Writer's Guild Going on Strike

[ahalpert]

I'm confused why this was a "sweetheart deal." Backstage reported:

Here's some details on the WGA residuals. Basically it looks like residuals revenue is up over recent years because of the explosion of production, but that Netflix doesn't pay a premium for successful shows vs duds. And who knows what's a hit anyway since it's hard to quantify and/or Netflix won't tell you.

Edit: I meant to link an article here... https://deadline.com/2023/04/hollywood-strike-streaming-residuals-wga-producers-1235325130/amp/

 

[Thomas Smet]

Oh, I assure you I am totally serious. It is bigotry. But if you don't want to debate the point, that's cool.

No difference in saying everyone on the crew has to be a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Republican, or a Democrat, or gay, or straight. Unions who exclude qualified and experienced non-members from working are bigots.

That defeats the entire point to the union. It's not to disqualify anybody but to create a standard set of conduct. Without a union what negotiating power would there be? None at all. If any non union member could get the same work and not follow the rules then why even bother having a union in the first place?

I'm getting a bit tired of the anti union attitude just for the sake of being anti union. I hate the HOA where I live but whatever. It is what it is. Annoying rules but something after I get angry and stop complaining about a letter of how my car wheels are one inch off the driveway I'm like whatever and I just move the damn car a bit.

There are restrictive rules and then there is the American sense of entitled that no rules should apply and the rules are only there to keep others in check. If you want to do the work that is largely controlled by. union to keep a certain standard and quality of life in place then join the union.

The real discrimination here is the blind hatred of unions and thinking they are some sort of pure evil meant to hurt everybody. While they may have their faults and annoying at times rules and structure rarely hurt anybody. It only bruises the ego of those that hate rules and structure. At least I don't see nearly as many negatives there as there are positives. Of course any system can be abused and members of a system become complacent. I don't see this system that broken or even close to broken yet.

If I want to be a doctor I have to follow certain rules, training and qualifications. It's not discrimination unless you are Rand Paul who ends up making up his own standards body so he can be licensed. He altered the rules because he couldn't cut it to play by the rules.

To be honest I wish there were more standards organizations the way there are for different fields. Youtube is 98% BS and made up opinions of garbage. There is zero integrity or standards to what people can put out there. It's a hot mess and we now live in the misinformation age. Anybody can speak and publish an opinion and it's now called journalism. The more standards we get rid of the more of a hot mess and cluster our society biomes. A race for likes to confuse and sway as many people as possible. Tell them what they want to hear and make up a convincing enough lie to sway people. Talk about video gear in a way that sounds professional enough and make everything up and eventually people will believe you are an expert.

So yeah I don't mind unions. I wish we lived in. perfect world where those in charge didn't need unions. Humans are flawed however and don't know how to care for each other. It's a race to the top at the expense of everyone else. So we have unions to attempt some balance and good. Sometimes they suck but the sucky part gets results. Sometimes HOAs suck but I'm also glad they help eliminate the lazy slobs in the neighborhood. Who am I can complain about a neighbors trashy yard and then also get upset when I make a mistake and don't want to be called out for it.

We Americans have a fundamental flaw and thats when we leave school nobody can tell us we are wrong anymore. Everything we do from the crappy driving, rude way we treat others and sometimes questionable patenting has to be ignored because nobody wants advice or to be told they are wrong. We all go through the rest of our lives thinking we are perfect and the best drivers/parents/human beings on the planet. In general we hate rules. we complain about work. We complain about our boss. We complain about the ball and chain. We complain about scientists, doctors, teachers politicians, the tooth fairy. you name it. We point the finger at everyone but ourselves because we are oh so perfect in every way.

Thats why I don't mind unions. They do more good than harm. At least in the case of Hollywood they do. Honestly I find myself thinking more about why on earth a crew member absolutely refuses to join a union in a field they want to work in. I personally would fee like my desire to work in a creative industry largely out weighs any odd personal opinions one may have of a union. Especially when those opinions may actually be generalized and discriminatory thinking.

