5 ms·

Entertainment unions handle such things like health insurance and retirement funds. Most actors aren't millionaires. Having the few millionaires in the same uni

by jkrems 7y ago

Entertainment unions handle such things like health insurance and retirement funds. Most actors aren't millionaires. Having the few millionaires in the same union is good for the non-millionaires. Because it means that studios only get the in-demand millionaires if they provide okay conditions for everybody else as well.

walshemj 7y ago
And in the UK "tech" and "Entertainment" are in the same union. There is a lot of similarity and crossover between teh workers in that area.
reaperducer 7y ago
Most actors aren't millionaires Which is why I specified millionaires. Let the actors who are working paycheck to paycheck or earning a middle-class wage, or working second jobs as waiters or whatever join a union. But when an actor is making $10 million for a movie, they don't need a union. They have an accountant and an agent who take care of them.
- inerte 7y ago
  Are you saying after a certain earning threshold actors would have to drop from the union / guild? And if they hit a dry spell, they can come back? Maybe is it better to base it on wealth? Don’t you think the paycheck to paycheck actors like to know even the super successful are part of their group? Maybe the strength that emanates from the group and what binds them is the profession and the craft, not the earnings? Is a highly paid actor, a better actor than someone who makes 1 cents less then the threshold? Seems very arbitrary and not something that creates group cohesion.
- username90 7y ago
  Problem with actors union is that they strike if the highly paid actors doesn't join the union, because they refuse contracts where non-union actors are present. Actors union also has progressive fees, so the rich actors pays a lot more than the poor ones. So I don't think the rich actors really want to be in a union, they are just forced to be and pay the cost if they want to work.

by jkrems 7y ago

walshemj 7y ago

And in the UK "tech" and "Entertainment" are in the same union. There is a lot of similarity and crossover between teh workers in that area.

reaperducer 7y ago

Most actors aren't millionaires Which is why I specified millionaires. Let the actors who are working paycheck to paycheck or earning a middle-class wage, or working second jobs as waiters or whatever join a union. But when an actor is making $10 million for a movie, they don't need a union. They have an accountant and an agent who take care of them.

inerte 7y ago
Are you saying after a certain earning threshold actors would have to drop from the union / guild? And if they hit a dry spell, they can come back? Maybe is it better to base it on wealth? Don’t you think the paycheck to paycheck actors like to know even the super successful are part of their group? Maybe the strength that emanates from the group and what binds them is the profession and the craft, not the earnings? Is a highly paid actor, a better actor than someone who makes 1 cents less then the threshold? Seems very arbitrary and not something that creates group cohesion.
username90 7y ago
Problem with actors union is that they strike if the highly paid actors doesn't join the union, because they refuse contracts where non-union actors are present. Actors union also has progressive fees, so the rich actors pays a lot more than the poor ones. So I don't think the rich actors really want to be in a union, they are just forced to be and pay the cost if they want to work.