7 ms·

Here is a direct example of unions slowing down the little guy in the entertainment industry: https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t=171 https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t

Here is a direct example of unions slowing down the little guy in the entertainment industry: https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t=171 https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t=171 Niko has to cut costs to make low budget films and the union mandates someone watch the camera feed for the director, completely unnecessarily in the modern era. The film industry is notorious for the boundaries around union and non-union work. Gary Oldman's decline of a role in Star Wars used union rules as an answer: >Oldman's spokesman is reported to have told the newspaper: "Gary was excited and looking forward to working on the film. The snag is that the movie is being made without members of the Screen Actors Guild. It means Gary would have been working illegally overseas. Out of respect and solidarity with the other members, he could not and would not consider violating the rules of his union." Unions bring many complications and seeing them as a universal good is a problematic perspective.

snarf21 7y ago
I generally agree. What we do need is better worker protections and consumer protections. Get rid of no-competes. Get rid of right to work statutes. Add mandatory retirement contributions. Add mandatory and standard severance packages.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  The best outcome is the industry self-regulating these amendments into their business practices under the threat of unionizing, rather than actually turning the industry into an institution itself and losing it's creative spark.
  - jgon 7y ago
    The industry has had roughly 4 decades to make those self-regulating adjustments, how much longer should we wait?
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      Who is waiting? Most people I know that didn't like the conditions got better jobs in other industries. Finance pays well and is cushy in comparison. Architecture visualizations, media jobs, programming roles are easier to find after obtaining the ability to outperform the norms for other industries. For most of gaming's history it has been a niche product without mainstream appeal. Do you unionize every fledgling industry? No. It hasn't been four decades in the making. The majority of bad sentiment has come in the past five years, exacerbated by a goldrush mentality and kickstarter burns. The goldrush is over, the big projects are paying out massively to employees. Star Citizen has spent hundred of millions on staff and capital and needs to raise more. Epic is pouring cash back into the industry rewarding workers. There are more people employed in the industry than ever and some see the collective as a route to personal power. I can't agree with that.
      - unapologetic 7y ago
        > The majority of bad sentiment has come in the past five years Literally the first 3rd party gaming company was because workers were unsatisfied with Atari.
        friendlybus 7y ago
        The key engineers who left Ferrari in '61 became the key engineers that lifted Lamborghini into existence. They didn't start a union and stepped away from deaths of Ferrari drivers and verbal abuse to start something new with Lamborghini. Both companies survived and no unions were started. https://www.gptoday.net/en/news/f1/207607/history-ferrari-and-the-great-walkout-of-1961 https://www.gptoday.net/en/news/f1/207607/history-ferrari-an... Disgruntled employees are the birth of something new, not a call to clamp down. Who is calling for tech & gaming unionization because of the first 3rd party gaming company? It's not the majority of bad sentiment. It's not even news.
        unapologetic 7y ago
        I was pointing out that the claim this sort of thing is new is complete and total bullshit.
- forrestthewoods 7y ago
  > Get rid of right to work statutes I would not call taking away a worker’s right to work a benefit for a skilled worker.
  - SauciestGNU 7y ago
    "Right to work" is one of those legal principles that follows a dystopian naming scheme. It was lobbied for by the owner class because it allows freeloaders to benefit from collective bargaining without paying membership dues in the union representing them. This weakens the union, with the eventual goal of eliminating the union (and the benefits it negotiated for workers) altogether.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Your alternative puts workers in a straitjacket of having to belong to a union to work certain places. You say it's for their good. But all I see is the straitjacket.
    - forrestthewoods 7y ago
      And yet the alternative is not being allowed to work unless you donate money to extraordinarily political organizations who lobby for policies you may actively oppose. Sorry, but I’m going to call the compelled speech option far more dystopian than right to work.
  - unapologetic 7y ago
    We can always go back to physically preventing scabs from working instead. Personally I think we should just get rid of anti-union laws.
- unapologetic 7y ago
  That will just drive more employers towards part time employees and outsourcing. The latter, I agree with the former reforms. You also aren't getting this sort of top down reform without obtaining more political power than the upper class. That's not going to happen without better organizing (Union, political movements, whatever).