 

[Doug Jensen]

That defeats the entire point to the union. It's not to disqualify anybody but to create a standard set of conduct. Without a union what negotiating power would there be? None at all. If any non union member could get the same work and not follow the rules then why even bother having a union in the first place?

I'm getting a bit tired of the anti union attitude just for the sake of being anti union. I hate the HOA where I live but whatever. It is what it is. Annoying rules but something after I get angry and stop complaining about a letter of how my car wheels are one inch off the driveway I'm like whatever and I just move the damn car a bit.

There are restrictive rules and then there is the American sense of entitled that no rules should apply and the rules are only there to keep others in check. If you want to do the work that is largely controlled by. union to keep a certain standard and quality of life in place then join the union.

The real discrimination here is the blind hatred of unions and thinking they are some sort of pure evil meant to hurt everybody. While they may have their faults and annoying at times rules and structure rarely hurt anybody. It only bruises the ego of those that hate rules and structure. At least I don't see nearly as many negatives there as there are positives. Of course any system can be abused and members of a system become complacent. I don't see this system that broken or even close to broken yet.

If I want to be a doctor I have to follow certain rules, training and qualifications. It's not discrimination unless you are Rand Paul who ends up making up his own standards body so he can be licensed. He altered the rules because he couldn't cut it to play by the rules.

To be honest I wish there were more standards organizations the way there are for different fields. Youtube is 98% BS and made up opinions of garbage. There is zero integrity or standards to what people can put out there. It's a hot mess and we now live in the misinformation age. Anybody can speak and publish an opinion and it's now called journalism. The more standards we get rid of the more of a hot mess and cluster our society biomes. A race for likes to confuse and sway as many people as possible. Tell them what they want to hear and make up a convincing enough lie to sway people. Talk about video gear in a way that sounds professional enough and make everything up and eventually people will believe you are an expert.

So yeah I don't mind unions. I wish we lived in. perfect world where those in charge didn't need unions. Humans are flawed however and don't know how to care for each other. It's a race to the top at the expense of everyone else. So we have unions to attempt some balance and good. Sometimes they suck but the sucky part gets results. Sometimes HOAs suck but I'm also glad they help eliminate the lazy slobs in the neighborhood. Who am I can complain about a neighbors trashy yard and then also get upset when I make a mistake and don't want to be called out for it.

We Americans have a fundamental flaw and thats when we leave school nobody can tell us we are wrong anymore. Everything we do from the crappy driving, rude way we treat others and sometimes questionable patenting has to be ignored because nobody wants advice or to be told they are wrong. We all go through the rest of our lives thinking we are perfect and the best drivers/parents/human beings on the planet. In general we hate rules. we complain about work. We complain about our boss. We complain about the ball and chain. We complain about scientists, doctors, teachers politicians, the tooth fairy. you name it. We point the finger at everyone but ourselves because we are oh so perfect in every way.

Thats why I don't mind unions. They do more good than harm. At least in the case of Hollywood they do. Honestly I find myself thinking more about why on earth a crew member absolutely refuses to join a union in a field they want to work in. I personally would fee like my desire to work in a creative industry largely out weighs any odd personal opinions one may have of a union. Especially when those opinions may actually be generalized and discriminatory thinking.

Nice rant Thomas. Chill out. I'm not going to reply to any of it because it so distorts what I said and how I feel about unions that I wouldn't know where to begin. Sounds like you could use a vacation. If you'd like to have a civil discussion about it, try posting again and stay focused on what I actually said.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Nobody is prejudiced against non-union, thinks they're inferior, or calls them slurs. Bigotry commonly refers to racism, homophobia, religious animosity, etc. You don't need to quote a definition for us because we all know what it means. Calling unions bigoted dilutes the meaning of the word.

