Writers Strike-- and Why Professionals Are In Unions
So you have professional writers union on strike, fighting over a quintisential new economy issue: digital residual rights. A lot of folks argue that unions are well and good for unskilled workers, but professional skilled workers really don't benefit from unions.
Obviously. Hollywood unions, teachers, nurses, Boeing engineers and other professional refute that argument. Sports unions are also some of the strongest unions out there. Oddly, until the New Deal, the assumption was that unions were really ONLY for skilled workers, that only they had unique enough skills to make collectively withholding their labor effective. It's actually a modern conceit that sees skilled work and unions as incompatible, since the historic assumption was the exact reverse.
One problem is that most peoples knowledge of unions is so impoverished. They assume every union contract specifies payment per hour and overtime rules, jobs allocated strictly by seniority, with no variation for individual negotiation. In fact, the contracts for the Hollywood unions, for example, are as creative as the industry, seeking to protect intellectual property rights for workers denied legal ownership of their ideas under federal law, but assuring that those writers' rights are protected nonetheless.
In an industry where writers work on and off, the issue of residuals, which deliver a paycheck over time often during lull periods for those writers, these kinds of fights are critical. And they are not completely different from many of the issues that face other professionals who don't always have steady work, but would like to see a steadier income and longer-term stake in the returns from intellectual property they do produce.
Most policy proposals to deal with "flexibility" in the new economy usually fail because they are too much based on individual workers, rather than the collective needs of workers in a whole industry. What unions have historically done is create the structures that deal with those very different issues, yielding contracts that look quite different in the construction industry compared to the auto industry compared to Hollywood compared to baseball.
Those creative structural solutions that unions have created over time are largely invisible to a public whose only knowledge of unions is usually during a strike, rather than during the often decades in between when the deals struck during those high-stakes negotiations reshape the industry and deliver steady income to the workers who collectively acted.
So look at the writers strike and realize that unions for professionals are not only possible, but are probably the only way real solutions will be created to sustain flexible and long-term careers for many people in skilled professions.
Comments (17)
Okay, Nathan but as a non-union member who has dealt with artistic unions in both screenwriting and theatrical producing let me just say -- these unions exist in some ways to keep hopeful people out of some very diesriable industries.
Especially in theatre here in New York, the theatrical unions will sometimes rather you not produce a new work of theatre than make an exception if you can't afford their minimum requirements (which are expensive, even when they make exceptions).
Really, if you're trying to break in, these unions can be a real pain in the butt. It's as if they're against you.
One thing to not about the Screenwriter's strike... Warren Ellis who writes comic books and some online script stuff says that the union doesn't represent online script writers but has threatened them with being blackballed if they continue to work online during the strike. That's pretty unhealthy for people who are essentially artists trying to explore new mediums.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
November 5, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self-protection mode, for sure, on the writers.
But at least the musicians' union here in Chcago doesn't go around shutting down nightclubs with guys like me playing original music for a few people, for no money. They pretty much ignore experiments and startup acts. I imagine there is a difficult transition zone, though,w here the act is generating enough business to get some buzz, but not enough income to afford union scale.
November 5, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, unions produce high wages by trying to avoid an excess of production that drives down wages for all to poverty levels. It's inherently hard for anyone to break into any profession where there are more people available than their are slots. So the question is do you have a union to limit the downward pressure on wages or do you let paid employers use that excess workers supply to drive down wages -- and still end up with about the same number of jobs at the end of the day, just at a lower pay rate.
The question for actors do they really think other actors collectively through approved contracts will establish a worse deal for incoming actors than the theater owners? There's no utopia out there, just figuring out ways to protect the interests of the profession.
As for online script writers, does there there work in any way substitute for the work currently done by writers guild members? If so, why wouldn't the union protect itself by saying that those who take advantage of the strike to earn money shouldn't expect in the future to benefit from the contracts negotiated due to the sacrifices of striking writers?
November 5, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair, Nathan. And maybe this is just some of the tough stuff that happens when art and business merge.
As for the online writers: I don't think it directly substitutes for film and TV scripts, though some of the same companies will be using online writers now, so this is a good way for the union to box in the producers in all mediums. They also know that the guy writing online sketches today wants to be the guy writing movies tomorrow and so future union membership is a big deal for the writer.
BUT, they do nothing for online writers right now. They don't negotiate contracts for them or get minimums or anything. So it does seem to me unfair that writers working in a new medium are being told what to do by a union that does nothing for them right now.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
November 5, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
A question is whether the online writers have tried to organize themselves so their interests are more fully on the table. These kinds of problems cited are like any other issues in democracy: the problems of democracy are usually solved by more democracy.
Most of the Hollywood unions have tried to organize non-union workers in the industry; there's been a big focus recently on organizing the reality TV writers-- who yes exist in the form of editors who craft a storyline out of all the hours of tape.
So I have sympathy for anyone who doesn't feel there interests are fully being addressed, but would have more sympathy if they are expressing it in a way that usefully aggregates the voices of everyone in that situation-- ie. as a union that can vote on proposals and counterproposals.
