I'm not going to get into a debate over unions, not in this thread, not in any other. But this logic is a bit silly. If we're going to commend the financial risk-taker for being shrewd, we should also commend the shrewd artisan that knows where his or her leverage is. Unions work when they maximize all their leverage. Holding union benefits over the head of would-be line-crossers is good business. I don't know how else one could view it, especially in the high-end entertainment industry where "making a living" is defined most elsewhere as "making a killing."
And I'm not suggesting anyone is doing that here. In fact, it was delivered as a concerned warning, not as an inciting threat.
Writers are some of the most underpaid talent in the industry compared to their bountiful creative contribution to a multi-billion dollar industry. The number of big earners is small, and most everyone who did make it to the semi-good life of syndication and big development deals ate garbage before they got there. I know more than a few. I was not willing to take the risks they did as young people to get where they are now. Now, a few them are head-scratchers -- I write better stuff in an e-mail to my wife than they do for their big-dollar projects -- but I won't deny they worked their butts off to get where they are.
So when I suggest I'm considering taking advantage of an available opportunity, I don't do it without the understanding that I never paid the dues the union writers did. Capitalizing on it ... causes me to take a pregnant, ethical pause.
