*Zeitgeist strolls out onto the streets his face visibly scrunched together; presumably from puzzlement over some particularly challenging problem, or perhaps just another afternoon lost imagining Bazza trying to put on a helmet. He slid over his soap box, positioning it, checking it for structural imperfections before mounting it proudly and opening his mouth resulting in an immediate unscrunching of his face*

Today in one of our preferred java dispensaries we stumbled on to an interesting point of what do you feel is important to know about you prospective family? What would the deal breakers for you be? Have you ever been lured in by a silver-tongued recruiter promising you riches and bitches only to be shackled to a sinking family?

I reflected on my own choices for who I choose to work for. Ultimately my lineage has the advantage of experience and my father and his father before him have made me wise to the ways of the world and I seldom deviate from the names he spoke of when I was a child to ensure I work for reputable mafiosi and thus far it has served me well.

But what of our new bloods? But what happens when there are no familiar faces or old lines to serve? What are the deciding factors that will sway you one way or another?

In the early days, when New Orleans was still profitable my great, great, great grandaddy worked for a lady there. A lady who (in his mind anyway) took little care for her members and treated them like cannon fodder and excrement to advance her agenda. My grandaddy was a stubborn man you see, and he served loyally (not happily) until the day he was executed in his sleep. Why?


Why when we enter a family are we immediate bound for life to them? My grandaddy never amounted to much with her and was yet to take his vows yet it was unthinkable to leave; unconscionable, it just wasn't to be done. Has our culture facilitated an environment of slavery whereby, you are charmed into joining and the only way out is death. Does this seem right to you?

Personally, I do think there is a bit of a problem with regards to the way members who are yet to take their vows are controlled. My logic is inclined to afford these "newbies" more freedom to find what is right for them and where they would prosper. I just haven't been able to balance this against the privacy of the family being compromised by these "freelancers". The other issue is that the family is offering protection to these members, does that not imply a certain level of loyalty?

*Zeitgeist pauses for a moment to gather his thoughts which have a tendency to rush together at once making it difficult to grab hold of the sentient thoughts*

Tell me fellow mafiosi, what do you value? What is it you need from you family that would lead you to feel happy to pledge your life? When does that pledge start? Where can we, as the leaders, hands and influencers of our community; improve and create a culture that is ethical and reasonable?

(OOC: Disclaimer: This speech is not to incite conflict or single out any families. It is merely an attempt for us to examine our current environment from a different perspective)

I try and only join those that I like and/or respect. I am more inclined to join a leader who's contributions to the streets I can see. I am more inclined to join leaders who are active. When my line first arrived on these shores, they knew no one and did not know what to expect. They stumbled upon Don Rorschach and his Left Hand, Trixie. She was friendly and kind, and had no problems with helping out a 'newbie'. I asked more information about the family, and soon enough I had joined and was happy.

I value that these people take the time to listen to what I have to say, even if they don't agree. I prefer a leader with who I can discuss things without having to fear. I like a leader who is friendly and doesn't come across as too stern.

My ancestor went as far as saying to his leader: 'you should kill the Godfather and claim the district for yourself' and he wasn't killed. Instead he was educated on what he could and couldn't say. He understood and took it to the heart. He developed a great bond with that leader and later with the Godfather.

I am happy with my crew and my leader if they are happy with me and I am nice to them if they are nice to me. I would say my ultimate and final oath of loyalty begins when I am Made. It was a very special moment for my ancestor when he was Made, as it should be. He felt part of the crew.

In short I require a basic level of protection, and a leader who isn't a total dick.

Denam approaches Zeitgeist and places his hand on his shoulder. He steps forward to speak.

It's employment. Though I'm sure Don Guevara will no doubt arrive to spout his marxist principles and tell us that employment is slavery, I see them as quite separate. When you step off the boat into this world, you have to join a crew. This is organized crime, not some lone-wolf operation where you're running around town answering to no one. You work here. If you aren't here to work, then you shouldn't be here. So if you have to work, and you have to work for a leader, then the only question is which one.

Thus commences the world of recruitment. You do a few jobs on the job board, you get approached by a few sponsors, and you get to pick where you end up. In my opinion, potential associates should demand information about each crew that contacts them; information about crew activity, the terms of your employment, etc. Things that may make an associate willing to part with their boss. That information should be available up-front, so each associate can make an informed decision. That way, you can't make any real arguments that you didn't know what to expect in your crew, and these situations happen will happen less frequently.

