3 ms·

Some of the healthiest, oldest, and most mutually respected unions are in the entertainment arts -- actors, musicians, writers, directors, etc. In these unions

Some of the healthiest, oldest, and most mutually respected unions are in the entertainment arts -- actors, musicians, writers, directors, etc. In these unions and in their negotiations, talent value is understood to sometimes be very singular; a particular education or apprenticeship process isn't deemed strictly necessary for talent to mature; and that work often comes in the form of a time-boxed project that might need many members for a while and then far less (or none) after it reaches some progress threshold, leading to cycles of on/off work. What these unions achieve by forming solidarity between the most exceptional talent and more average working members is that they can establish baseline working conditions that are respectful and non-exploitative, a wage floor that allows occasional workers to earnestly commit to their trade even when confronted with intermittent downtime, internally managed group benefit programs that free producers from needing to administer and offer them and give members stability in participation, etc A healthy union for software engineers, which the gaming industry in particular is well suited towards right now, looks more like one of these kinds of unions than it does a factory laborers union. And by the accounts of both talent and producers, at basically all levels, these unions fundamentally provide a clear benefit to the market. Tension and bluster flare up during frustrating negotiations, but almost nobody with experience in these industries wants to get rid of these unions. Not even the producers.

wakawaka28 11mo ago
Unions work in entertainment because there is a lot of value in relationships and brand recognition. They still have the same disadvantages as they do in other fields, but the advantages make it fly anyway. If only the members of the union get to declare whether it's good or not, it will practically always be considered a success. Non-members don't get work, or at least get less. It is an inevitable outcome. >A healthy union for software engineers, which the gaming industry in particular is well suited towards right now, looks more like one of these kinds of unions than it does a factory laborers union. I don't think so. Software engineers are not generally operating in the brand or personality space. Their employers just want work done and nobody cares who does it. I am running short on time but basically I want to leave you with the forgotten disadvantaged of unions: favoring more advantaged workers over more desperate ones, putting a floor on minimum skill level to get hired, costing everyone outside the union more money (including employers and consumers). Maybe these down sides can be negligible sometimes but you'll rarely hear anyone say this stuff. They talk about fellow humans who want to work more badly than themselves "scabs". I think unions can be a net positive but I don't buy the popular narrative that they are glorious with no disadvantages.
- ahartmetz 11mo ago
  > putting a floor on minimum skill level to get hired Oh hell yes. Also, look at the cast of a movie. There are tens to hundreds of people. Very few of them are recognized names, at least to the general public. It's no only the big names that are union members, far from it.
  - wakawaka28 11mo ago
    I think you are excited about the skill level thing because you only want to work with skilled individuals, but you're looking at it wrong. That only works BEFORE you are hired. After hiring, really lame workers become harder to get rid of if they are in a union. You remember the writer's strike right? The lesser paid writers were all over the internet complaining about their union, saying it was dominated by big name people who can afford to be on strike while the lesser paid people were becoming destitute. The same thing happens in other unions too, no doubt. Suppose you wanted to work in a different technology stack and would perhaps be 75% as productive as more experienced people in the first year. According to union rules, based on your experience level, you might be shoehorned into a role where they would have to pay you more than you're worth. The same kind of shit happens to less specialized workers. If the minimum salary is higher than your expected productivity, and you can't adjust it according to market conditions, you will be unhireable. However, that is only in an honest system. Nepotism and bribery would be easier to justify when you don't let people get a fair shake.

wakawaka28 11mo ago

Unions work in entertainment because there is a lot of value in relationships and brand recognition. They still have the same disadvantages as they do in other fields, but the advantages make it fly anyway. If only the members of the union get to declare whether it's good or not, it will practically always be considered a success. Non-members don't get work, or at least get less. It is an inevitable outcome. >A healthy union for software engineers, which the gaming industry in particular is well suited towards right now, looks more like one of these kinds of unions than it does a factory laborers union. I don't think so. Software engineers are not generally operating in the brand or personality space. Their employers just want work done and nobody cares who does it. I am running short on time but basically I want to leave you with the forgotten disadvantaged of unions: favoring more advantaged workers over more desperate ones, putting a floor on minimum skill level to get hired, costing everyone outside the union more money (including employers and consumers). Maybe these down sides can be negligible sometimes but you'll rarely hear anyone say this stuff. They talk about fellow humans who want to work more badly than themselves "scabs". I think unions can be a net positive but I don't buy the popular narrative that they are glorious with no disadvantages.

ahartmetz 11mo ago
> putting a floor on minimum skill level to get hired Oh hell yes. Also, look at the cast of a movie. There are tens to hundreds of people. Very few of them are recognized names, at least to the general public. It's no only the big names that are union members, far from it.
- wakawaka28 11mo ago
  I think you are excited about the skill level thing because you only want to work with skilled individuals, but you're looking at it wrong. That only works BEFORE you are hired. After hiring, really lame workers become harder to get rid of if they are in a union. You remember the writer's strike right? The lesser paid writers were all over the internet complaining about their union, saying it was dominated by big name people who can afford to be on strike while the lesser paid people were becoming destitute. The same thing happens in other unions too, no doubt. Suppose you wanted to work in a different technology stack and would perhaps be 75% as productive as more experienced people in the first year. According to union rules, based on your experience level, you might be shoehorned into a role where they would have to pay you more than you're worth. The same kind of shit happens to less specialized workers. If the minimum salary is higher than your expected productivity, and you can't adjust it according to market conditions, you will be unhireable. However, that is only in an honest system. Nepotism and bribery would be easier to justify when you don't let people get a fair shake.