But if you want to get technical, the reason your definition doesn't apply is because it says " in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." And then if you click on the definition of "prejudice" in the same Google dictionary, it says That simply doesn't apply here. Unions monopolize the labor pool in their respective industries and that's the nature of how they work. You can't have collective bargaining without a collective. Even if you think that's unjust, it's not rooted in an unfounded opinion but in the fact that employees can get a better deal if and only if they all band together.

None of this requires explanation to reasonable people and frankly I think less of anyone who shares this opinion because it's a facile argument with the goal or at least the effect of downplaying actual forms of bigotry while simultaneously weakening labor power.

Hey if a bunch of people want to get together, form a club, and then bargain with their employer(s) as a united group, I have no problem with that. They can ask for whatever wages or benefits they want. More power to them, and I wish them nothing but success in their efforts. I truly do. Get whatever you can, that is the American way.

But where I draw the line is when those same people now want exclude other QUALIFIED individuals from working in that industry/job just because they choose not to join that club. That is wrong, and that is bigotry. It may not fit your preconceived notions of what "bigotry" is, but it fits mine and matches the common definition of the word. If you don't like the word "bigotry", then what word would you use? Clearly it is discrimination, so I am open to another term if you think I've chosen the wrong one. What do YOU call it when a qualified, and skilled individual is prevented from doing something just becasue they choose not to join a certain organization?

I don't want to join any union, and this my right to do so.

So, if you think it is okay for a business to say a non-union member can't work just because they do not carry a union card, then you must think it is okay to say that they can't work because they aren't a democrat, a republican, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Jew, an NRA member, a PETA member, or whatever other criteria someone wants to use to exclude people they don't want to be part of the work. Those are all choices made by individuals that have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to do a certain task. Why are you okay with that kind of discrimination?

What if I want to exclude people based on race, skin color, eye color, national origin, or whatever else that I choose? Where does it end?

I am not allowed plug in my own lights at some locations.
I am not allowed to unload my van at some locations.
I am not allowed to push my own magliner cart through the hallways of some venues.
I have been excluded from shooting BTK on sets that were controlled by unions.
I have been excluded from shooting news/documentary footage on election nights at network TV studios simply because I wasn't in the union that controlled the studio -- even though I was hired by a major news channel and wasn't even shooting for the studio. My client was perfectly satisfied I could do the job, but the union said I wasn't in the right club to even be in their presence.

Those are just a few personal examples of where the unions said, "you are not part of the club, so don't even step in our turf". That is discrimination. None of that has a damn thing to do with collective bargaining or my skills at doing the job. You don't think I can push a cart or plug in a light? If that is not bigotry, then what do YOU call it. Give it a label that you can agree with.

BTW, I don't really give a **** because I've always been offered more work than I could take, but it does bother me than some people won't call it what it is. Bigotry.

 

[Paul F]

BTW, I don't really give a **** because I've always been offered more work than I could take, but it does bother me than some people won't call it what it is. Bigotry.

My guess is **** stands for poop as in "I don't really give a poop ...."

 

[CharlesPapert]

I am hesitant to step into this discussion but here we go.

I think the issue I'd have with applying the term "bigot" to the unions is that there is a connotation to the word that I believe is different than the examples you gave, Doug. The Miriam-Webster definition of "bigot" goes as follows:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Union members or officials do not as a rule judge non-union members in this emotionally-based way, at least how I've seen it in recent decades.Do you honestly feel that when a studio manager tells you you cannot plug in your lights, they are looking down on you as an inferior human, one that they have an negative emotional response to as a person, that they consider your system of beliefs is inferior to theirs? (if they did, they would have been acting as outliers, not representative of the system). The only part of the generally accepted definition of bigotry that I think could reasonably be applied to the union system is "exclusionary" in the sense of acting to keep non-members out of the organization, and much of that is largely gone now as most craft unions will be more than happy to accept one's initiation check, assuming one has the requisite skillset and experience to qualify. That is typically not the case with traditional versions of bigotry that exclude based on immutable factors such as race/ethnicicity etc. The IA allows its workers to participate on non-union productions--it's hard to imagine a truly bigoted organization being accepting of their ranks co-mingling with "the enemy" in this fashion.