If you communicate your expectations to your sponsor, and your sponsor communicates his expectations to you, you don't really have a foot to stand on when it comes to jumping ship. Unless either party fails to meet those expectations, you should continue to work for that leader or sponsor indefinitely.

Despite my opinion on the matter, I am somewhat intrigued by an idea that was referenced briefly in that java dispensary. What if leaders or sponsors could buy associates out of other crews? Could we all come to an agreement that an associate buying out isn't an attack on his leader, but merely his independent decision to work somewhere else? Could we, as a society, accept buying-out as not breaking any codes within Our Thing?

I don't think so, but I'd like to. I realize when Don Guevara presented his idea on the Free Movement of Peoples, I was pretty adamantly opposed to it, but I'd say my stance on the matter has changed. I think as long as the buy-out payment (or any additional requirement) is paid, associates should be allowed to move around as they see fit. The buy-out would function as the lost earnings or time spent on the associate, so if a cordial amount of money could be decided upon, I'd say this system could definitely be put in place.

I'll say pretty much what I said when Eddie Guevara originally had this conversation. I believe that associates should have free reign to move where ever they feel up until they hit the rank of made man. I have been quite vocal as of late on my opinion on where associates stand in this thing of ours, and they are a resource, pure and simple. At the moment, they are little more than slaves. Sure some open minded individuals may allow members to transfer within their district or city, but if a goomba came up to you and said, 'With all due respect sir, I'm not happy in your crew, I'd like to try a crew in another city.' one of two things would generally happen. They'd get shot, ending the issue, or the CL may talk to them to find out why they are unhappy. As it stands, if you are unhappy with your selection of crew to join, the only way out is to take your own life, or allow them to take it for you, and hope your son or daughter fares better.

Should you decide to leave in this manner, I can understand why most would choose suicide over being shot. If you don't like your boss, why would you decide to be a free target for him? Plus, with suicide you are going out on your own limited terms, making that choice for yourself. The idea of a buyout fee or clause paid to the CL that the associate is leaving is an interesting notion, but I don't see it working. If a new CL is truly bad, and his crew leave hand over fist, we will get to the point where he will just refuse to allow them to leave, or demand compensation so high that no one would willingly pay it. How much do we set this fee at? 100k for a gangster? 250k? 500k? what is truly a fair value? Would it be based on the average earnings of one at your rank? Some people are not high earner, recouping a 500k investment in purchasing new blood could be a lengthy exercise. Then what if that associate suicides soon after because he still isn't happy, or asks for yet another transfer, do we now double the price?

As I stated before, I believe that associates should be free to move where ever they please as long as their rank is earner or below. Good CLs will find their ranks swelling with new, loyal blood, whilst those who are less than adequate will find their stagnating and failing.

This is, of course, all beside the point. You didn't ask my opinion on this matter, I merely stated it because Denam mentioned it, and it is a subject close to my heart, and not for some communist left-wing reasons. So back on topic. What do I look for, or rather what does my family look for? A connection, a common point on which I can build a relationship with my boss. Curtis the other day called me an attention whore, and he is right to a certain extent. I need to feel needed, I need to feel of use. I am not happy sitting in the background, silently earning money and having no connections. Give me a target to achieve, something to do or control or run, and I will work my hardest, and give you my loyalty. Ignore me, and I'll be looking for a new crew to join some day after you have died, without so much as even a backwards glance.

You, perhaps, do me a disservice Denam. Employment is slavery, yes, but only insofar as that it rests entirely on the existence on a structure of wages in return for labour. Even if we artificially change this system to empower the worker more; the nature of the system itself ensures that the power will forever be in the hands of the elite.

In our thing, I'm not sure if we can say that is the case. Are associates, or indeed made men, reliant upon Leaders? Well yes, but for protection. As criminals, we could still do what we do without the hierarchy that we have - and that is reflected by the other nature of crime that exists - not crime of an organised variety but merely a rabble of individuals who are self reliant. Our way of life is not perfect, but we certainly control more of our own labour as individuals than a regular 'employed' Joe on the street so I'm not sure the 'rank and file' here can consider themselves enslaved in the way that the proletariat are in the 'legal' world around us. Indeed, we willfully challenge the  lass system and the bourgeoisie and the laws which they build on a corrupt morality, perhaps our way of life is the equivalent to a Vanguard Party in these here United States; a spark which will eventually ignite revolution? 

That, is a topic for another time.  To what we are discussing now; are associates enslaved? I think it is an extraordinary use of the term. As I have already touched upon, 'workers' in our thing have much more labour mobility, and are much better placed to control their labour, than our legal counterparts. They can come and go if they choose, but the hierarchical nature of our thing dictates that everything must be conducted with a blessing.

