improving the world. They are. I'm just saying their time is past. If the average worker is getting squeezed, it's because of changing supply and demand for labor. |
...and if you had no unions everyone would more than likely be working part time with no benefits. If you really want to see disparity, look at the salary of the average worker and those of executives. Similarly, when factoring inflationary costs, I seriously doubt that workers today take in any more than they did 10 to 15 years ago.
... and no in my 30 some odd years I never belonged to a union... they we not allowed in my working environment.
Ray |
According to Workforce Management, only 12.1% of the US workforce is unionized. Surely you're not saying 87.9% of the US workforce is working part time with no benefits. And the reason there's a disparity is because the value of the work is disparate. Without management, without leadership, the work place would be uncoordinated chaos. No one would invest in anything. No factories, no offices, no hospitals, no power plants, nada.
By the way, I agree some C-Level jobs are paid way more than they're worth. And I consider it Just Plain Wrong to reward executives for poor performance. But great leadership ought to be rewarded greatly.
Message edited by author 2010-03-14 01:10:23. |
|
|
|
03/14/2010 03:51:38 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
... But great leadership ought to be rewarded greatly. |
No arguments from me in that regard, but I would point out that great leadership is normally attained by those who surround themselves with capable, knowledgeable, trustworthy and dedicated subordinates.
I have always believed that you will only be as great as your subordinates allow you to be.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/17/2010 07:00:08 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
That's the role of unions, to force more sharing of the wealth. The existence of unions is one of the only reasons that there is -- or was -- a middle class in this country (the U.S.), or any other country for that matter. So it's not at all surprising that, since Reagan's union-busting days, the average worker is getting squeezed more and more and the income gap between classes is widening, as hyperfocal accurately stated. |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Oh good grief ... the role of unions was originally to create a balance of power between labor and management. |
A balance of power, to what end? To attain higher wages, better working conditions, and retirement and health benefits. In other words, to share the wealth.
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
And they existed to train and educate workers through the apprentice, journeyman, master system. |
I think you're referring to a time pre-modern industrialization. The kinds of associations you're talking about really don't have anything to do with modern unions.
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Today the chief role of unions is to bid up pay and benefits to the point where the cost of labor is company-destroyingly high. Witness General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. |
There are many reasons why the Big 3 are having financial difficulties. The cost of benefits for labor may be a contributing factor, but I think you're painting with a very broad brush if you attribute all of their difficulties to the cost of labor. Might be a good reason to support a single-payer health care system. It would certainly alleviate that cost of doing business. I'd also remind you that unions have made concessions over the last 20 years consistently in order to help the car companies remain competitive, so it's not a one-way street. Do you really think unions want to make the cost of doing business so high that it destroys their members' livelihoods?
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Unions have been losing membership for decades because unions are obsolete, power hungry, exploiters of labor's FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.) Union leadership too often exists to perpetuate union leadership ... and check out the pay to the union executives. Makes CEO's look positively philanthropic. |
Unions have been losing membership in the private sector for decades because employers regularly engage in anti-union campaigns such as firing employees who try to organize, and because many businesses can pick up and move to a new location. Then there are the so-called "right-to-work" states that inhibit certain types of union organizing. Not to mention the anti-union propaganda of the republican party and every republican president since Reagan. Again, you're painting with a very broad brush when you suggest that unions are corrupt. The one notorious example of the corrupt Teamsters union has been exploited to the hilt, but that corruption was never typical of labor unions in the U.S., and even that one example is a situation that existed 30, 40, 50 years ago. I also think it's difficult to make the case that unions are obsolete when union members do, in fact, have higher wages, better working conditions and more generous benefits than their non-union counterparts.
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
And the reason productivity has gone up??? Because companies have invested in better tools and technologies. Invested ... as in spent company money on. Certainly not because workers are working 60% harder or longer. |
When I said the average worker is getting squeezed more and more, I meant that wages have been flat for nearly 20 years for the average worker. Virtually all the gains in wealth have been made by the top 1 or 2 percent of earners. What do you think will happen to your standard of living if your wages remain flat for 20 years while at the same time the cost of everything rises?
|
|
|
|
03/17/2010 07:10:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Without management, without leadership, the work place would be uncoordinated chaos. No one would invest in anything. No factories, no offices, no hospitals, no power plants, nada. |
Wrong! There are lots of examples of successful worker-owned and operated businesses or cooperatives. And I can tell you that, having been involved with one or two myself, the workplace is a hell of a lot more democratic and the worker-owners a hell of a lot more positively motivated than is the case in a traditional setting. No chaos either. If anything, I'd say the shared purpose and shared rewards made for a greater degree of harmony. |
|
|
|
03/17/2010 07:43:13 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Without management, without leadership, the work place would be uncoordinated chaos. No one would invest in anything. No factories, no offices, no hospitals, no power plants, nada. |
Wrong! There are lots of examples of successful worker-owned and operated businesses or cooperatives. |
The Cheese Board Collective
The Berkeley Free Clinic
Rainbow Grocery
Practically the whole state of Catalonia, Spain, before being overrun by Franco's fascists, in what was perhaps a "test run" for World War II ... see George Orwell's Homage To Catalonia for more details ... |
|
|
|
03/21/2010 10:55:18 AM · #23 |
Hmmm...started reading this thread because of the title. If the Touhy's are such self-serving people, then Sandra Bullock must have done a pretty good job because she made them look much the opposite. The Oscars are rather political anyway, aren't they?
Sounds more like the rant is about the Touhy family, not Sandra Bullock. By the way, IMO only, I thought that Sandra Bullock gave one of the most gracious acceptance speeches that I've heard. Not related to much of anything here...but just a comment on the side. |
|