In a sense, we as a society are regularly entering contracts of this type. You want to attend an event, you purchase a ticket which gains you entry. Are the concert promoters bigots because they won't let you in without a ticket?

I didn't join the union 30 years ago because I was excited about it. Truth be told, I'm a pretty reluctant union member--I'm not really a "joiner" in general. But it was a requisite for doing the work I wanted to do. If I saw a union official or a production acting with hatred or intolerance (using the terms of the definition above) towards non-union members, I'd feel obliged to call them out on it. It's simply not a thing. It's just business.

Doug, in a hypothetical world where it's say, 1995 (with much of your career ahead of you) and all the work you were doing suddenly became union-based, do you think you would have taken a stand and pivoted to a different career, or joined up to continue working?

 

[Paul F]

Oh no, Doug sucked you into this?; you..... you...... bigot!

 

[mico]

That defeats the entire point to the union. It's not to disqualify anybody but to create a standard set of conduct. Without a union what negotiating power would there be? None at all. If any non union member could get the same work and not follow the rules then why even bother having a union in the first place?

I'm getting a bit tired of the anti union attitude just for the sake of being anti union. I hate the HOA where I live but whatever. It is what it is. Annoying rules but something after I get angry and stop complaining about a letter of how my car wheels are one inch off the driveway I'm like whatever and I just move the damn car a bit.

There are restrictive rules and then there is the American sense of entitled that no rules should apply and the rules are only there to keep others in check. If you want to do the work that is largely controlled by. union to keep a certain standard and quality of life in place then join the union.

The real discrimination here is the blind hatred of unions and thinking they are some sort of pure evil meant to hurt everybody. While they may have their faults and annoying at times rules and structure rarely hurt anybody. It only bruises the ego of those that hate rules and structure. At least I don't see nearly as many negatives there as there are positives. Of course any system can be abused and members of a system become complacent. I don't see this system that broken or even close to broken yet.

If I want to be a doctor I have to follow certain rules, training and qualifications. It's not discrimination unless you are Rand Paul who ends up making up his own standards body so he can be licensed. He altered the rules because he couldn't cut it to play by the rules.

To be honest I wish there were more standards organizations the way there are for different fields. Youtube is 98% BS and made up opinions of garbage. There is zero integrity or standards to what people can put out there. It's a hot mess and we now live in the misinformation age. Anybody can speak and publish an opinion and it's now called journalism. The more standards we get rid of the more of a hot mess and cluster our society biomes. A race for likes to confuse and sway as many people as possible. Tell them what they want to hear and make up a convincing enough lie to sway people. Talk about video gear in a way that sounds professional enough and make everything up and eventually people will believe you are an expert.

So yeah I don't mind unions. I wish we lived in. perfect world where those in charge didn't need unions. Humans are flawed however and don't know how to care for each other. It's a race to the top at the expense of everyone else. So we have unions to attempt some balance and good. Sometimes they suck but the sucky part gets results. Sometimes HOAs suck but I'm also glad they help eliminate the lazy slobs in the neighborhood. Who am I can complain about a neighbors trashy yard and then also get upset when I make a mistake and don't want to be called out for it.

We Americans have a fundamental flaw and thats when we leave school nobody can tell us we are wrong anymore. Everything we do from the crappy driving, rude way we treat others and sometimes questionable patenting has to be ignored because nobody wants advice or to be told they are wrong. We all go through the rest of our lives thinking we are perfect and the best drivers/parents/human beings on the planet. In general we hate rules. we complain about work. We complain about our boss. We complain about the ball and chain. We complain about scientists, doctors, teachers politicians, the tooth fairy. you name it. We point the finger at everyone but ourselves because we are oh so perfect in every way.

