Unions do the opposite, they raise mobility. The only mobility they inhibit are shareholder's mobility.
Companies are incentivized to treat employees as poorly as possible. Cutting benefits, salaries, positions. Overworking employees. Denying raises. All of these things are in the best interests of companies because it makes their bottom line look better at the next earnings report.
Unions are how workers reclaim those benefits. Unions are how workers tell companies "You think your bottom line is bad, watch what happens when nobody is keeping the gears turning". It's a financial threat to keep employees well paid. And that's the only lingo companies speak. There's a reason big corporations spend so much money union busting. Because they know they'll spend more money on their employees if they don't.
More money and better benefits means more time and availability to improve yourself or your situation. That's upwards mobility.
> These folks are competitive with Vietnamese and Korean outlets willing to do 80% of the work for 20% of the price.
This has been a threat since forever. The problem these companies have are 2 fold. 1. the communication barrier/time barrier that makes everything more difficult. 2. The people they pass over ARE talented and these studios run the risk of seeing new indie film makers eat into their profit margins.
> but a world where everyone is unionized I don’t think will have great outcomes.
The outcome we have now is already terrible. We lived through a period where most working class individuals were unionize and that was viewed by most as "when america was great". The 40s, 50s, and 60s had some of the strongest unions and best social infrastructure. It was the point when most businesses bent towards making their workers happy first and shareholders second.
Bring on the unions, the only people that will suffer from it are the extremely wealthy, and they'll survive just like the Baron robbers of the 20s.
> The people they pass over ARE talented and these studios run the risk of seeing new indie film makers eat into their profit margins.
Fully agree, but not here. It's easy as an indie to get your movie in front of eyeballs or a music piece in front of a willing pair of ears, easier than ever before... but these eyeballs generally won't pay anything or they'll pay pittances. YouTube? Need subscribers and churn out content for years to build enough of a following to earn actual money. Spotify and Soundcloud are easier to get started but pay absolute dog shit.
Forget about cinema though. The large venues are all but bought out by Big Mouse (they demand the largest rooms for weeks exclusively for their content, no matter actual demand), of the few slot that remain other big distributors already have claims on, and you're relegated to absolutely weird-ass time slots or small arthouse cinemas. And TV ain't what it was either, no one watches TV and most stations have a full backlog of shit they can re-run infinitely.
Fair enough point. I'd just say that I don't believe studios are using US VFX companies out of the goodness of their souls.
My dad had his own business and one thing he told me is "I'd fire one of my employees if I could" And I certainly believe he and every other business owner thinks like that.
If it were reasonable for media companies to get the same work done for 20% the cost, they'd have done it across the board yesterday.
> Which unions are you referring to raise mobility compared to not unionized?
I'll say what I mean, but first I think we should define "mobility".
I'd argue that improved mobility is the same as improved working conditions. Because happy workers are workers with more options in life. Is this an acceptable definition? If not, please give me an alternative.
With that in mind, history is littered with union actions that have generally improved workers.
For that, you need look no further than articles on union actions such as this [1]. Minimum wage, ending child labor, the 40 hour work week with 8 hour days. All of these have their roots in union actions. More money, more free time, and more benefits. Those are the promises of unions in general.
> The rest of your post can really just be a rant against capitalism for better or worse.
I find this pretty funny. Unions are a part of capitalism and regulating them away is a perversion of the free market. Workers organizing is not anti-capitalist.
Unions do the opposite, they raise mobility. The only mobility they inhibit are shareholder's mobility.
Companies are incentivized to treat employees as poorly as possible. Cutting benefits, salaries, positions. Overworking employees. Denying raises. All of these things are in the best interests of companies because it makes their bottom line look better at the next earnings report.
Unions are how workers reclaim those benefits. Unions are how workers tell companies "You think your bottom line is bad, watch what happens when nobody is keeping the gears turning". It's a financial threat to keep employees well paid. And that's the only lingo companies speak. There's a reason big corporations spend so much money union busting. Because they know they'll spend more money on their employees if they don't.
More money and better benefits means more time and availability to improve yourself or your situation. That's upwards mobility.
> These folks are competitive with Vietnamese and Korean outlets willing to do 80% of the work for 20% of the price.
This has been a threat since forever. The problem these companies have are 2 fold. 1. the communication barrier/time barrier that makes everything more difficult. 2. The people they pass over ARE talented and these studios run the risk of seeing new indie film makers eat into their profit margins.
> but a world where everyone is unionized I don’t think will have great outcomes.
The outcome we have now is already terrible. We lived through a period where most working class individuals were unionize and that was viewed by most as "when america was great". The 40s, 50s, and 60s had some of the strongest unions and best social infrastructure. It was the point when most businesses bent towards making their workers happy first and shareholders second.
Bring on the unions, the only people that will suffer from it are the extremely wealthy, and they'll survive just like the Baron robbers of the 20s.