|
Talent Unions: a Viewpoint |
Most users are probably aware that unions -- all unions, in general -- can be a touchy subject. I know that when I was a kid and I first heard about "strikes" I was amazed and outraged. My father went off to his office and worked every day. Who did these people think they were?!
Then, years later, I got a job in a union radio station, and came face-to-face with the good and bad of union rules. There was so much that just seemed silly. But on the other hand, I got a five-day work week -- unlike many small radio station jobs that require six days a week, all year long. I also got health and pension benefits, and a wage increase that took my salary level from "ridiculously low" all the way up to "underpaid." In short, the union had secured terms that allowed me to live like a human being -- not a king.
Many producers in other media resent union rules, because they feel the rules imply some negative assumption about them and their values. They shouldn't. One reason union contracts are enforced uniformly is specifically to avoid making it a personal issue. Now, it doesn't take a genius to see that the rules imply negative assumptions about some people! It's unfortunate, but it's a fact that some people who hire actors simply aren't decent enough to treat them humanely or pay them reasonably -- unless they are forced to.
That is why unions became necessary. Anybody familiar with organized labor knows that it is very hard to start up and maintain a "bargaining unit." So: if there had never been a need for the actors' unions, they would never have come into existence in the first place.
Naturally, this does not mean that the unions work perfectly or make sense all the time. They're operated by human beings and they're subject to flaws. But on the other hand, there are people within these organizations who agitate for change and improvement, and those processes go on, even if it seems too slow by some perspectives.
I also have to say that if you look at all of "organized labor" you will probably find a few scumbags here and there. I do not agree with 100% of everything done in the name of unionism. Probably nobody does. On the other hand, I personally know of instances where performers were physically threatened and/or abused by their employers, and the union was their only source of protection. So, it's a regrettable side-effect that all the good producers out there, who act humanely with or without rules, may be inconvenienced by them.
There's a lot more one could say on this subject, but my purpose here is to counteract the occasional misperception that union contracts are in some way an "attack" on producers, or other employers, or even on other actors. It's just not so! The contracts, unwieldy as they sometimes seem, are intended simply to protect the welfare of working actors and to give them a level playing field on which they can all work together.
One final insight: some folks think that the actors' unions just make up contracts by themselves. Nope -- every contract is negotiated between the unions and employers. Any production entity that has signed a union contract is entitled to have input to the negotiation of that contract when it comes up for renewal. So if there's something in a contract that bugs you, remember, it was agreed to by a producer somewhere along the line. Weird, but true.
P.S. As the header says: these are just my personal observations. They don't represent any sort of official position by the unions or anybody else.
- Rich Wilson