Thats why I don't mind unions. They do more good than harm. At least in the case of Hollywood they do. Honestly I find myself thinking more about why on earth a crew member absolutely refuses to join a union in a field they want to work in. I personally would fee like my desire to work in a creative industry largely out weighs any odd personal opinions one may have of a union. Especially when those opinions may actually be generalized and discriminatory thinking.

Nicely said Thomas.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I am hesitant to step into this discussion but here we go.

I think the issue I'd have with applying the term "bigot" to the unions is that there is a connotation to the word that I believe is different than the examples you gave, Doug. The Miriam-Webster definition of "bigot" goes as follows:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Union members or officials do not as a rule judge non-union members in this emotionally-based way, at least how I've seen it in recent decades.Do you honestly feel that when a studio manager tells you you cannot plug in your lights, they are looking down on you as an inferior human, one that they have an negative emotional response to as a person, that they consider your system of beliefs is inferior to theirs? (if they did, they would have been acting as outliers, not representative of the system). The only part of the generally accepted definition of bigotry that I think could reasonably be applied to the union system is "exclusionary" in the sense of acting to keep non-members out of the organization, and much of that is largely gone now as most craft unions will be more than happy to accept one's initiation check, assuming one has the requisite skillset and experience to qualify. That is typically not the case with traditional versions of bigotry that exclude based on immutable factors such as race/ethnicicity etc. The IA allows its workers to participate on non-union productions--it's hard to imagine a truly bigoted organization being accepting of their ranks co-mingling with "the enemy" in this fashion.

In a sense, we as a society are regularly entering contracts of this type. You want to attend an event, you purchase a ticket which gains you entry. Are the concert promoters bigots because they won't let you in without a ticket?

I didn't join the union 30 years ago because I was excited about it. Truth be told, I'm a pretty reluctant union member--I'm not really a "joiner" in general. But it was a requisite for doing the work I wanted to do. If I saw a union official or a production acting with hatred or intolerance (using the terms of the definition above) towards non-union members, I'd feel obliged to call them out on it. It's simply not a thing. It's just business.

Doug, in a hypothetical world where it's say, 1995 (with much of your career ahead of you) and all the work you were doing suddenly became union-based, do you think you would have taken a stand and pivoted to a different career, or joined up to continue working?

Charles,

When I google the definition of bigotry, this is the asnwer I get:

big·ot·ry noun

• obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

And in this case, that group is a union. Whenever qualified non-union members are excluded from the workplace simply because they do not have membership in the union that controls that particular workplace, then that is bigotry. Same as it would be if I was to require my crews to all be democrats, republicans, catholics, jews, KKK members, white, black, or whatever. it is all discrimination that is based on nothing to do wiith wheter or not someone is qualified to do the work.

But with that said, why get hung up on semantics? I don't really care what label you want to hang on it. It is the practice of exclusion, based solely on membership, that I am against. So, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Abe . . . what would you call it when a qualified individual is prevented from working on the sole basis of union non-membership? Please give me a term that you could agree with that describes that kind of discrimination.

Are you peronally okay with that kind of discrimination? If so, why?

Your analolgy of buying a ticket to a concert is ridiculous, and you know it. You're smarter than that. What does that example have to with workplace discrimination? Nothing.

Doug, in a hypothetical world where it's say, 1995 (with much of your career ahead of you) and all the work you were doing suddenly became union-based, do you think you would have taken a stand and pivoted to a different career, or joined up to continue working?

It doesn't have to be hypothetical question because I have alrady made the choice not to join a union on several instances when I could have -- for a variety of reasons -- just as I have also chosen not become a member of any political party, reglion, the KKK., the Proud Boys, or NCAAP. I am not a joiner. And I have not benefited from the rules or benefits that union thinks they negotiated on my behalf, so please don't suggest I owe the unions something for the privilege of earning a living doing what I want to do.


Is there some reason why only a union member is capable of plugging in a light, or pushing a magliner cart down a hall? That right there, with simple tasks a third-grader could handle, proves that union membership has nothing to do with having special skills or qualifications. When you boil it all down, it is all about protecting their turf.

