Hacker News Reader

Comment by WarChortle | Hacker News Reader

Actors make their own production studios all the time.

That's why Hollywood unionized the way it did. A specific studio couldn't unionize because they would just get dissolved and reformed under a new LLC.

No actor or famous game designer is capable of creating a AAA movie/game by themselves. They need a lot of people to work on it.

The only difference is Hollywood the entire pool of workers unionized they have no choice but to hire a union worker.

Game designers/programmers need to follow the same formula. The two industries have exactly the same problem, Hollywood workers have been around long enough to figure out the solution.

View on HN

As a former member of Local 600 - saying “the entire pool of workers unionized” is inaccurate. A significant number of feature films are produced ever year with non-union crews. They may or may not know what they’re doing, but they exist. I worked on them prior to joining the Cinematographer’s Guild (you have to start somewhere).

Also of note, the various film industry unions were largely created back in the day when unionization was generally more popular in society. They have remained strong - like steelworkers - because the protections are worth joining, apprenticeship and training is available/valuable, and the working conditions are often potentially hazardous. People Don’t realize, but industry workers get injured/die every year on movie sets (though it is better than it used to be).

I love it when someone who actually knows what they're talking about enters a thread like this. It quells the tendency for people (almost always men - myself included) to confidently string together a handful of facts (that they once overheard in a cafe) and explain their way to some sort of hot take.

(Not claiming that the conclusions drawn by the GP or GGP are incorrect here - I don't know much about the games industry. Just talking about HN more generally.)

> almost always men

no need to generalize an entire gender, especially since that has no relevance to this discussion

It's a pattern that does tend to exist in my experience, and talking openly and constructively about problems is just part of fixing them. To be clear, I'm not saying that all (or even most) guys have this tendency. I think you may have mentally categorised my comment into the "men bad" bin, but that's really not what I was going for. It's literally a pattern that I have noticed in my own behaviour, so I'm not out to attack anyone here.

I think it has more to do with where you look than gender. If you looked at antivax posts likely you would think otherwise.

> The "vast majority" of people commenting, sharing and liking anti-vaccination information on Facebook are women, a new study finds.

https://www.livescience.com/61305-most-online-anti-vaxxers-a...

>People Don’t realize, but industry workers get injured/die every year on movie sets (though it is better than it used to be).

Is this largely due to construction projects like sets and the use of heavy equipment, or is it more from stunts or something else I haven't considered?

Also, since you're an insider, when they build sets and props and stuff, do they still have to follow OSHA requirements and get safety inspections and stuff?

Fatigue, carrying heavy equipment (film lights, rain equipment, set construction all involve you know, huge amounts of physical stuff being moved), equipment failure during a FX such as an explosion or a car crash.

Deaths and permanent injury were actually horrifyingly common from what I know of very early film industry. Unionisation, at least of stuntmen, has probably saved a couple of hundred lives, both literally and in avoiding permanent injury.

Simple exhaustion can do it. There was a famous case about a woman who got hit by some kind of railcar being used in production a few years ago. She died. There was a documentary made about it called “who needs sleep”. Conditions can be really really difficult sometimes, because a stars time Immensely valuable, while crew time is cheaper. So a star is ie 10k p hour While keeping crew around awake for 12/16 hours a day to shoot when they’re finished makeup / shooting another scene somewhere else is often more economical to keep the crew awake for too long. You have to finish “the day” since the star is payed per diem, afaik. I don’t work in Hollywood but film and commercials.

Q1: all of the above. Moving vehicles and equipment. Stunts/practical effects/etc. High power lighting and electrical cords strung everywhere. Tripping hazards. Falling hazards. Oh, and as a rule, never get in the helicopter.

Q2: I don’t know. I imagine it depends on how much is being built and how controlled the environment would be.

Edit: I should also stress the impact of sleep deprivation on accidents and mistakes. Filmmaking hours are often pegged at 12+ as a standard day, and a well financed production won’t bat an eye at paying the penalties to push a crew.

I was talking with some one in Prospect/BECTU (IATSE) and she mentioned her first job was on Coronation Street helping the older actors onto set and making sure they didn't trip over any thing.

I was/am on the same committe (SOC)

I don't know about movies, but I worked on construction sites for 5 years. OSHA never showed up. Our understanding was they don't show up unless there is a fatality.

I've done the OSHA 40 hour training and even had a reportable OSHA incident (minor cut finger on a soil density gauge that got infected and required antibotics), I never heard from the agency.

> They have remained strong - like steelworkers - because the protections are worth joining

Do you think they would join if they weren't forced to join? If so why should they be forced to join? This kind of arrangement is illegal in Europe so it isn't required to get high union participation.

They aren’t forced to join.

I’m going to be a bit handwavy here:

generally - crew members do not work for a specific company, so the problem of a “Union only” job is perhaps somewhat different. Crew members are all functionally contractors for that one specific production. There are no long term contractual obligations. After that production is over, they have to hunt around for their next gig which reinforces the relationship based job economy of Hollywood labor.

