5 ms·

Yes, people always assume that only one type of union exists, and that it can only really work for low-skill interchangeable workers. That this belief is so wid

Yes, people always assume that only one type of union exists, and that it can only really work for low-skill interchangeable workers. That this belief is so widespread is actually a testament to the effectiveness of anti-union messaging... However, not all unions operate on that model. One major example: the Screen Actors Guild > According to SAG's Mission Statement, the Guild sought to: negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements that establish equitable levels of compensation, benefits, and working conditions for its performers; collect compensation for exploitation of recorded performances by its members, and provide protection against unauthorized use of those performances; and preserve and expand work opportunities for its members. (Wikipedia [0]) Actors have a lot of freedom to do what they want... For example: they can work on a big budget movie and make millions, or they can take the minimal fee and do a small low-budget artsy film. They can also write/direct/produce the movies that they act in. The guild's contracts just require that they be treated and compensated certain ways (both up front + residuals) for their acting roles. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild

yibg 6y ago
Anti union messaging or just they are more common place? Lots of examples of unions with rigid rules, corrupt practices etc. But so far everyone only points to the screen actors guild as a counter example. Are there many other unions like it?
- ardy42 6y ago
  > But so far everyone only points to the screen actors guild as a counter example. Are there many other unions like it? IIRC, there are in the movie industry. I think writers, directors, etc. all have their own unions. Also given the nature of construction jobs, I'd be curious how construction trade unions compare. Different companies in different industries can have quite different structures and cultures (e.g. McDonald's vs GM vs Google). The instantiated example of McDonald's didn't mean future companies had to be like it, and I see no reason why the instantiated example of the UAW means that another type of union structure/culture can't be created for another set of circumstances.
  - yibg 6y ago
    Certain what came before doesn't have to be what follows. Just that if the majority of unions people know are "bad" then the general view of unions will be negative too. Also it may be a bit of a hint on which way a particular union is more likely to turn out.
solidasparagus 6y ago
Doesn't it also prevent them from using their real names in their work if anyone already has that name? And don't you have to pay $3k to join + 1.85% of your income (for the majority of actors who make less than $200,000 per year - special rules help the members who make lots of money from having to pay too much)? Plus you can't work on whatever you want - you are only allowed to work with producers that have an active agreement with the SAG (Global Rule One).
- ardy42 6y ago
  Yeah, but so what? Don't most organization have rules designed to allow them to function as an organization or solve specific problems they encounter? It's not like an Apple employee can freely blog about the unreleased product they're working on or simultaneously work with Samsung on a competing product.
  - solidasparagus 6y ago
    Yeah. And the SAG rules aren't unreasonable IMO. But a union is not replacing the existing rules of your workplace, it's a second group of people who can add rules.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Yeah. And the SAG rules aren't unreasonable IMO. But a union is not replacing the existing rules of your workplace, it's a second group of people who can add rules. Yes and no. 1) Rules aren't interchangeable, undifferentiated things. An employer's rules are meant to mostly benefit the employer. Rules a union adds would be to mostly benefit its members. 2) A union can get employer workplace rules changed in its negotiations, if its members objected to them and they have enough negotiating power. 3) That "second group of people" could possible include you as a union member, and if it doesn't, it's a group you would have far more influence over than company management.
michaelt 6y ago
I don't find the SAG a convincing example, personally. Reasonable people might debate what should and shouldn't be a union's responsibilities and powers - would we want closed shops to exist? what about job demarcation rules? should the union set rules around hiring, firing and promotions? - but everyone could agree a union should make sure you don't have to have sex with the producer to get a role. And yet, the Me Too movement reveals this abhorrent behaviour has gone unchecked for years? Obviously, the blame lies with the perpetrators of the crimes - but it was a damn big oversight by the SAG.
friendlybus 6y ago
You can take the same rules about hollywood union rules forcing lighting technicians and camera crew to have roles, even though the big expensive and hot lights they used to safeguard are long since gone. Last year corridor crew did a video where niko broke down how much money he could save by moving to LED lights and cutting the mandatory crew requirement and run small films at affordable prices. Everybody thinks they're the actor in the hollywood comparison, and they're not. They're more likely the tech guy holding an outdated lamp under union rules.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > You can take the same rules about hollywood union rules forcing lighting technicians and camera crew to have roles, even though the big expensive and hot lights they used to safeguard are long since gone. I don't know. That reasoning sounds a bit like saying you don't need software engineers anymore because your application runs on a microcomputer, not a mainframe. I'm sure there's more to a lighting technician's role than "hold lights because they're hot." > Last year corridor crew did a video where niko broke down how much money he could save by moving to LED lights and cutting the mandatory crew requirement and run small films at affordable prices. Bosses don't like unions, and if you take the perspective of a boss, you probably won't like them either. What else is new? > Everybody thinks they're the actor in the hollywood comparison, and they're not. They're more likely the tech guy holding an outdated lamp under union rules. It beats getting dumped onto the street and pivoting suddenly into burger flipping. The point of unions is to protect its workers, not minimize employer costs. If a job is becoming truly obsolete, then the union could force the employer to retrain their workers (like what happened in this video: https://vimeo.com/127605643 https://vimeo.com/127605643) or buy time for a more gradual transition. Heck, if workers trusted they weren't going to get screwed by labor saving technology, they might not resist it as much.
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    It was once a useful role and now is not. Sure people can retrain and reapply for jobs, do we need unions for that? Saying bosses dont like unions therefore dismissal of discussion is missing the point. My view is too much of unionizing is underpinned by coveting other people's success and wanting to feel good after being burned. The pareto principle and distribution of wealth isn't going to change, some unions are going to be paid off for how much discontent is felt. Which has some virtue, and not enough virtue.

