3 ms·
Somehow I feel like asking a union to stop an employer’s criminal behavior is outside the scope of a union. Maybe you’re thinking about law enforcement?
by labster 3y ago
Somehow I feel like asking a union to stop an employer’s criminal behavior is outside the scope of a union. Maybe you’re thinking about law enforcement?
- Alupis 3y agoA union represents the employee, and if that employee is prevented from securing a position unfairly, or that employee is abused while in that position, it's entirely on the union to represent that employee and demand a resolution. This entire discussion revolves around a fictitious VFX union resolving abuses within the industry... so why would SAG receive a pass? The SAG pretended like none of this was happening. We probably only know about the tip of the abusive-iceberg countless actresses endured.
- labster 3y agoIt’s not just actresses. A friend of mine worked for entertainment news and was “propositioned” by Harvey Weinstein. As far as I know it was an open secret in the business. A union can’t just take action by outing the women who could have complained. And largely the affected women decided that they would rather make money than be disbelieved by media and courts on a rape allegation. Let’s say the union has your back: then what? SAG can’t guarantee you won’t be silently blacklisted as a troublemaker by individual directors making hiring decisions. They can’t guarantee you’ll be taken seriously by the police and courts. #MeToo was a watershed moment, and it’s hard to see how a union could have made the social structural stars align in our entire culture any earlier than it actually happened.
- Alupis 3y agoThe union literally exists to protect actors and actresses from the very thing they failed to protect against. What does the SAG even do? They don't seem to be protecting or advocating for anyone.