Talk:International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees

Employees vs Employes
The IATSE website does show their name as International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes - but clearly that is a simple spelling mistake. This article should be moved to International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.--Bookandcoffee 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and did this. I also sent a note to the webmaster at IATSE, letting them know of the mistake. --Bookandcoffee 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is not a mistake. The "Employes" is in use in many places, including my own contract printed by the IATSE.  There are a few cases now where they've started spelling it as "employees", but "employes" has been used more frequently for quite some time, and it's used far too often for it to be a mistake.  Please move the page back unless/until someone from the IATSE's general office informs us that it's spelled as "employes".  Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.local16.org/
 * http://www.ia15.org/about.html
 * http://www.iatselocalone.org/about/aboutus.html
 * http://www.iadistrict2.org/
 * http://ia33.org/
 * http://www.local44.com/?mod=site-content&pageid=44
 * http://www.iatse62.com/
 * My apologies. I was just going by what I saw at the locals I checked. It seems like the history of this spelling would be an interesting addition to the article. BTW, it's easy enough to move back... it's the button at the top labeled "move". :) --Bookandcoffee 01:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the locals seem to spell it as "employees". They also all have different work rules, which is mildly frustrating for those of us who travel and work in all the various locals. :)  But the general office is who is in charge... As far as the reason I didn't move it: I was the one who originally moved it to "Employes", and I didn't want to engage in a move war (or even the appearance of one) with you... kmccoy (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Be very careful - Above you mention the use of "employees" vs. "employes" -this is intentional as the two words have different meaning in a legal or contractual context. Bdelisle 20:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What is that difference? kmccoy (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling to 'Employes' in the union infobox as well. Threephi 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go! (I already posted the reply privately to the first requestor but since there are more asking.....) What's the difference between 'employes' and 'employees'? kmccoy (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as well, and strangely enough I can't find the answer anywhere. If you would be so kind as to reply, please do so on the IATSE talk page. Threephi 04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Begin...

Sorry for the length; I’m long winded but want to be concise. This is my understanding from what I remember.

One is a verb, the other is a noun. 'employes' (proper: employs) or ‘employ’ means to put (someone/something) to work in the singular, or the plural, or when used in a certain Grammatical_tense or both.

Employs and Employes may be a continental difference in spelling like ‘disk / disc’ or ‘color / colour;’ or I just misread the sentence and it was a spelling mistake on the original author.

'Employee' (singular) or 'employees' (plural) the noun of the person who has been put to work by another. Even ‘employees’ (plural) and ‘employee’ (singular) can have different rights and treatment under the law.


 * Employ, employs (employes) is act of putting, will put, or has put someone/thing to work. Dependant on the sentence structure, ‘employed’ and ‘employing’ also are used.
 * “Acme will employ me to sell their devices.”
 * “Mr. Coyote employs many products of the Acme Company.”
 * “The Acme Company will employ many technicians.”


 * Employer is the person or entity who puts someone/thing to work.
 * “Acme is the employer of many.”


 * Employed is the state of the person or entity that has been put to work meaning he is actively working for another; and it can be either the active or inactive. It can be both present and past tense.
 * “I have been employed by Acme.”
 * “I will be employed by Acme.”


 * Employing is the current or future act of putting someone/thing to work.
 * “Acme is employing me.”
 * “Acme will be employing new employees.”


 * Employee, employees is (are) the person(s) or entities that working for another.
 * “George is an employee of Contoso.”
 * “Contoso has many employees working for them.”

Generally, in all cases any work preformed with the root ‘Employ’ means that work is done on behalf of another. Bdelisle 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just adding my $0.02 - - both spellings are apparently correct: em·ploy·ee also em·ploy·e (m-ploi, m-, mploi-) n. A person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. LACameraman 09:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I have seen books from around a hundred years ago which spell the word as "employé" with the accent and italics (like divorcée in the same period), so at that time the word was clearly not naturalised from French; it looks to me as though all such past participles which were adopted into English as ordinary English words eventually ended up with the -é suffix being written as -ee, but it would be quite reasonable for someone in a largely English-speaking country while "employé" was still current to spell it "employe", given the lack of diacritics on English-language typewriters. Marnanel (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter. The fact is that the organization is chartered with "employes" in their title therefore, that's how it should be titled. --Lekogm (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, certainly. But clearly there's some confusion among some editors about the name, so it's possibly worth a mention in the article or at least here. Marnanel (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article about IATSE, or just a list of it's locals?
Heya, so I was just wondering if anyone actually had information for this article other than the spelling of employes and what local is where? I was looking at the article page and noticed that it's just a list of locals and there's nothing really talking about the history of the International, like how in 1886 the Theatrical Protective Union was created after workers went on strike to get a dollar a day wage. Or about how the International went international. Does anyone else agree with me on this? Does anyone have any information to add? Lekogm 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

History Section
It seems to me that the union is famous for corruption and organized crime connections. This would certainly be a reasonable and interesting thing to include in the article. I am referring to Willie Bioff, etc.--Jrm2007 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Corruption section restored
An edit was made in April 2014 removing the 'Corruption' section, after having previously been reverted due to no explanation. The given explanation, "Deleted section as it's irrelevant" is not good enough to blank a whole section, on a particularly sensitive subject. I've manually restored the section into 'History', with a note that the restored text will need some cleanup/updating. Removal of this section should be subject to discussion first. --Strangerpete (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'd like to note that edits by 184.74.165.92 are a possible conflict of interest: over a couple years edits are only to this page, and performed during business hours, monday-friday, from a business IP based in NYC (IATSE headquarters is NYC) While this user has made many good contributions to the article, I am worried it has introduced a bias - Corruption is not irrelevant history. In full disclosure I am an IATSE member in good standing (as noted on my user page) and my only agenda is to see this page as an accurate and comprehensive history. --Strangerpete (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Updated logo
I'm the Communications Director for the IATSE, and we're trying to standardize how our logo appears across the internet. The version on this page is an old one. The new one is available here: http://www.iatse.net/sites/default/files/iatse_logo_black_3-4.png You can see this version of the logo -- with the longer, sharper blades -- on the union's website: http://www.iatse.net/

A few weeks ago, I tried to update the file on my own, but it looks like it was taken down for a license issue. Since this is the organization's official logo, I thought that the image would be acceptable. I'm not much of a Wikipedia editor and I don't know all the rules about licensing, and I don't want to try to make the same update twice without checking in.

Is there anything I need to do to make sure this page reflects the accurate logo?

Mmcain09 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of updating the file. It's a valid fair use to use an organization's logo on the article of the organization, but the file must be properly labeled and credited. Thanks for pointing it out. oknazevad (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Districts
The district map map shows Connecticut in District 10, but the chart lists Connecticut as being in District 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.137.195 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, its fixed. Connecticut is in District 3, which I mixed up because the studio mechanics locals are opposite - Connecticut works in NY, whereas the rest of NE is another local. Cheers -- Strangerpete (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)