Is it realistically possible to be a actor or screen writer without joining this union? If not, then isn't the union itself a monopoly and a form of tyranny?
What if a group of distributed "mainstream" (not sure the right term?) writers are unhappy with the rules of their employment, including the rules of their union. Are they able to organize and collectively bargain with both their employers and their union? In other words, when it comes to these large unions that dominate an industry, are sub-groups within that union able to organize and collectively bargain, forming a sub-union of sorts? My understanding is that large unions make it harder for people within the union to organize and collectively bargain, which is, of course, quite ironic.
Unions are democratic entities. A subgroup in that union would need to either directly lobby union leadership or convince their peers. This can include running for union leadership positions themselves.
It works just like democracy does at larger scales. I can't just declare my property its own new state with me as governor just because I don't like the political opinions of the state's leadership. I can however leave that state or leave the country entirely just like a person can leave the union. However, there are obvious repercussions for that decision.
Exactly. I was criticized for using the word tyranny; a union is capable of tyranny to the same extent a democratic government is. Everyone can judge for themselves to what that extent is.
You say a small group can't just form their own country, or in this case, they cannot just form their own union, but they actually could if only the mega-union did not already exist. Thus, my claim that large unions prevent small groups from organizing and collectively bargaining is true. The small group could form their own union if the large union hadn't removed their ability to do so. I feel about large unions the same way I feel about any large group that prevents small groups from organizing.
>You say a small group can't just form their own country, or in this case, they cannot just form their own union, but they actually could if only the mega-union did not already exist. Thus, my claim that large unions prevent small groups from organizing and collectively bargaining is true. The small group could form their own union if the large union hadn't removed their ability to do so.
The small group can form their own union. They just won't be a part of the big union anymore. Like I said, they need to leave the union/state/country.
I don't understand what argument you are really making here. Even within your hypothetical small group, there can be an even smaller group. You effectively are arguing against any type of collective because there will always be some people who disagree.
> The small group can form their own union. They just won't be a part of the big union anymore. Like I said, they need to leave the union/state/country.
How is this different than, let's say, Amazon telling a group, "that's fine if you want to organize, but you'll have to find another company to do it at" and then firing the group. I believe it is illegal for a company to prevent a group from organizing, but apparently it is legal for a union to prevent a group from organizing.
I'm not sure what the solution is, I'm not that knowledgeable about unions beyond recognizing that people within a union lose their ability to form a union (because they're already in a union). I also recognize that once a union is large enough, sub-groups within that union might want to organize independently, but they cannot. Probably what I would argue for is making exclusive contracts with unions illegal.
Tyranny is a pretty hefty word for "can't get a particular job without agreeing to the rules of the employer"