And 100% of the SAG members were compelled to join SAG or be shut out from many acting jobs.
The SAG/AFTRA members that I know are very happy to be in their union. They are vocal about the benefits of being a member, highly supportive of this strike, and glad to be part of a collective. So while it is true that you must be a SAG/AFTRA member to access most Hollywood film and TV roles, “compelled” makes it sound like medieval torture or a Mafia thing, when my impression is that people are pleased to join.
I didn’t mean for it to sound like medieval torture.
Speaking as someone with a performance background, the suggestion that there are actors with ambitions for a full time professional career who are not highly motivated to get into the union is laughable and not worth further discussion.
Which should clearly be illegal. There should be no compulsion to join a union and no coercion to comply with what a union is doing.
Indeed. For example, if you’re in the union, and do a certain minimum amount of work, you get health insurance. It’s very difficult for an actor to get insurance any other way.
(My mother worked for the SAG health insurance system for many years, so she used to know all the details.)
There isn’t. You can always find a different field to work in, or you can find non-union productions and work with non-union folks. If you don’t like it, start your own non-union production company.
At one time, the compulsion was “join the union and make your job better (and perhaps be killed by the bosses for joining) or don’t join the union and be ground into the dirt by the bosses.” Obviously, things have changed somewhat, but not as much as they should IMHO.
Striking is a modern solution. In the past, workers would snatch an owner from his bed in the dead of night and beat him to death in front of his family. Seems like they’re forgetting that part.
Oh, for sure the history of unions has ugliness all around. I wasn’t trying to paint one side as angels.
Sure, and crossing a picket line is no big deal. Not your union, not your problem. The studios should be free to hire non-union people to work if the union people are on strike.
Are you suggesting they’re not free to do so? AFAIK, they’re absolutely free to play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
Yes, but all the good jobs are with union productions.
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why that is.
No I’m not suggesting anything other than the freedom to unionise should be matched by the freedom to hire whomsoever you want. People go on strike? hire other people if you want.
Are you suggesting that hiring non-union people is somehow “stupid”? What “stupid prizes” are you referring to?
This is all true, and obviously so. It’s like posting, “The freedom to unionise should be matched by the freedom to put ketchup on your fries.” It’s a non sequitur using “should” to describe something that already exists.
They win the stupid prize of getting blackballed by the union. The freedom to hire other people should be–check that, is–matched by the freedom to not work with the company that hires scabs.
If a studio thinks they can make do without WGA talent or SAG-AFTRA talent, let them play that stupid game and win the stupid prize of no longer being able to hire WGA or SAG-AFTRA members. FREEDOM
Yep, it shouldn’t need to be said.
That is so obvious that you didn’t need to say it. But notable that you choose to use the slur “scab” instead of “non-union worker”.
It was a direct answer to your question. Are you okay?
Dammit, you successfully outed me! Like a Scooby Doo villain, I’ve been unmasked. I’m not actually a ghost, I’m a poster who supports unions and does not appreciate workers who weaken a labor action for selfish reasons.
If both of those are obviously true, then there’s no reason for you to argue that it should be this way.
And they’re not merely non-union workers. They’re non-union workers who are actively undermining a current strike. They are harming a cause that would be beneficial for everyone. Unless they’re in desperate need of money, it’s rather selfish, putting their own short-term gain above making things better for everyone.
So, yeah, that concept got a negative word attached to it. A scab, or someone who attempts to stanch some of the bleeding. I’m unaware of any other word for the concept, in fact.
As mine was to you. I don’t know why you are asking me if I’m OK.
A person who decides to freely enter into an employment contract and who is not a member of a union has no responsibility for that labour action. It is literally nothing to do with them.
Of course they are
That is none of their business and to which they did not sign up.