It seems there still two important points that can't yet be answered:
1) In order for a Union to be truly effective in improving conditions and pay for their members, the Employers have to agree to include the Union in negotiations. Furthermore they also have to agree not to employ people outside of the Union (so much for the Land of the Free). I don't see that it is in the interest of most Employers to do this. Sure, the big studios won't care, because in all probability they would be paying well over the minimum rates anyway. However, for those lower down the scale, there is no incentive for any Employer to recognise the Union.
2) It's all very well saying that Union members can take non-union gigs, but how does that help the profession? If the Employers know that they can still get whoever they want, and pay them as little as they like, because it doesn't matter whether or not they are in the Union, nothing has changed. the only way things could possibly change, would be if non-Union composers weren't allowed to take non-union jobs. However, we all know that the Employers would just get someone else.
IMO the big problem in the "bad pay and conditions" situation for composers is absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there is no Union. It's the fact that there are too many "composers", many with no talent and even less skills, flooding the market. that would be fine, except for the fact that most clients can't tell good from bad, and it's the last point that is killing the profession.
D
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Daryl
Bookmarks