When a production is kicking, off department heads will be hired (for instance, a Director is Photography) and they will hire the crew members below them in the hierarchy. Many department heads will have their regular group of people they call, and it can be difficult to break into the network. Most people who join a union have experience, training, references, etc which help build those connections.

Again, non-union film production happens all the time. The benefits of joining one of the unions are positive enough that most people do, but You don’t have to be in Local 600 to shoot a movie.

They are forced to join if they want to work on the same production set as union members. That kind of forcing is illegal in Europe.

Again, you’re speaking from ignorance alone here.

This is only required in some cases. In a “union shoot” as it were. These are rare in comparison to non-union films. Every actor has many examples of non-union films they participate in.

Usually big stars work in non-union roles and films to give younger professionals an opportunity. The star provides marketing power for a smaller Non-union production. Then people can join the union as well.

> Every actor has many examples of non-union films they participate in.

Actors aren't allowed to participate in non-union films. They sometimes do anyway but the contract says they can't.

> SAG-AFTRA members cannot accept an acting role in any studio, independent, low-budget, pilot, experimental, non-profit, interactive, educational, student, or ANY production, unless that producer has signed a Contract or Letter of Agreement with SAG-AFTRA.

> Members who are found in violation of these rules are subject to serious fines and discipline by a panel of union peers.

https://www.sagaftra.org/what-happens-if-i-accept-non-union-...

That is one of many unions. Not all have such a restriction.

One of many unions known for having many American film stars in it's membership?

I’ve met a few. Who cares.

You've met a few unions? It's not really feeling like you have any specific domain knowledge here, given how sparse and off-kilter all of your replies have been. If you have actual counter-examples of other unions that operate differently in that space, then just name them.

Stars. Their economically useful for the industry, but entirely irrelevant to union requirements outside of SAG. Bringing them up when discussing labor practices in the industry at large is essentially a non sequitur.

To your question, I was a member of IATSE Local 600 (Cinematographer’s Guild) as a loader, 2nd AC, digital utility and sometimes focus puller. I noted my union affiliation upthread. Members are explicitly allowed to work on non-union jobs, but there is an expectation that you call it in if the budget is over ~1 million. Below that, the union is not particularly interested in attempting to flip the show so no one cares.

(This is where I would call you out for your tone of ignorant self superiority, but I’ll just defer to the HN guidelines and let it drop)

This may be role dependent. There are non-union laborers all over a union production.

Not Shure pre entry closed shop is illegal in all European countries.

It is a part of EU law, so at least the EU countries.

Interesting, the gig thing probably promotes unionization, because the membership actually carries some signaling value to the hiring org.

Yes, running a “union gig” or “non-union gig” is a concern of the directors and producers. Union means higher level of talent and skill, but increased costs and bureaucratic pains. Non-union means young, fresh talent (with on average less skill), so they work linger and cheaper.

I believe that is to be true.

One difference is that film requires in-person work while games can be made 100% remotely. Globally unionizing isn’t the same as unionizing a town. I don’t see it happening.

> A specific studio couldn't unionize because they would just get dissolved and reformed under a new LLC.

If your workers are members of a union... how does closing the company and starting a new one help? They're still in the union.

That was exactly his point.

In USA (I dunno where you are from), sometimes the union is company-specific, as in: the union forms inside the company and has only that company workers and has some say on the company management.

In Holywood that didn't work, because movies often have a one-off company created just for them (it still works this way).

So the actors and whatnot created non-company unions, so this way they get what you just said (ie: company dissolves, but employees are still in a union, since the union wasn't tied to a company).

US unions are tied to a company so shutting the company shuts the union. There are some old exceptions like in the movie industry that were grandfathered in but you can't create new such unions.

Are you sure? which law is that?

The CWA is/has tried recruiting in tech

Outlawed might be a bad word, but there are no protections for them and things like sympathy strikes are illegal.

> The CWA is/has tried recruiting in tech

I don't see a way for individuals to join, just how to get them to help you organize a company union.

https://cwa-union.org/join-union

Compare to Swedens engineering union which you just have to fill in this form for and then you are a member:

https://www.sverigesingenjorer.se/ansokan/

Yes, the NRLA and Taft-Hartley acts were structured to prevent the growth of unions and sector-wide labor organizing by stating that unions can only be formed on the basis of company-level votes.

There isn't a general branch you can join then - and in the Swedish case not all employers have recognition.

> Game designers/programmers need to follow the same formula.

Thats basically impossible though. Because, at some point, programmers from other industries, will just enter the market.

What, are you going to try and unionize the entire tech industry? Because I'm not going to go along with that (I will defect, every step of the way, if people try to push me into that arrangement).

And if you don't unionize all of tech, then programmers from outside the industry will be able to compete for those jobs.

That's why I think we are better off focusing our efforts across our entire society. Minimum Wages, Leave Entitlements, Superannuation, Medicare.

I don't think game developers need to be paid more than somebody working in the supermarket or digging a trench.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com