Look around the HQ's in our cities and you will find variants of a message that says 'You leave this family with a good reason or a dirtnap'. Now, I don't think anyone would explicitly understand this as 'The only way for me to leave is to die' unless they are trying to make a point.

Let me apply this idea directly to myself. Are my associates free to leave? Yes, with conditions. Are they free to leave, and perhaps even to return, without the merest of explanations; to treat my HQ like a guest hostel? No. That is unacceptable. If any associate of mine wanted to leave my family, I would say one of two things.

"Give me a few days. Keep on earning and I will do what I can to convince you that this is the right place. If your mind is still made up, you can compensate me for what I think is a fair value of losing an associate."

or

"You can leave now, but your new leader must compensate me for what i think is the fair value of losing an associate. If they are not willing to do this, why would you even want to join them?"

Crucially, the compensation here does not specifically relate to the value of this person; what they are worth as a commodity, a fixed unit of labour. Rather, the compensation underpins a social norm that we operate here, it draws a line in the sand and tells my peers that it is not acceptable that they fuck around with my family. In other words, I levy compensation because if I let members simply walk away, then I soon gain a reputation as a soft touch. People will hover around me looking to lure my associates away. The foundations of my organisation becomes weak and my family stagnates. My reputation declines and my word is useless. If I can't control my own HQ, why should anyone listen to what I have to say?

There are exceptions to this. PeterMcNeil will not mind me mentioning that he sought refuge with me in recent events. From the very beginning, the nature of this transaction was clear. I was providing shelter, and the cost was the taking of his gun. All parties were aware that when the dust settles he was free to move back to Chicago though equally he was free to remain in New York at which point he would stop viewing The Union as shelter and instead as his family. Therefore, it is clear to me (as it would be to other leaders) that this is not precedent for members to merely walk out on me without as much as an 'hasta luego!'

This may not quite resonate with what I said in my speech about the free moment of peoples where I advocated, well, the free movement of peoples; so I must make this clear. That speech was on things how I wished them to be. This stance I have here is a reaction to the way things were.

Could I, in line with my innermost principles, allow associates to come and go as they pleased? Yes I could. This weakens me, and therefore weakens New York. It strengthens others. How, then, do I further my goal of convincing others to adhere by my principles? I cannot, I become weaker than them and as long as someone benefits from not adhering to my personal preferences whilst I do; they will continue doing just that.

In other words, the only way this concept of free movement of associates can exist is if every. single. leader. agrees to it. As long as one party refuses to engage in such a practice, the practice becomes totally unfeasible. So, in the meantime, we try and strike a compromise which, to boil it down to its' simplest terms is:

Associates can leave with their Leader's permission and a fair, agreed upon amount of compensation

Now, as far as I see it, this is a win-win-win scenario. The original leader is compensated. The associate is allowed to move. The new leader gets a new member. Would I prefer to see a system without compensation? Ideologically, yes, but I cannot and will not pursue such an agenda unless I am 100% confident it will not damage any aspect of my leadership and therefore my usefulness to Curtis.

One last thing, which I feel is particularly relevant. The fact that associates may not freely come and go as they please and the subsequent characterisations of associates as 'cattle' or 'slaves' is erroneous and a little outrageous. It is perfectly possible for a Crewleader to forbid members from leaving and nevertheless be an attentive, engaging leader for whom the associates enjoy working.

Guevara, I think you have provided an understanding of the situation that echoes a fundamental truth about Our Thing: this is business. We do things for the sake of "good business," and we refrain from things to avoid "bad business". Even when we end the lives of others; "it's nothing personal, just business." We could accept any policy so long as it would be good for business. So perhaps those are the grounds I'll use to make my case.

Forgive me if I misrepresent your argument in any way, my old friend, for you've motivated an enthusiasm in me to pursue an entrepreneurial spirit in these matters. For instance, your comments about HQs not being "hotels," reveals that we really don't flesh out the expectations on both ends when employment begins. Most of it is in the form of social conventions or rules, but we rarely characterize what our employment is meant to look like apart from "behave honorably and respectfully". The way you've described your dealing with Mr. McNeil makes me think that all can benefit from a more straightforward view of "what to do in the Mafia".

I think if we can accurately isolate what we expect from our associate and what our associate can expect from us, I believe we can put a real price on their employment. And like you've said, not a price corresponding to them as a commodity, but a price representing a transaction of tradition between two leaders. Though I wouldn't say it's for the sake of reputation, but merely for the sake of business. It would be bad business to have all your employees go off to work somewhere else and leave you empty-handed after offering them jobs in your crew.

My primary concern is in distilling a price. Even though you don't want to call it a price on the "value" of that person; you'd need some derivative of that in your pricing scheme. Because the balance you want to strike isn't between walking away without compensation and walking away with compensation; it's between walking away with compensation and suicide. So the "value" isn't so much what you could gain from that individual, but rather the value that is lost if they were to suicide and have their next of kin join the other crew. If the price of compensation is greater than that value, people will simply suicide to get their next of kin where they want to be. If the price is lower than that value, then you aren't "getting your money's worth". People would ask for a standardized system of compensation nationally (by rank, probably) in order to prevent any one city from abusing another, but then each situation is necessarily unique.

It presents a host of tricky problems; and I don't think they can be solved with any policy short of free movement. I'd actually prefer a system with compensation, so that crewleaders can actually treat their employees like investments. But I have two observations contrary to that system; those who would simply suicide to avoid working for a bad boss will still suicide with a compensation system in place (to avoid paying it) and there is only a very small number of individuals who wouldn't suicide (making instituting the system worth more than its benefits).

Therefore, I'd propose adopting a system of free movement of associates between crews. Anything short of that will either not solve the problem or create more problems. I don't think it's because we've "enslaved" our employees, but I think we may take them for granted. But we must - we must - make an effort to be more straightforward in our expectations for crew members and crew leaders. That is the only way we will ever reach a point where everyone can be in a crew that fits them.

The idea that associates should be free to move around as they wish is one I do agree with in principle; however in practice it does pose some challenging problems. Firstly; how do you protect valuable information in your office? You have welcomed these associates in to your offices and they are able to gain insight into some of the inner workings of the family, the structure of the district and the operations of the city as a whole. This sort of information is hard to protect when you will have a horde of freelancers moving in and out on a regular basis.

With regards to compensation for associates; this is a practice that is somewhat in play currently but isn’t really applied terribly much. In our current society the only readily accepted reason to leave a post is to assume a hand or key structural post with a new family. Even in these roles it is typically only acceptable to stay within your city or at least to a family within your greater “alliance”. The remuneration our beloved Guevara was referring to does seem to be the only plausible system to ensure that neither family is disadvantaged; though it does leave a particular distaste on placing a dollar value on their heads, which leaves them as little more than stock.

I do accept Don Guevara’s argument that this is not the case and that this should merely be viewed as a loss of income and should be compensated thusly. However; associates who earn more or show more potential will likely cost more to be released. The implications of this are quite simply, we are placing a $ value on their services. We shouldn’t kid ourselves here however, associates are not a part of the inner workings of the family, they haven’t taken any oaths, they are offered protection so they can go about their business. Their value lies in their profitability and their future utility to the family.

We aren’t a charity or your local family business. This is organized crime, we are criminals. We kill people, extort; kidnap; pillage; pilfer; mug; assault and terrorize. This is who we are. Is treating associates like commodities really not in keeping with who we are? This is a dog eat dog world, the reality of it is if you back out of an offer from an organized crime family you might not wake up tomorrow.

There's probably more to the free roaming system than I'm personally aware of. In theory it's a nice idea allowing young mafioso's to find their comfort zone which will allow them to prosper, but realistically I think that system leaves too much room for the youngsters to infiltrate families for less than honorable purposes, because their CL needs info. For some, money out weighs loyalty.

Why not critique the system already in place? Perhaps there would be less discontent in crews, less disrespect in the streets and families if upper structures would grab their balls if they could find them and actually enforce the rules already in place. I have experienced CL's who take the time to touch base with their crew, who actually foster good work ethic, who mentor and encourage those they feel have worked hard and show potential, who spend time in crew chat clowning with the rest of us, but they also know when to play hard ball and enforce the rules of respect and proper mafia etiquette when necessary. I've also experienced CL's that leave me beyond words to describe. They play favorites, promoting individuals that have no clue as to the meaning of hard work, allowing them to sit there and reap the benefits of other's blood and sweat. It's these deplorable individuals that always end up at the top, generation after generation laying down rules that they're too good to follow, instituting laws that they themselves ignore and refuses to follow.

I've lost count of how many times I've heard people in the streets scream in frustration how things aren't like they used to be..nobody believes in hard work, how people forget the meaning of  loyalty, too many young thugs blatantly disrespecting Don's and above , the list is endless. Dont just go to the streets and whine about it. You've got the next generation in your hands. You all know what the root of the problem is..Fix it by being the example..                                                                                                              

Fipster listens quietly to the discussion, finally realizing that he should contribute, as an associate himself.