I If I saw a union official or a production acting with hatred or intolerance (using the terms of the definition above) towards non-union members, I'd feel obliged to call them out on it. It's simply not a thing. It's just business.

Any time you have worked on a 100% union shoot when there were other candiates who could have done the work, that's exactly what was going on. Did you say anything? Doesn't sound like it. I'm not saying you had any obligation to say something. I'm just just saying you have already had plenty of opportunities to to say something if you really stopped to think about the discrimination (I won't say bigotry) practiced by an organization that you choose to belong to. If I belonged to an organization that said a certain group of people couldn't participate, I'd say something or quit. Or never join in the first place.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

:Golf clap:

 

[CharlesPapert]

I stand by what I wrote, but it's OK. I don't really need to wrassle over it. But I am happy to try to answer questions about how the unions and guilds operate if I possibly can.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I just want to know what terminology you and Abe would perfer that I use for the discrimination perpetrated by unions. If not "bigotry", then what? My choice of words seems to have caused grief amongst the pro-union folks. Please tell me what to call it.

 

[Paul F]

Doug, I'm not following why you are focused on the semantics. You've clearly voiced you views about the unions. Why focus on a label. Besides, a bigot is a person, not an entity. It doesn't seem to ad value to the discussion.

 

[Paul F]

Honestly I find myself thinking more about why on earth a crew member absolutely refuses to join a union in a field they want to work in. I personally would fee like my desire to work in a creative industry largely out weighs any odd personal opinions one may have of a union. Especially when those opinions may actually be generalized and discriminatory thinking.

I can provide an odd personal opinion that may actually be generalized and discriminatory. I didn't get into the LA movie business because of the unions. As a young energetic lad, keen on getting in on the ground floor, I had a contact that could get me started. So I read up on the union, the rules, the pension, the benefits and it turned me away from it all. I felt like the union was not in line with how I wanted to run my job career. So, I never got involved and I went another way. Why?

The pension - this is one of two key reasons I couldn't join. I don't like pensions.

Shackles - I feel like a union is a shackle controlling my life. Something akin to what Doug said. I don't want to be part of a club. I want to stand on my own. I want my talents and ambition to take me where I'm going.

 

[Tom Roper]

Doug asked for help in coining a better term than bigotry to describe the practice of discriminatory exclusion. I'd like to offer "cancel culture." Unions are a part of the cancel culture. The point of cancellation is ultimately to establish norms for the majority. A climate of cancellation can succeed in changing the way people talk and argue and behave. The purpose is to shame or scare just enough people to make the rest conform. The emergent, youthful left wants to take current taboos against racism and homophobia and use them as a model for a wider range of limits — with more expansive definitions of what counts as racism and sexism and homophobia, and a more sweeping model of what sorts of speech and behavior threaten “harm” and a more precise lingo to follow.

 

[stoneinapond]

Bigotry? Cancel culture? Really? The use of these terms sound more like political faction talking points rather than a sensible discussion of what unionization is, or should be. Dictionaries are all very well, but there are multiple versions, and to pull out a single word from one definition to make a point is just insincere. I understand some people dislike the idea of unions, and that's find. But to insinuate darker motives is not.

 

[markfpv]

Ok...this thread has certainly taken an odd turn. And doesn't add value. Doug, I get it. I understand your irritation (anger) toward unions but don't feel bigotry is the right word.
I think Charles touched on this... society has all sorts of these memberships....those of you completely opposed to unions should then also feel the same then about almost any membership. Meaning, don't send your kids to private school, don't belong to a country club or golf course. Don't patronize Sam's Club or Costco because you have to pay them to shop there....etc, etc etc.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Thanks Mark, and that is essentially the point I'm trying to make. I think the simple term that accurately describes the principle would be "exclusion" (not discriminatory exclusion, not prejudicial exclusion). You are either in or you are not, by your own choice and to an extent, by the level of your experience. You pays the ticket, you takes the ride.