yibg 6y ago

Anti union messaging or just they are more common place? Lots of examples of unions with rigid rules, corrupt practices etc. But so far everyone only points to the screen actors guild as a counter example. Are there many other unions like it?

ardy42 6y ago
> But so far everyone only points to the screen actors guild as a counter example. Are there many other unions like it? IIRC, there are in the movie industry. I think writers, directors, etc. all have their own unions. Also given the nature of construction jobs, I'd be curious how construction trade unions compare. Different companies in different industries can have quite different structures and cultures (e.g. McDonald's vs GM vs Google). The instantiated example of McDonald's didn't mean future companies had to be like it, and I see no reason why the instantiated example of the UAW means that another type of union structure/culture can't be created for another set of circumstances.
- yibg 6y ago
  Certain what came before doesn't have to be what follows. Just that if the majority of unions people know are "bad" then the general view of unions will be negative too. Also it may be a bit of a hint on which way a particular union is more likely to turn out.

solidasparagus 6y ago

Doesn't it also prevent them from using their real names in their work if anyone already has that name? And don't you have to pay $3k to join + 1.85% of your income (for the majority of actors who make less than $200,000 per year - special rules help the members who make lots of money from having to pay too much)? Plus you can't work on whatever you want - you are only allowed to work with producers that have an active agreement with the SAG (Global Rule One).

ardy42 6y ago
Yeah, but so what? Don't most organization have rules designed to allow them to function as an organization or solve specific problems they encounter? It's not like an Apple employee can freely blog about the unreleased product they're working on or simultaneously work with Samsung on a competing product.
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  Yeah. And the SAG rules aren't unreasonable IMO. But a union is not replacing the existing rules of your workplace, it's a second group of people who can add rules.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Yeah. And the SAG rules aren't unreasonable IMO. But a union is not replacing the existing rules of your workplace, it's a second group of people who can add rules. Yes and no. 1) Rules aren't interchangeable, undifferentiated things. An employer's rules are meant to mostly benefit the employer. Rules a union adds would be to mostly benefit its members. 2) A union can get employer workplace rules changed in its negotiations, if its members objected to them and they have enough negotiating power. 3) That "second group of people" could possible include you as a union member, and if it doesn't, it's a group you would have far more influence over than company management.

michaelt 6y ago

I don't find the SAG a convincing example, personally. Reasonable people might debate what should and shouldn't be a union's responsibilities and powers - would we want closed shops to exist? what about job demarcation rules? should the union set rules around hiring, firing and promotions? - but everyone could agree a union should make sure you don't have to have sex with the producer to get a role. And yet, the Me Too movement reveals this abhorrent behaviour has gone unchecked for years? Obviously, the blame lies with the perpetrators of the crimes - but it was a damn big oversight by the SAG.

friendlybus 6y ago

You can take the same rules about hollywood union rules forcing lighting technicians and camera crew to have roles, even though the big expensive and hot lights they used to safeguard are long since gone. Last year corridor crew did a video where niko broke down how much money he could save by moving to LED lights and cutting the mandatory crew requirement and run small films at affordable prices. Everybody thinks they're the actor in the hollywood comparison, and they're not. They're more likely the tech guy holding an outdated lamp under union rules.

ardy42 6y ago
> You can take the same rules about hollywood union rules forcing lighting technicians and camera crew to have roles, even though the big expensive and hot lights they used to safeguard are long since gone. I don't know. That reasoning sounds a bit like saying you don't need software engineers anymore because your application runs on a microcomputer, not a mainframe. I'm sure there's more to a lighting technician's role than "hold lights because they're hot." > Last year corridor crew did a video where niko broke down how much money he could save by moving to LED lights and cutting the mandatory crew requirement and run small films at affordable prices. Bosses don't like unions, and if you take the perspective of a boss, you probably won't like them either. What else is new? > Everybody thinks they're the actor in the hollywood comparison, and they're not. They're more likely the tech guy holding an outdated lamp under union rules. It beats getting dumped onto the street and pivoting suddenly into burger flipping. The point of unions is to protect its workers, not minimize employer costs. If a job is becoming truly obsolete, then the union could force the employer to retrain their workers (like what happened in this video: https://vimeo.com/127605643 https://vimeo.com/127605643) or buy time for a more gradual transition. Heck, if workers trusted they weren't going to get screwed by labor saving technology, they might not resist it as much.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  It was once a useful role and now is not. Sure people can retrain and reapply for jobs, do we need unions for that? Saying bosses dont like unions therefore dismissal of discussion is missing the point. My view is too much of unionizing is underpinned by coveting other people's success and wanting to feel good after being burned. The pareto principle and distribution of wealth isn't going to change, some unions are going to be paid off for how much discontent is felt. Which has some virtue, and not enough virtue.