November 5, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW found this response to the particular issue of comics and Warren Ellis (whose concerns were apparently addressed in updated strike rules):
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=37507226&blogID=325633175
November 5, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for engaging me on this. I know how strongly you feel about unions and you might have gathered that I feel pretty strongly about my own creative writing (which is in a "hopeful" stage at this point). I think it's cool that you're willing to address the concerns of somebody in my circumstance.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
November 5, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how realistic is this really? Seriously.
You're talking about individuals who have no power, no name recognition, no history within their given fields aggregating to form a union with no power, no name recognition, and no history within their given field.
The problem I have with unions are their near monopolistic strangleholds within their respective industry, and the severe barriers to entry for new members.
Who competes with the Writer's Guild? Who competes with the Teachers Union? The Nurses Union? The ILWU? They have no competition, and probably will never have competition.
And any writing group that tries to form their own "union" to air their grievances are probably just shooting themselves in the foot. The Writer's Guild will prevail, of course, and any writer who opposes them or criticizes them will more than likely be blacklisted.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 5, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd give you a book destor if it were up to me. Keep writing.
Bruce
November 5, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric:
There is substantial competition for union membership in many industries, including two that you cite in your question above, i.e., in nursing (where competition is an understatement) and in teaching. Of course, the biggest competitor of them all is the non-union, even in the world of the written word.
Bruce
November 5, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, thanks for the reply.
First, please permit me to say that I mis-typed. I meant to type "non-members", meaning potential employees that are not already members of a guild or union. I've known many a teacher who were denied jobs because they were not already members of the American Federation of Teachers or the National Education Association (depending on the particular school).
Second, when I'm speaking of competition, I'm speaking of inter-union competition. For example, the AFL-CIO's anti-raiding pact. There are also industries where union members are the only ones allowed on the job, granted these are typically in labor (although an ILWU typist clerk who makes $60,000 a year seems to fit more the definition of a professional, than a laborer).
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto sermo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 5, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Work for hire is a different world. I do both, with my paycheck being work for hire. When you don't decide anything important about the show, it's work. We joke that it's worse than prostitution because we have to pretend we enjoy it. Of course, sometimes we do, but only by luck. So we bargain hard for control of work conditions as well as pay.
When I write tunes, that's another story. And publishing a novel or story is not what the Writers' Guild is about, I gather.
November 5, 2007 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have friends that thought they were denied jobs because they were not already members of a teachers union, then they have a legitimate beef, since that's illegal. And for 99% of teachers, they don't join the union until after they are hired.
As noted by others, the AFL's anti-raiding pact is mostly a fiction, since unions fight over workers all the time.
But why is it odd that you have to be in a union to work at a union-organized job site? If Microsoft has a contract, you have to be affiliated with Microsoft to work on it. Business has all sorts of exclusive licensing and contract deals, yet people seem to have some principled objection to exclusive contracts only when workers are benefiting, rather than employers.
November 6, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent points Nathan. I think it is important to also point out that federal labor law vests unions with the right to be exclusive bargaining representative in a given bargaining unit, but also provides that the cost of such exclusivity is the obligation on the part of the union to represent each and every person in the bargaining unit, member or non-member, in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
November 6, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serious question: one of the arguments for dues check-off rather than representation elections was that the NLRB apparently wouldn't get involved with union-busting management tactics. Is it reasonable to assume that if the union does not fairly represent the members, and especially the non-members, of the bargaining unit, that the NLRB will be able to make sure the union complies with its side?
In other words, is the dues check-off issue a problem with NLRB resources, or is it NLRB favoritism?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 6, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
On another hand according to Jared Bernstein in his today post:
November 7, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard:
I don't think you're referring to dues check-off but rather to the right of union and management to enter into a voluntary recognition arrangement in lieu of an election based upon a card check (signed employee authorizations) by a neutral third party. In the Dana case decided just a couple of weeks ago, the Board departed from long-standing practice and has now made it much easier for such voluntary recognition agreements to be challenged.
This is not an NLRB resource issue, although I think it's undisputed that the NLRB is underfunded and is ill-suited to do what I think is still its most important function, and that is to expeditiously respond to discriminatory actions taken against workers who are suspected of pro-union activity. It's a national shame I submit that such workers (of the Norma Rae variety for example) have little meaningful protection at this point, because cases, even when pursued by the Board, are wrapped up in litigation for years.
I think all of us tend to favor "elections" in the abstract, but the simple fact is that the Board is unable to ensure that American workers in the year 2007 are able to have what you and I and just about every American would expect them to be able to have, and that is a free and unencumbered and non-retaliatory right to vote. This is a product of limited Board resources, coupled with very pro-employer legal parameters with respect to what employers can do during a pre-election campaign. In effect, it's anything goes, including but not at all limited to, less-than-vieled threats to close up shop in the event that the union wins the election.
By the way, Canada allows its workers to organize through card-checks in lieu of elections. Canada, I think we can all agree, is as democratic as they come.
Bruce
November 7, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink