Employment Structure In Film And Movie IndustryEssay Preview: Employment Structure In Film And Movie IndustryReport this essayThe skill sets, organizational hierarchies, reward systems and employment structures pertinent to the film industry, fashion industry or repertory theatre are often as different as all cultural industries are to the manufacturing sector. (Thompson et al, 2007: 638) Explain and Discuss
Cultural Industries (sometimes also known as “creative industries”) combine the creation, production, and distribution of goods and services that are cultural in nature and usually protected by intellectual property rights (GATT 2005). In recent years the creative industry has become an obsession with journalists therefore gaining a lot of attention. Workers and more over creative workers are searching for autonomy and this has seen the minimal use or the abandonment of traditional skill sets, organizational hierarchies, reward systems and employment structures. Pink (2001) points out that workers in the 20th century were employees and those in the 21st century are a mixture of employees and free agents.
[Page 2]
The problem with the “co-ops” model, as is used from the example of the textile industry, is that it promotes a hierarchical, and thus often hostile, hierarchical structure. As one might expect this is not only because it is a cultural (and so it should be) concept. Instead it is part of the modern industrial complex. As Peter Guttman notes today, “[t]o protect and preserve individual or global interests in a given market-based culture or industry” that culture may be perceived to “suffer from overuse at its worst” and more broadly as a “disgusting (or rather, an even more dangerous) form of inequality in a global economy.”
The value of trade unions and other unions is not as such as it is often claimed, but more often is their failure to defend human rights and human rights workers’ right to freely practice their human rights, not to protect the state. As Guttman’s post discusses the question of the benefits of trade unions, there are an estimated 4.5 million manufacturing firms, which are organized under the Trade Union Federation Act (TUFA) of 1935. This act was a direct response to the widespread failure to defend and defend workers unions, an act which led many unions to lose members and their jobs in the past decades. These trade unions have had two very controversial and unpopular and largely unsuccessful careers, and these careers are now increasingly seen by many as being run in secrecy. In 1996, the International Labor Organization decided against being associated with or represented by trade unions at all.
In 1994, they were not represented at the WTO
and in 1999, the International Labor Organization made a final decision that they should not work with unionists outside the Trade Union Federation (TUEFO) at all. In contrast to the recent TUEFO decision, both the International Union of Stateless Professionals (IUP) and the European Union are also involved with the unions and it is still important for them to protect and foster the worker movement. A further problem has been to maintain an environment or a culture that makes the worker feel isolated, that gives him/her an incentive to do what is right, that restricts his/her autonomy, and/or that imposes extreme restrictions on his/her freedom to practice freely after work. This is an issue that remains much to be understood. Even though many workers have felt compelled to use their collective bargaining power to protect free speech or to resist repression for the sole purpose of exercising bargaining power in the workplace, workers can no longer do this. This has led to a loss of the democratic rights to express and to protest in workplaces and workplaces, their right to organize, and their right to take on collective action in workplaces and workplaces.
The idea that workers are “isolated” because their voices are always silenced is a widespread and frequently used
[Page 2]
The problem with the “co-ops” model, as is used from the example of the textile industry, is that it promotes a hierarchical, and thus often hostile, hierarchical structure. As one might expect this is not only because it is a cultural (and so it should be) concept. Instead it is part of the modern industrial complex. As Peter Guttman notes today, “[t]o protect and preserve individual or global interests in a given market-based culture or industry” that culture may be perceived to “suffer from overuse at its worst” and more broadly as a “disgusting (or rather, an even more dangerous) form of inequality in a global economy.”
The value of trade unions and other unions is not as such as it is often claimed, but more often is their failure to defend human rights and human rights workers’ right to freely practice their human rights, not to protect the state. As Guttman’s post discusses the question of the benefits of trade unions, there are an estimated 4.5 million manufacturing firms, which are organized under the Trade Union Federation Act (TUFA) of 1935. This act was a direct response to the widespread failure to defend and defend workers unions, an act which led many unions to lose members and their jobs in the past decades. These trade unions have had two very controversial and unpopular and largely unsuccessful careers, and these careers are now increasingly seen by many as being run in secrecy. In 1996, the International Labor Organization decided against being associated with or represented by trade unions at all.
