>> ^quantumushroom:
The greatest argument against the viability of unions has been the unions themselves, not the GOP. It's economics: you cannot have 4 or 5 retirees earning benefits for every full-time worker.


Says someone who's not in a union.

I am (MPSC 839), and there's no way in hell that I'd ever want to be without. Studios in my field that are non-union do NOT pay competitive wages, or have nearly the benefits we do. People in my industry are dying to get into union work for very good, important, specific reasons.

Rougy said the rest better than I can.

^Maybe add "insufficient workers' rights" (in non-unionized fields) and merge "false advertising" into "predatory selling"? What's an example of "excessive supply"?

*woohoo, YES!

That non-union shop kills me every time.

Technically it's the "Xmas Day" song, but I'll not nag about it.

Ok, stop stroking each other off and decide who's right already!

Just kidding, all points of views seem to be valid (at least to me). In certain circumstances (construction for example) unions are in many ways obsolete as you are just a number within a pool of employees riding the hiring and firing wave at the mercy of the seasons and the economy. Merit shops (non-union companies) usually run in niches in the market where they can hire and keep specialized, seasoned and talented professionals. That's not to say there's no "talent" in these unions, nor layoffs don't happen in merit shops. Unions can sometimes hinder the growth of a company and since the government has stepped in with health and safety laws as well as overtime laws and standards, unions aren't AS necessary (they do have their benefits AND drawbacks).

That being clarified (or at least an attempt to) I suppose a union that supports a group where there are standards in pay and royalties would be absolutely necessary. How is a brilliant writer going to go into an office and negotiate some reasonable 3% royalties when everybody else is only recieving 2% or whatever the numbers are. For this standard to be changed, you need a large force to move it and there's no real governing force other than that union. It's not like the government is going to come in and say that FOX must make sure all writers have a sharp no. 2 pencils and recieve 3% royalties. A union is a necessary evil in this situation because the industry has the individual by the balls, but not the union as a whole.

You bring up a good point. People typically think that in business the business owners will go for the cheaper labor always. Well, if this was picking fruit or carrying shingles or some other form of grunt work, then yes they would. That's what minimum wage is for, to keep the business owners from exploiting the uneducated or underprivileged in those jobs. But, being a business owner myself, I can say this: for a business where there is a learned trade or creative skill (such as writing) we don't want the lowest possible quality, so if someone is worth their amount, then we'd pay it.

And, it doesn't work to try to force people into being paid peanuts, either, because if you hire on an entry-level person, then obviously you pay them very little, but the trade off is that they get to learn on the job, which in some industries (especially trade industries) that's key! And once they've learned the job, then they're valuable, and it's common to raise their salary or hourly wage. I believe it should be the same for writers. If you're worth 12 million per picture, then you will be paid that. But, not too many writers can pull that sort of scratch off. Still, if a writer starts out getting paid peanuts and the studio never decides to increase his/her pay, someone else will increase it if he's/she's worth it. That's the way it works in business, and I still think their organizing is strong-arming the studios and threatening non-union workers who should have a right to a liveliehood.

I could change it to non union worker. I dont know where you come up with a race issue. I wouldnt throw that around so lightly.