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    These utopian goals turn into dystopias.
    - unapologetic 7y ago
      They don't. They exist all over and work fine.
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        Except for all the times they don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Trade_Union_Governance_and_Corruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Trade_Un... https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2018/11/01/uaw-uses-non-union-labor-construction-home-resort-spot/1811055002/ https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/20... https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tsg3e/eli5_prounion_vs_antiunion_arguments/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tsg3e/e...
        unapologetic 7y ago
        explainlikeimfive, for when we really want an intellectual discussion.
        friendlybus 7y ago
        Attacking appearing of argument instead of it's content is a fallacy.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Get rid of right to work statutes. Meaning that you're fine with me being required to join a union in order to work? No. I'd rather have the freedom to choose for myself, even if it means I have to give the same freedom to others.
  - snarf21 7y ago
    No, I meant that when you take a job you are given a contract with clear rules about your job and for fixed durations. I was suggesting this instead of unions but this does require legislation.
tomtheelder 7y ago
We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power. Unions can certainly do harm, and you are right that they shouldn't be seen as a pure and irreproachable force for good, but small anecdotes about individual bad decisions made by unions are not useful in discussions about this. In fact, they play to the already ridiculously anti-union sentiment that the vast majority of Americans (this article is about America, apologies if you are foreign) hold. Unions can go way too far, and they can do harm, but the overwhelming majority of Americans live so far away from that point that it's not even a fruitful discussion to be having.
- username90 7y ago
  > We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power. No we don't, that is called slavery.
  - tomtheelder 7y ago
    Okay yes that's true. Within the bounds of modern capitalism we are at an extreme place.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - chobeat 7y ago
    The definition of slavery changed over time. Be sure that salaried worker in a few centuries will be considered a mild form of slavery similar to indentured servitude, debt bondage or coloni's restriction of freedom under the Roman Empire. "Were they forced to work? Yes and no. What happened if they decided not to work? Weeeeell... if they were rich, nothing. If they were poor, they would have died."
    - RHSeeger 7y ago
      > Were they forced to work? Yes and no. What happened if they decided not to work? Weeeeell... if they were rich, nothing. If they were poor, they would have died Hasn't that always been true of society, across all government models (or lack thereof)? At best, you don't have the rich that don't need to work... but what are the situations where the vast majority don't need to work (as far back as hunting/gathering).
embeddedpro 7y ago
I see unions good for established low skill workers. Grind the years and that will lead to sucesss. No innovation or additional learning needed. Just wait.
unapologetic 7y ago
Good on Gary. "I don't do non-union work" is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  What wealth did he gain from being restrained by union rules? What benefit did he get from being collared? You can't claim unions lift workers and then rope them in from opportunity with the other hand.
  - unapologetic 7y ago
    a decades long career as one of the more respected actors in the world and eventually an oscar.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      Which he obtained from his talent, something he advertised as something he can do and others can't. Unionizing credit for his performances is as the same claiming credit for another man's work that nationalists do. https://youtu.be/CIaWo-BlBjs?t=74 https://youtu.be/CIaWo-BlBjs?t=74
      - unapologetic 7y ago
        The union doesn't get credit for his performance, he just places value in the union. The point is he's had a tremendously successful career while supporting the union. It hasn't hurt him. He missed out on star wars by choice.
        friendlybus 7y ago
        I asked you what benefit he gets and you listed his 'respected career' and 'eventually an oscar'. You directly answered the question about what union benefits you get from unions with his career. You are changing your reply. Had he chosen to do nothing that career would never have succeeded. The union did not benefit him his career, his actions did. He had the opportunity to choose SW and did not because the cost of losing union membership was too high. So again, what did the union benefit him? If he was simply choosing to value the union for his own reasons, then you haven't answered the question, you've just shifted the answer to Gary Oldman who is not here to answer for you.
Apocryphon 7y ago
It's neither here nor there, but Oldman dodged a bullet by not participating in The Revenge of the Sith.