Mark, you mentioned country clubs. I grew up in a town that housed the oldest country club in the nation, which had a long-standing policy of not accepting Jews particularly ironic in that there was a significant Jewish population in that town). Let's say I were drive up to the front door and say "I'd like to play a round of golf" and they were to respond "you can't, because you aren't a member". If I then asked "can I become a member?" and their response was "no, because you are Jewish", then it would be safe to call that bigotry. But if they said "yes, fill out this paperwork and pay the membership fee", can that really be argued to be the same thing?

On another tack, Paul, I'm a little confused by the sentiment you are presenting: "I want to stand on my own. I want my talents and ambition to take me where I'm going". The implication that I'm getting from that is that once you become part of a group by joining a union, you lose something in your individuality, as if you get handed work or opportunities. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in Local 600. It is not a "hiring hall". 600 has never gotten me work or helped my career. It simply allow me to work on jobs that are signatory. I don't necessarily agree with many of the ways it is run, and the dues aren't cheap, but the healthcare is top notch (within 5 years I will qualify for lifetime coverage) and I don't have to negotiate the fine points of employment every time. Regardless of these amenities, there is no difference in how I go after a union job or a non-union job. I have and always will stand on my own.

 

[Paul F]

Indeed, I understand what your saying Charles about not being held back by the union. But that's the point. If your talents got you where you are then, with the exception of the health plan, the union is just in your way. "You can work with these people, but not those". "We're on strike, you can't work for now.". "Our brothers at the WGA and SAG are on strike, so you can't work" "Pay these dues". "Don't move that light, that's someone else's job".

To me, the union is a group of people in offices that are just a pain in the butt. I want them out of my way. But the main plus is the health plan. Without the union, you would be in the same difficult situation Abe is in; very high cost premiums for almost no coverage. Let's look at SAG/AFTRA - About 2% of the members make a living as an actor. So of the 170,000 paying members, 3400 make a living from acting. 85% of the dues-paying members don't qualify for health insurance.

The WGA and SAG/AFTRA have legitimate complaints about the current streaming/gig situation. It's not clear to me that how the industry would be if the unions did not exist. We can all guess, but we are all going to guess in a manner that is favorable to our views. I think you would all be screwed if it weren't for the unions. But that doesn't make me want to be a member.

Our DNA determined that you got in the business and I didn't. Your desires to be in the business are stronger than mine. My DNA drives me away from unions. I don't know where our principles come from (religion, politics, socialism, capitalism). But where ever they come from, they help plot our careers. One flip of one bit in my DNA and maybe I'd be with you on set.

That's what is a bit pointless about these discussions. We each have a driving force within us that rationalizes our points of view that often defy logic and ignore facts. C'est la Vie.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I think that's an astute observation, Paul. We do tend to carve our careers around our personalities and belief system. One interesting thing I've noted is which kinds of people prefer to own their own businesses versus working as part of a crew. It may have to do with ambition, a unique vision or a logical progression. Or, it can be due to ego, not working well with others, disliking having anyone tell them what to do. I've certainly seen plenty of people migrate towards directing for the latter set of reasons,.

My own career was in a sense stunted because I didn't enjoy the environment on notably high-powered sets where the culture of fear was prevalent. I've become very focused on prioritizing working with good people and/or good material before money/prestige.

I do have plenty of experience working non-union (the first 12 years of my career and many projects along the way) and to be honest, I believe I've seen more bullshit, antagonism and posturing on non-union jobs. My sense was that especially given that some of those were lower budget and thus people with less experience, they were acting in a way that they perceived was "how it was done on the big sets". The reality is that most of the time, it's really chill on union scripted shows. Most people just want to do their work and go home to their lives and would rather have as a pleasant a time at work as possible. The "union" of it all is rarely a factor that shows itself, in terms of rules and restrictions. We aren't strutting around proudly banging our chests and braying about what we are or aren't allowed to do. It's just business as usual.