[slg]

>This does not make membership an option, does it then?

Yes it does. You are just redefining the meaning of "choice" now. There is always going to be pros and cons to any choice including this one. What do you want the non-union membership to look like? There are obviously going to be downsides to not joining the union or else there would be no reason to join the union and if there was no reason to join the union, it wouldn't exist.

[smsm42]

There can be different kinds of downsides. Not getting union pension plan is one kind of downside, not being able to get hired because union contract mandates preference to union members - another. Which kind are we dealing with here? If the second one then membership is practically a requirement to non-marginal employment, unless you're a superstar that can choose their own projects and doesn't need any security or continued employment.

[pandaman]

Well, you said it's not true that you can play in Hollywood and NBA w/o being a union member. Apparently either it's true (even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations) or there is no choice, up to you.

[slg]

>even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations

I already provided a link that proved this wrong. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but that other commenter is right, you aren't engaging in this conversation in good faith.

[pandaman]

Same here, you came out and claimed there is no forced membership in NBA and SAG, which I took in good faith and did some research. It appears that no, you really cannot play in NBA or Hollywood without being a member in some sense (paying dues, obeying regulations but not having the right to vote). Now you are trying to present this as if union is completely voluntarily and not being a member having grave consequences is just some coincidence and my bad faith...