Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unions work

werd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–237 of 237 posts

Re: Unions work

#231

Post by thebradbain »

mcv wrote: post #199
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WGA as a co-op obviously wouldn't make sense. The studio itself is what should ideally be a co-op.

Or the WGA should start creating their own movies, of course.

As someone close to the industry, this was an interesting thing to think about -- but without some other, huge structural changes to the industry, it won't really happen.

1) Distribution is where studios' value-add really comes through: they're the ones who have contracts with the big theater chains (or, in the case of tv, often own the networks+streaming services) and are in control of the dates/weekends/IMAX exclusivities/etc.

2) Financing - Movies and TV are _expensive_. It's not just the high-profile actors or marketing budgets – indeed, many high-profile actors will take huge pay-cuts to work on passion projects – but, if you were to take away those costs, and for sake of argument let's say that everyone acting/shooting/editing the movie is working for free, there's still huge capital expenses to be outlaid: location fees, permit fees, cameras (even a single indie-film camera can be upwards of $50k), sets + construction, props, editing+vfx software, food, transport, clothing, makeup, logistics and infrastructure including things as fundamental as electricity and plumbing if you're filming anywhere that's not a backlot... It takes a huge capital upfront outlay to make a movie or tv show that looks anything like what we're used to seeing on tv and movie screens. Studios can (a) provide the upfront cash and deal structure such that financing the productions is feasible in the first place (b) re-use and cost-optimize everything from sets/space/cameras/software/support-staff across productions where it makes sense, so a show or movie isn't having to re-invent everything from the ground up each time.

The closest right now the WGA or SAG can possibly be to "creating their own movies" is working with an indie studio, like A24 or NEON, who are still very much studios, but often with a more "can-do" and "per-production" approach. These studios also settled with WGA and SAG very soon after the strikes began, and were granted strike waivers so they could continue production, while the Disneys and Netflixes were picketed.

In short, unlike software engineers where a single dedicated engineer can pretty much create an app or business mvp in a weekend, writers and actors deal with the constraints of the real-world.

Re: Unions work

#232

Post by lamontcg »

sershe wrote: post #229
lamontcg wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is almost incoherently delusional.

I strive to make my responses ALMOST incoherently delusional, as opposed to the ones such as yours that has literally zero value.

The article has fallen off HN so there's no point in making any effort, and its about to fall off my comment page, so I'll never bother thinking about this exchange again. Welcome to shouting into the void.

Re: Unions work

#233

Post by sershe »

lamontcg wrote: post #232
sershe wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strive to make my responses ALMOST incoherently delusional, as opposed to the ones such as yours that has literally zero value.

The article has fallen off HN so there's no point in making any effort, and its about to fall off my comment page, so I'll never bother thinking about this exchange again. Welcome to shouting into the void.

Ok, then I can write anything here with the same amount of effort...

You choose a really roundabout way to admit that your pro-union position has zero justification! Reminds me of arguing with young earth creationists when I was a teenager ;)

Re: Unions work

#234

Post by timbit42 »

umrcumrcu4 wrote: post #64
timbit42 wrote: post #4

They do but an even better option is worker cooperatives which bring democracy and fair profit sharing to the workplace.

How do you define "fair profit sharing" and what are the owners' "fair share" in your definition?

To start, every worker is an owner in a worker cooperative. Mondragon requires a financial investment in the cooperative upon hiring. A fair share would be based on the size of each worker's investment in the company. How it is regulated is set by each cooperative so there is no real answer to your question.

Re: Unions work

#235

Post by knewter »

pydry wrote: post #148
knewter wrote: post #128

When I was learning to walk, my dad was installing conveyors for an automotive factory - he was vp of engineering (later robotics) for a large engineering firm that Siemens ultimately bought. He was trying to get the job finished and get home to his family, so he was working late one night double checking the fit on all the nuts, bolts, anything he could check to ensure the job was successful. He did this all the tim…

There's a long and storied history of anti union violence that is far, far worse than what your dad suffered: For instance, when a company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain >By August 29 the battle was fully underway. Chafin's men, though outnumbered, had the advantage of higher positions and better weaponry. Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of poison…

Yeah I meant I wouldn't side with anyone that thinks it's acceptable to do what they did to my dad. I still mean that. Showing me some other examples does nothing, and modern unions largely think more of what happened to my dad should happen.

Re: Unions work

#236

Post by phone8675309 »

adamrezich wrote: post #218
heavyset_go wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not either or. You can be paid for labor, get equity and profit sharing at the same time.

what possible incentive would the owner of a company have to give workers equity/profit sharing while keeping all of the risk for himself?

The owner isn't keeping ALL the risk - the employees risk the company going out of business under them if the owner fails even if they have no direct control over how the business is run.

If we're going to acknowledge risk (and we should), then we need to acknowledge that risk as well.

Re: Unions work

#237

Post by adamrezich »

phone8675309 wrote: post #236
adamrezich wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what possible incentive would the owner of a company have to give workers equity/profit sharing while keeping all of the risk for himself?

The owner isn't keeping ALL the risk - the employees risk the company going out of business under them if the owner fails even if they have no direct control over how the business is run. If we're going to acknowledge risk (and we should), then we need to acknowledge that risk as well.

nonsense. when you accept a job at a company, the only "risk" you're taking is that said company will go under at some point in the indeterminate future, for reasons outside your control. if that happens, you file for unemployment benefits if need be, and find a new job—you're not putting any work into the company that's not directly reimbursed by your paycheck and benefits. this is completely and fundamentally unlike risking your own capital to start a new business. the two aren't even remotely comparable. if you think they are, then, once again: why are there so few co-ops, and even fewer started from unions? it's almost as though astoundingly few people want to take actual risks, as opposed to working a job for a paycheck and benefits.
Post reply on HN