snarf21 7y ago

I generally agree. What we do need is better worker protections and consumer protections. Get rid of no-competes. Get rid of right to work statutes. Add mandatory retirement contributions. Add mandatory and standard severance packages.

friendlybus 7y ago
The best outcome is the industry self-regulating these amendments into their business practices under the threat of unionizing, rather than actually turning the industry into an institution itself and losing it's creative spark.
- jgon 7y ago
  The industry has had roughly 4 decades to make those self-regulating adjustments, how much longer should we wait?
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    Who is waiting? Most people I know that didn't like the conditions got better jobs in other industries. Finance pays well and is cushy in comparison. Architecture visualizations, media jobs, programming roles are easier to find after obtaining the ability to outperform the norms for other industries. For most of gaming's history it has been a niche product without mainstream appeal. Do you unionize every fledgling industry? No. It hasn't been four decades in the making. The majority of bad sentiment has come in the past five years, exacerbated by a goldrush mentality and kickstarter burns. The goldrush is over, the big projects are paying out massively to employees. Star Citizen has spent hundred of millions on staff and capital and needs to raise more. Epic is pouring cash back into the industry rewarding workers. There are more people employed in the industry than ever and some see the collective as a route to personal power. I can't agree with that.
    - unapologetic 7y ago
      > The majority of bad sentiment has come in the past five years Literally the first 3rd party gaming company was because workers were unsatisfied with Atari.
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        The key engineers who left Ferrari in '61 became the key engineers that lifted Lamborghini into existence. They didn't start a union and stepped away from deaths of Ferrari drivers and verbal abuse to start something new with Lamborghini. Both companies survived and no unions were started. https://www.gptoday.net/en/news/f1/207607/history-ferrari-and-the-great-walkout-of-1961 https://www.gptoday.net/en/news/f1/207607/history-ferrari-an... Disgruntled employees are the birth of something new, not a call to clamp down. Who is calling for tech & gaming unionization because of the first 3rd party gaming company? It's not the majority of bad sentiment. It's not even news.
        unapologetic 7y ago
        I was pointing out that the claim this sort of thing is new is complete and total bullshit.
forrestthewoods 7y ago
> Get rid of right to work statutes I would not call taking away a worker’s right to work a benefit for a skilled worker.
- SauciestGNU 7y ago
  "Right to work" is one of those legal principles that follows a dystopian naming scheme. It was lobbied for by the owner class because it allows freeloaders to benefit from collective bargaining without paying membership dues in the union representing them. This weakens the union, with the eventual goal of eliminating the union (and the benefits it negotiated for workers) altogether.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Your alternative puts workers in a straitjacket of having to belong to a union to work certain places. You say it's for their good. But all I see is the straitjacket.
  - forrestthewoods 7y ago
    And yet the alternative is not being allowed to work unless you donate money to extraordinarily political organizations who lobby for policies you may actively oppose. Sorry, but I’m going to call the compelled speech option far more dystopian than right to work.
- unapologetic 7y ago
  We can always go back to physically preventing scabs from working instead. Personally I think we should just get rid of anti-union laws.
unapologetic 7y ago
That will just drive more employers towards part time employees and outsourcing. The latter, I agree with the former reforms. You also aren't getting this sort of top down reform without obtaining more political power than the upper class. That's not going to happen without better organizing (Union, political movements, whatever).
- friendlybus 7y ago
  These utopian goals turn into dystopias.
  - unapologetic 7y ago
    They don't. They exist all over and work fine.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      Except for all the times they don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Trade_Union_Governance_and_Corruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Trade_Un... https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2018/11/01/uaw-uses-non-union-labor-construction-home-resort-spot/1811055002/ https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/20... https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tsg3e/eli5_prounion_vs_antiunion_arguments/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tsg3e/e...
      - unapologetic 7y ago
        explainlikeimfive, for when we really want an intellectual discussion.
        friendlybus 7y ago
        Attacking appearing of argument instead of it's content is a fallacy.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Get rid of right to work statutes. Meaning that you're fine with me being required to join a union in order to work? No. I'd rather have the freedom to choose for myself, even if it means I have to give the same freedom to others.
- snarf21 7y ago
  No, I meant that when you take a job you are given a contract with clear rules about your job and for fixed durations. I was suggesting this instead of unions but this does require legislation.

tomtheelder 7y ago

We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power. Unions can certainly do harm, and you are right that they shouldn't be seen as a pure and irreproachable force for good, but small anecdotes about individual bad decisions made by unions are not useful in discussions about this. In fact, they play to the already ridiculously anti-union sentiment that the vast majority of Americans (this article is about America, apologies if you are foreign) hold. Unions can go way too far, and they can do harm, but the overwhelming majority of Americans live so far away from that point that it's not even a fruitful discussion to be having.

username90 7y ago
> We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power. No we don't, that is called slavery.
- tomtheelder 7y ago
  Okay yes that's true. Within the bounds of modern capitalism we are at an extreme place.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chobeat 7y ago
  The definition of slavery changed over time. Be sure that salaried worker in a few centuries will be considered a mild form of slavery similar to indentured servitude, debt bondage or coloni's restriction of freedom under the Roman Empire. "Were they forced to work? Yes and no. What happened if they decided not to work? Weeeeell... if they were rich, nothing. If they were poor, they would have died."
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    > Were they forced to work? Yes and no. What happened if they decided not to work? Weeeeell... if they were rich, nothing. If they were poor, they would have died Hasn't that always been true of society, across all government models (or lack thereof)? At best, you don't have the rich that don't need to work... but what are the situations where the vast majority don't need to work (as far back as hunting/gathering).

embeddedpro 7y ago

I see unions good for established low skill workers. Grind the years and that will lead to sucesss. No innovation or additional learning needed. Just wait.

unapologetic 7y ago

Good on Gary. "I don't do non-union work" is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

friendlybus 7y ago
What wealth did he gain from being restrained by union rules? What benefit did he get from being collared? You can't claim unions lift workers and then rope them in from opportunity with the other hand.
- unapologetic 7y ago
  a decades long career as one of the more respected actors in the world and eventually an oscar.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    Which he obtained from his talent, something he advertised as something he can do and others can't. Unionizing credit for his performances is as the same claiming credit for another man's work that nationalists do. https://youtu.be/CIaWo-BlBjs?t=74 https://youtu.be/CIaWo-BlBjs?t=74
    - unapologetic 7y ago
      The union doesn't get credit for his performance, he just places value in the union. The point is he's had a tremendously successful career while supporting the union. It hasn't hurt him. He missed out on star wars by choice.
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        I asked you what benefit he gets and you listed his 'respected career' and 'eventually an oscar'. You directly answered the question about what union benefits you get from unions with his career. You are changing your reply. Had he chosen to do nothing that career would never have succeeded. The union did not benefit him his career, his actions did. He had the opportunity to choose SW and did not because the cost of losing union membership was too high. So again, what did the union benefit him? If he was simply choosing to value the union for his own reasons, then you haven't answered the question, you've just shifted the answer to Gary Oldman who is not here to answer for you.

Apocryphon 7y ago

It's neither here nor there, but Oldman dodged a bullet by not participating in The Revenge of the Sith.