I've been thinking on unions and strikes lately. This idiotic Hollywood writers' strike looming on the horizon sealed the deal on this post. Some conclusions:
Unions imply weakness. Now, before you begin your speech on brotherhood, strength in numbers, securing rights for the oppressed, and so forth, stop and think for a moment. Who forms unions? (Hint: Usually unskilled workers who could be replaced by someone off the street in about two seconds with very little loss in productivity.) Why do they do so? (Hint: Because, as unskilled workers, they'd rather not rely on their merits as a producer alone when searching for a new job.)
Joining a union gives the impression—to someone like myself, at least—that the members consider themselves exploitable, easy prey, aware of their own weaknesses as potential employees in a demanding job market. (They seem blissfully unaware that one creates her own potential.) As such, each member would rather shut down her entire profession than actually work to improve her skills and seek better opportunities.
Strikes are ineffective. I don't know what these Hollywood writers are thinking. Have you seen television lately? If not, please let me assure you, it is of very poor quality. These scripts could have been (and, in fact, may have been) written by high school dropouts. Within a free market, striking only works when that which is being denied is of high quality and, therefore, a necessity. If your product is shit, why would The Brass be concerned in the slightest?
If I were a Hollywood exec, I'd tell all these writers to rot and start scouting for new employees at the Santa Monica Pier—there's undoubtedly just as much "talent" floating around similar spots across the entire Los Angeles area. (Of course, Hollywood studios would undoubted cease production, rather than replace striking workers. Another tendency of The Brass I've never understood. Ronald Reagan knew how to deal with this kind of childishness.)
Consider the replacement worker who is beaten as he attempts to work and feed his family. The manager whose car is flipped in the parking lot. The company building burned to the ground by Hoffa and his ilk. Why do so many strikes resort to violence, especially when the remainder of society attempts business-as-usual? The simple truth is, once one realizes he has nothing of value to offer, the only way to gain what he wants is through intimidation and force. This further demeans the blue collar worker in the eyes of society: not only does he have no skills, but he's a violent brute. Probably drunk, too.
Professionals know best. Professionals don't form unions. When they are upset about something, they don't close down the entire profession in an attempt to get what they desire. This is because those in the classical professions—lawyers, doctors, architects, etc.—understand they offer a valuable commodity. Instead of throwing a collective hissy-fit, they simply seek out others who are willing to pay for their services.
Workers have other recourses to striking, despite what all good progressives will tell you. For example, they might quit their (apparently terrible, if they're going to all the trouble of striking) job, improve their skills, and seek employment elsewhere. Better yet, one or more could establish a competing business in what might be a more risky, but potentially much more lucrative, option.
A great writer wouldn't need a union. She'd create her text, then sell it to the highest bidder. They'd all be begging her for it, and wouldn't the tables have turned? Instead of hovering underfoot, hoping for scraps in exchange for the no-talent schlock she'd crank out, she would dictate terms and name her own price. Which option seems best to you?
0 comments:
Post a Comment