3 ms·
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 in
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoYeah. 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.