Video Game Unions and Paying People Money

[Brodie Butland]

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.

Careful with generalizing the experience of Detroit, Chicago, or NYC with the experiences of every municipality, including large ones.

Example: Back in 2008/09, when shit was hitting the fan (Cleveland's foreclosure crisis was possibly the worst in the nation...even worse than Detroit), it became very clear to the Cleveland city government (the mayor and the city council) that Cleveland could not in the long run afford to keep all of its city employees, and that it couldn't afford to keep increasing salary and benefits--the unfunded mandates would eventually cripple the city and would go unpaid. The City and the public sector unions spoke for a few months, with the City presenting the data and explaining the problem. As a result of the meetings, there were hundreds of early retirements, and when those weren't enough, pink slips were handed out. Many benefits were frozen, and several departments had hiring freezes or furloughs. The unions heads were reluctantly on board--they would have preferred keeping things status quo, or even increasing.

Nine years later, Cleveland has a surplus in its budget, and is capable of paying out full promised benefits and salaries to all of its employees. It was able to do so, and now is one of the hottest cities in the United States, because the mayor and the city council sat down with public sector unions to hammer out a deal that they knew was needed to keep the city solvent. I don't believe any city council reps were beaten in an election based on their decision, and Mayor Jackson is now on his fourth term. Negotiation with the public sector unions wasn't the only thing that has catapulted Cleveland, but it was necessary to lay a foundation.

Contrast that experience with Detroit. They were in a similar position to Cleveland in 2008/09. But unlike Cleveland, they kept giving raises and benefits increases, and did not hand out pink slips to city employees. A few years later, they had to declare bankruptcy because they could no longer afford everything, because municipalities cannot borrow money the same way the federal government can.

Point being, public sector unions are not evil in and of themselves--they're evil when they collude with spineless politicians. We the People choose who get to run our local governments. If spineless mayors who perfunctorily give unpayable presents to public sector unions keep winning elections, whose fault is that ultimately?

[nykid]

Actually, big name actors with agents are mostly in the SAG union, and their agents negotiate terms of the standard union agreement more than they give the actor career advice contrary to what you saw on Entourage.

Not quite. SAG-AFTRA negotiates the collective bargaining agreements with the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) on its own behalf. Agents don't. Agents negotiate individual deals. And if we're talking about big name actors, they are getting paid much more than what the CBA provides for. "SAG minimum" or "scale" is the lowest amount that a SAG-AFTRA member can work for, according to the CBA. But virtually all name actors are getting paid more than scale, in addition to other perks / benefits, and that's what agents/managers negotiate.

[johnnys]

Not quite. SAG-AFTRA negotiates the collective bargaining agreements with the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) on its own behalf. Agents don't. Agents negotiate individual deals. And if we're talking about big name actors, they are getting paid much more than what the CBA provides for. "SAG minimum" or "scale" is the lowest amount that a SAG-AFTRA member can work for, according to the CBA. But virtually all name actors are getting paid more than scale, in addition to other perks / benefits, and that's what agents/managers negotiate.

Yeah, I glossed over the difference between the Standard SAG Xx Contracts and the Addenda that have the interesting terms, but I don't think that changes the point about "big name actors" agents obviating the "need" for a union where they actually have both.

[Bluefan75]

You can have public unions along with laws which limit their ability to go on strike. Surely you know this.

You mean like the laws where they can't strike, they go to binding arbitration, and since arbitrators give "comparable" packages to other municipalities unions, guess what happens to costs?

Surely you know this.

[thedude47111]

You mean like the laws where they can't strike, they go to binding arbitration, and since arbitrators give "comparable" packages to other municipalities unions, guess what happens to costs?

Surely you know this.

When did I talk about costs?

[footrat]

I have to wonder just what you get thru your union membership then, if you belong to a union but are forbidden to strike or slow down.

In some states (not mine), there is still mandatory collective bargaining. The union can force the employer to at least come to the table. We don't have that.

What I get is still representation. My union leadership has an incredibly good relationship with most of the county board of commissioners, and with the department administration. Our union secretary is below the level of management, but is heavily involved in shaping policy and the future of the department. So, we get advocacy. The union also has good relationships with the local news, which helps us get info to the citizens so they can be informed about matters of public concern.

We get representation, including of the legal variety. We recently received free cancer screening. The union took it on because it's beneficial, and the hope is that with the presumptive cancer legislation, the county will decide to pick it up and run with it because it saves them money in the long run.

In the future, the union hopes to offer outside training for free to union members using dues money, but would charge non-members.

In the past, the union has successfully fought to improve station conditions, faulty equipment, and improper disciplinary action.

[Bluefan75]

When did I talk about costs?

Oh right, money grows on trees in your fantasy land. Here in the real world, though, actions have consequences. When you say your union can't strike, then they say give us something or we will. Do you really need this line drawn all the way to the logical conclusion? Because if so google policing costs in Ontario.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The union also has good relationships with the local news, which helps us get info to the citizens so they can be informed about matters of public concern.

This is pretty funny.

[1200cc]

This is pretty funny.

As is this doozy, earlier in the same post.

We recently received free cancer screening

[thedude47111]

Oh right, money grows on trees in your fantasy land. Here in the real world, though, actions have consequences. When you say your union can't strike, then they say give us something or we will. Do you really need this line drawn all the way to the logical conclusion? Because if so google policing costs in Ontario.

You're inferring conclusions I didn't make. I recognize that if a public union drives up the cost of work then that cost has to be paid from some taxation. Does that satisfy you?