"I, much like Zeitgeist, came to these shores with the experience and knowledge my bloodline has left me with. It gives me an idea of what each leader stands of, and who they are. I may only have been around these shores for a day myself, but because of what my bloodline left behind for me, I already feel at home - and have the advantage of experience that Zeitgeist speaks of. It helped me choose a district and a family to join, and I must admit that the fact that there was sons of my father's friends in this family, played a part as well.
One of the first thing an aspiring mobster has to do, is find himself a home. Some use their experience to find a home, but let's not forget however, that many mobsters do not have this experience.
When i started doing some casual jobs for the various families, I soon received mails asking if I wanted to "do some heavier jobs" or "earn more money". If I had not known how binding a yes to these questions would be, I probably would have accepted.
A new mobster who doesn't come to these shores with experience in his bags will not know what a 'yes' to such an invitation actually means."

Fipster scratches his head trying to figure out how to continue

Now regarding 'a system of free movement of associates between crews' as Denam proposed or generally letting members or associates leave their family for another: I believe the mafia world is based on loyalty, and associates shouldn't in my opinion be able to jump crews as it would be in conflict with what we are supposed to stand for. I believe that an associate should be informed how binding the choice is, but then be forced to stay, to stay and learn that loyalty is with one family. You may argue that this loyalty comes at made man, but I personally believe that there's a road to reaching the of Made, and that an associate should walk the entire road with the same crew, learning loyalty and the way of the mafioso instead of jumping between crews trying to find the place where they find themselves the most at home; It's the mafia, not the kindergarten!"

"My grandfather MementoMori led his own family. He had several requests from made men or higher ranked mafiosi to leave the family and join another where they had more friends. He was never happy to let anyone go, but he had the idea that keeping a member against their will, wouldn't benefit the family. He never asked for compensation - maybe he should have. I'll admit that this does somewhat go against what I just said, but keep in mind that these mafiosi had walked the entire road to Made Man, and were then willing to give up all their loyalty to my grandfather to join another family and start over (where they probably didn't have to work as hard for their rank, already having worked hard once).
My grandfather also did get a member into his family from another district of New York though, this mafioso was the daughter of his father's closest friend, a person my grandfather knew he could trust. It was extremely useful for him to be able to 'steal' this mafioso from another crew, and she ended up doing hard work for his family as his Right Hand Woman.
So I ask you this; what should a leader do, when a made member of theirs says they would rather be elsewhere? Should they force said member to stay and work for them, or should they let them go?"

"I do believe this is a discussion between the single mafioso and their leader, though I'd like to hear some opinions. Regarding associates however, I believe sponsors should stand responsible for informing soon-to-be associates of their family, exactly what accepting a crew invitation means, and exactly how binding it is."

" So is this a culture of enslavement you ask? - No I believe this is a culture of loyalty. I don't believe this is a question of what the associate or member is worth in compensation, I believe it's a question of loyalty."

Zeitgeist, I propose to you that if a model of free movement were given genuine consideration and was eventually proposed by the Commission, the problem of information leakage might not be the issue we assume it would be.

First, I have the ability to collectively speak to my made men and my made men alone, meaning I already have the ability to communicate sensitive information in a private manner; an alteration to the system would not affect that. Likewise, I have in my HQ areas that are specifically for my button men; an alteration to the system would not affect that either. In the event of the adoption of a free movement principle leaders would, naturally and explicitly, expect very different things from button guys and associates; perhaps even to the extent of a different set of rules entirely. Information in the public area of an HQ would not be sensitive. Rules for made men and above, information and other private missives would remain precisely that - private.

The only information I can view being a problem is that associates, currently, are aware of every member in their crew. Now, given City Hall's fairly equivocal stance on this issue in the coffeeshops yesterday, I am sure that if the commission were to seriously propose this idea, the powers that be would be more than happy to work out an equitable arrangement that would limit the access to census lists that associates currently enjoy. Is this mere speculation? Of course, and I don't wish to pre-empt any parties. 

That said, the ultimate goal of any Leader is self-preservation of his district/crew at the expense of anything else. The ultimate goal of City Hall is the preservation of the community at the expensive of anything  else. Now, I am an avowed Marxist-Leninist and you'll have to forgive my almost Trotsky-like call for compromise here, but I certainly believe we can collectively arrive at a point in which both City Hall and the Commission could be happy with the arrangement regarding associates.