Those who know me closely, who’ve had in-depth discussions with me about Hollywood and the movie industry know that I’m not a fan of the Hollywood unions. Sure, no one’s a fan of the AMPTP (film & TV producers union) right now, but I’m not a fan of ANY union. Here’s why…
THE UNIONS ARE NO LONGER ABOUT PROTECTING THE WORKING MAN.
These last few years, it seems every goddamn 6 months there’s the threat of a strike - if it’s not the actors, it’s the writers. I try to keep up with industry news, but lately I just don’t want to, because it seems like the only news there is is about union fights.
And now there’s union IN-fighting! There’s a civil war within SAG about which members should get certain rights, about what contracts to accept, well, just about any issue you can think of. SAG’s president is SUING THE VERY UNION HE PRESIDES OVER because they booted out the guy who led negotiations between SAG and the AMPTP. It’d be like if Barack Obama sued the United States for not appointing his choice to head of treasury (in spite of the tax evasion).
It seems to me that the only thing that’s driving any of the unions is the leaders’ mentality that “My dick is bigger than yours.” They fight and bicker and throw tantrums under the guise that they’re trying to do what’s best for their members, when in actuality, they’re making it WORSE by creating a void in work, and not just for their own members, but for the entire motion picture community. Studios and companies are avoiding scheduling future shoots because they don’t know if there will be any actors to shoot with. It’s no longer about the worker making a living, its about the board of directors landing that contract, regardless of what’s in it.
I feel that today, the whole notion of a “union” is antiquated - unions gained power and notoriety because they looked out for the common man, to create proper working conditions and secure fair pay. Well, we have that nowadays, so why are unions still gaining in power and influence? I can’t say for sure, but everything I see as an outsider looks to me like classic mob-like practices - forcing the studios to use their actors/writers/producers/etc., for instance. Most people don’t realize that every single actor you see in the multi-plex is part of the actors’ unions, as well as almost every single writer and director. Studios are contractually obligated to use union people, whether or not they’re the best man for the job.
If, say, Steven Spielberg is shooting a movie that requires a child actor, because his studio is a union signatory, they won’t even bother to audition non-union children (yes, children must be unionized as well). Can you imagine how many talented people are out there, FAR more talented than the Channing Tatums or Lauren Conrads who get regular work, who don’t even get a CHANCE?
I have hopes of running my own mini-studio some day, where I can oversee the production of a slate of movies. In preparing for the possibility that it may actually happen, I’m constantly tailoring a set of “rules” under which my theoretical company would run - and one of them is “No unions.” I’ll be damned if my company is held hostage by a union while they bicker away with another union over a 3-cent increase in royalties.
“But the actors/writers rely on those 3-cent increases!” a lot of you may say. Some of you may even say I’ll avoid unions so I can take advantage of people who’ll work for peanuts - not so. It’s not the increase or the money in general I have a problem with - it’s the BICKERING. Months and months of in-fighting, negotiations, legalese and nonsense that ultimately leads nowhere and shuts down movies? Uh, no, thanks. I’ll avoid unions altogether so that my company, and my EMPLOYEES, can continue working and not worry about their next paycheck. Thousands of movies produced by individuals are made every year without union contracts… there’s no reason why a whole studio can’t work without unions.
My “No Unions” rule is directly tied to another rule, “Fair Pay For Everyone.” And “Fair Pay” goes both ways… it means proper pay for the below-the-line people while at the same time not paying $30 million to one single individual. As far as I’m concerned, the whole damn movie should cost $30 million, not one person. But that’s an topic that deserves its own post. The point is, if I pay my people a fair wage and working conditions, then there should be no reason for a union to interfere… because, after all, the role of the union is to get the worker said wage and conditions, RIGHT?