28 ms·

Don’t forget the employees have to pay for the union.

• vkou 8y ago
  Right now, they pay for not having a union, in dollars, stress, their health, divorce, etc.
  • serf 8y ago
    Some do. Others may lead totally balanced lives, with a fair employer, earning good wages -- a union may serve them only detrimentally. It's not as clear-cut as "unions are always good for all workers."
    • Frondo 8y ago
      Those for whom a union would not be a benefit are so exceedingly few, but this is the standard anti-union message that has been given out for the last 40 years. Game devs are hardest hit by bad conditions, but every worker in every company would benefit from collective negotiation -- use your imagination, you could have a much higher salary, more flexibility in your workplace, more autonomy, you name it. That's what unions do, they let you bargain for the things you can't as an individual. Lamentably, there's still a lot of folks in the software field who see themselves as the rock star, rather than the rank and file. Also lamentably, there's still a lot of perception that a union means: you can't fire dead weight (you can, you just have to follow a process), pay is based on seniority (doesn't have to be, but what's wrong with that anyway? we don't have a good way to measure productivity or value, so what other metric should we use?), that they're corrupt (they're democratic institutions, so they're as corrupt as the members make them), etc. All of it anti-union propaganda that's been working pretty well for the last 40 years.
      • RandomTisk 8y ago
        Unions virtually always benefit the worker, the biggest losers if there are some are the community/everyone else.
        • Frondo 8y ago
          Yep. It's just frustrating seeing anti-union propaganda repeated, uncritically, unthinkingly, year after year, especially on a forum where people pride themselves on being thoughtful people. Of course unions can be corrupt, but the only thing more corrupt than a union is management.
      • sonnyblarney 8y ago
        I don't agree - gaming is notorious and specific for it's bad conditions. People in most tech firms are not clamouring for a union. When people are talking about it, it's for a reason. If you make a movie, everyone involved is 'union'. I don't see why gaming should be any different.
    • defen 8y ago
      > totally balanced lives, with a fair employer, earning good wages In that case you could view union membership as insurance, in case you ever lose that great job. Keep in mind that your local pipefitters union is not the only model out there - SAG-AFTRA seems to work for actors/actresses across a broad range of income, experience, and talent levels.
      • xfitm3 8y ago
        There is also a significant barrier to entry in SAG-AFTRA. Doesn't that mean union membership is just as probable as landing that great job?
        • anigbrowl 8y ago
          No there isn't. It's very easy to qualify for membership in SAG as virtually every feature-length movie is SAG compliant. The only filter they use is checking there's a legit paystub so you didn't just shoot a short in your bedroom and try to pass it off as a screen credit. https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/steps-join https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/steps-join Worked over a decade in indie films, never heard of any producer having a problem getting SAG to recognize paperwork.
        • jessaustin 8y ago
          The barrier to entry is a $3k initiation fee. That seems steep, but lots of people could probably put together that much money if they needed it. https://www.entertainmentcareers.net/acting/how-to-join-sag/ https://www.entertainmentcareers.net/acting/how-to-join-sag/
    • BenMorganIO 8y ago
      Are you sure? To me that would be as critical as car insurance!
• hinkley 8y ago
  And are expected to participate in voting and walkouts.