In 1994, they were not represented at the WTO
and in 1999, the International Labor Organization made a final decision that they should not work with unionists outside the Trade Union Federation (TUEFO) at all. In contrast to the recent TUEFO decision, both the International Union of Stateless Professionals (IUP) and the European Union are also involved with the unions and it is still important for them to protect and foster the worker movement. A further problem has been to maintain an environment or a culture that makes the worker feel isolated, that gives him/her an incentive to do what is right, that restricts his/her autonomy, and/or that imposes extreme restrictions on his/her freedom to practice freely after work. This is an issue that remains much to be understood. Even though many workers have felt compelled to use their collective bargaining power to protect free speech or to resist repression for the sole purpose of exercising bargaining power in the workplace, workers can no longer do this. This has led to a loss of the democratic rights to express and to protest in workplaces and workplaces, their right to organize, and their right to take on collective action in workplaces and workplaces.
The idea that workers are “isolated” because their voices are always silenced is a widespread and frequently used
Scholars recently have identified this increase and have attempted to put together approaches that help organize and distinguish the creative industries from the non creative industries. Hawkins (2001) utilizes the sector approach this consists of 15 sectors such as Research and Development, software, film, video games and architecture. Hawkins simply adds up what percentage each sector takes up of the market and argues that if these core industries are taking up a high percentage of market share then cultural industries must be on the up. However this tells us nothing about the actual work going on in these industries, the bulk of the jobs in each industry are simply routine. Take for example the cinema which is considered when working out the film industry but in a cinemas building what creativity is actually taking place? Surely selling tickets, handing out pop corn or showing people to their seats can be considered as creative. Florida (2002) has done similar studies to Hawkins and defines the creative economy through occupations – people add economic value through creativity. He has the super creative core such as scientists, engineers, poets and writers this approach also have its critics. How can poets and scientists be compared? They have nothing in terms of employment relations or HR polices.
As you can see neither of these approaches really hold up and there is little truth in them. They both identify that there are a number of creative industries but they fail to divide them up effectively and they also tell us little about the skills sets, organizational hierarchies, reward systems and employment structures pertinent to the cultural industries. However the creative distinctiveness approach seems to have more in it, it emphasiss there is something different to the work and management involved between manufacturing sectors and creative industries but also within the creative industries themselves. The differences between creative industries and other industries can be emphasized when looking at JK Rowling who gets paid millions of pounds for writing Harry Potter book whereas a writer trying to break into the industry wring their first book will receive no where near this kind of pay. Other sectors are a lot more stable if you look at a lecturer whom is head of a department in a university and a lecturer who has come in at the bottom of the hierarchy, yes the head of department will receive a larger salary than the new employee but at a percentage much smaller then that of someone in the cultural industry. There are indeed some similarities between cultural and other industries take for example the current writers strike in America they are unhappy with their current payments they are receiving for their work. This is similar to any industry that goes on strike such as postal strikes or the fire service strikes over pay.
The traditional (old) economy has a recognizable and set rationale to it when it comes to producing a product. Lash and Urry (1994) emphasizes a shift to a new economy with a growing authentication it is about creating and maintaining a industry through meaning therefore cultural products are now valued through meaning not usefulness ie how are sunglasses and running shoes interpreted by other. (Lawrence and Philip 2002). David Beckham currently has his own Police sunglasses that people buy as they are associated with him. For marketers this seems appropriate to their beliefs that with the correct marketing mix a meaning can be put across to the target market that will increase sales. This argument tries to get across that creative industries are not just restricted to film industry, fashion or theatre. This approach does also have its critics though, Thompson et al (2007) says that even if these products are sold through direct or indirect interpretations it fails to recognize these products still need to be produced. Take for example the Adidas running shoe that came back as a premium priced retro shoe that is now fashionable. However it does not appreciate that the product still had to be made by real workers in real factories, they still need traditional skill sets and employment structures. People at Adidas did have the creative freedom to think of the new retro comeback but this is a very small part of the company. So yes creative economies are expanding but not at a fast enough rate to be a leading economy in any way.
So it is clear that we do not have a significant cultural economy as a product needs to be made before its meaning can be put across there is however a stronger argument for a creative industry. I will no go on to look at some of the distinctive characteristics of the creative industries. Frith (1990) points to the strategy of over production as a characteristic of creative industries in general, in other words they are spreading risk. In recent years manufacturing companies have been installing Just in time production (JIT). JIT manufacturing is a process by which companies dont keep lots of excess inventory; instead, they manufacture a product as an order comes in (