Peter Jackson vs. The Unions

So my good friends, the labor unions, have decided to pick a fight with Peter Jackson and his upcoming production of “The Hobbit.” Of course, they are not my good friends, I say that sarcastically. Unions in general are bad news these days. The idea of “protecting the worker” has somehow morphed like a T-1000 into huge, multi-billion dollar corporations that stifle economic growth while using illegal methods of coercion to blackmail money from employers. The fact that they are a de facto wing of the Democratic Party also compels me to deny their friend requests on Facebook.

The entertainment industry guilds are particularly pernicious. They have singlehandedly forced film production out of California, and now, ultimately, out of the country. Their bullying knows no bounds. They are quick with a nasty press release (as in the case of “The Hobbit”) but have no qualms about making threats to commit illegal actions to get what they want. One of Mr. Jackson’s studios burned to the ground shortly after the release of his retaliatory statements. Far be it from me to suggest arson. And no, this isn’t somebody repeating hearsay or parroting talking points. This is from someone who has had union organizers say, with a straight face, that physical violence and vandalism are not out of the question. I’ve lived to tell the tale because in some cases I’ve responded with a steely “bring it” and in other cases, I’ve made compromises or concessions that I could live with. In the cases where I told them to pound sand, I won. In the cases where I paid them off, they’ve won. In no case, however, have the actual workers won. In every instance, their conditions haven’t changed one iota. Perhaps they made an extra $5 a day, but the euphoria of extra money for a Happy Meal was quickly replaced by the misery of union dues, rules, and the inability to take work when the desperately need it. To make matters worse, the holy grail of “health care” is often out of reach for new members and the qualifications for full coverage are extremely onerous. Ultimately, the entertainment unions fail to do what is their mission: to protect the careers and working conditions of their members.

Talent unions made sense in the days of the studio system. At that point, talent was signed to long, studio favorable contracts. That’s how business was done. If an actress didn’t like being a chorus girl, too bad. She had a contract. If an actor got good reviews or he/she started building a fan base, too bad. The money and the conditions stayed the same. The Screen Actors Guild was created to help the actors negotiate with the studios. Because of the studio system, the guy playing the bartender was paid the same as the guy playing the heavy. SAG standardized these amounts, as well as insured that the working conditions were safe and fair. Not a bad idea, really.

The days of the “studio system” are long gone. And with them, the need for a union. No actor who translates into any sort of financial upside is ever paid “scale” unless it is a passion project. Similarly, it’s not like we call SAG when we want to book a “no name” actor who has a lot of talent. Talented actors usually have both agents and managers who carefully navigate and control their client’s careers (often to their detriment, but I’ll rip on agents and managers at a later date). Scale wages are usually a starting point for the negotiations, not an instant agreed upon, “contracted” amount. Why? Because talented people have a value IN THE FREE MARKET. Actors, directors, writers, cinematographers, special effects artists, etc., who are worth their salt can usually pick and choose their projects. If someone is at the point in their career where they feel that 18 hour days with no breakfast and no gas money for $100 is beneath them, they are free to not accept the job. Gasp! Free will and a free market? Where do I think I am? America?

If the unions were really effective and concerned with the careers of their members, there are a million things that they could do to help them. SAG could force signatory producers to submit audition rosters to insure that more of their members get a chance to be seen. They could limit the number of actors on a specific project that come from a particular agency to avoid “packaging,” which would give more members a chance, limit nepotism, and support the truly talented instead of the well connected. They could offer free classes in acting on film for their members to insure that we producers were getting better trained “professionals,” giving us more incentive to “go union.”

But those ideas, actually using the power of the union to help careers and allow the entire industry to make better quality films, do not help the union with their primary goal: to make money for themselves.

Union talking points fit nicely into the predisposed leftist bent of the Hollywood culture. Neophyte producers see union shows as a mark of status. Young crew people and actors see union membership as a worthy goal. Both groups get a rude awakening when the entire dynamic of their production and their very careers are dictated by a far away bureaucracy.

Nobody wants to really talk about the greed, corruption, and illegal activities of the union when we can sip our lattes and gripe about the evil studio executives and producers. After all, the union is there for the “little guy,” insuring “safety,” “fair” wages, and “health care.” Let’s ignore the fact that the head of SAG makes nearly a half million dollars per year while the average actor makes less than forty thousand. Let’s look the other way as less than half of the residuals collected on behalf of SAG members actually make it into the actors’ pockets. And I must be some greedy, studio hack who cares nothing about quality or fairness to point out that SAG’s investments, executive compensation, and administrative expenses are three times the amount they spend on servicing their health care plan.

No, damn you greedy Peter Jackson, and your $100 million budget!!!!