If this is the case, and there are no voiceover "stars", then the market has decided.
Member
Video games are indeed big business with lots of money involved... but the voice actors are not integral in the VAST majority of the titles. They strike, they get replaced.
TMPHBITEU
If this is the case, and there are no voiceover "stars", then the market has decided.
Starting Strength App Developer
unless its a big name actor, who's name will be used in marketing. And that person does not need a union, they have an agent.Originally Posted by Pawn
Member
Member
This reminds me of a similar story I heard of trouble in the forest. There was trouble with the trees. For the maples wanted more sunlight but the oaks ignored their pleas.
Member
^^ Sounds true to me - as someone who plays more games than a reasonable adult should, and particularly lots of games that at least attempt stories with dialogue, I would be hard-pressed to name more than 4-5 voice actors, though at least 2 of those (Jennifer Hale and Mark Hamill) are responsible for a large number of games. Oddly, perhaps, Mark Hamill is an exception in that most Hollywood actors who try the game voiceover thing don't tend to be very good at it, while he's quite popular and accomplished in the role. Heck, Peter Dinklage is killing it as Tyrion in "Game of Thrones," but his performance in the Destiny game was roundly panned.
✓ Member
The people most in favor of public unions are usually the same people in favor of more government intervention in our lives. Why the dichotomy? If the government can be trusted enough to manage the citizenry, why can't they be trusted enough to pay public workers 'fair' compensation w/o union negotiation?
TMPHBITEU
Oh, that's good! The same government that can manage the economy can't be trusted to manage the part of the economy that pays their bureaucrats.
Member
Wholeheartedly agree, and here's why:
In a private sector union, the process goes like this:
Acme Widget Corp negotiates with the Widgetsmiths Union. If the company gives the union members too much, profits fall, company goes out of business, and union members become unemployed union members. The relationship between company and union is adversarial, company wants to give as little as possible, union wants as much as possible, and they basically meet somewhere in the middle.
Public sector doesn't work like that. There, a politician (let's say a mayor, or some representative of the mayor) is negotiating the contract with the union. The mayor agrees to provide certain increases in salary, pensions, benefits, whatever, and in return the union will encourage its members to vote for that mayor. In a large city this can amount to thousands of votes, plenty enough to sway an election. Then the taxpayers are on the hook. The relationship between politician and union isn't adversarial, the politician has no reason to try to give the union as little as possible.
BTW, every year the highest paid New York City employee is a transit worker, either bus driver or subway operator. This is because the union controls the scheduling of overtime, and their pension is based on the average of their last few years salary, so as they approach retirement they get tons of overtime. I knew a bus driver who would make one run in the morning (took maybe an hour), go home, watch TV, mow the lawn, and then ten hours later he'd make another run. He'd get paid for 12 hours, four of which were time-and-a-half (so paid for 14 hours), unless it was a weekend then the whole thing was double time. Work two hours, get paid for 24. That's how every year a NYC transit worker comes out making about a quarter million in a year. He'll then retire with a pension of about $175K per year courtesy of the NYC taxpayers.
Member
Ding! Ding! Ding! As I've been saying for, oh, the past 3 or 4 years on this board, I'm not in favor ultimately of more government intervention in our lives. Wanting to strengthen some elements of the state (e.g. the democratic ones) does not mean wanting to strengthen all elements of the state.
Posting Permissions