Isn't that slightly different and more because the film industry is unusual in that it has adapted around the unionised environment? Stars would have joined the union early in their career for the protection, but late on its minimal expense for sake of keeping the cogs of production turning. I'm no expert, but I imagine there are various on-set insurances which require actors to be a member of union, etc. It's not quite the same as a VP of a tech company joining a union.

Seems pretty much the same to me. Junior devs have to work their way up, senior devs already make big bucks and don't really "need" the union anymore.

There's a hypothesis for why it's different and a potential example of how it's different in my comment. Interested to develop the comparison further, but your response ignores the content of mine and just repeats the grandparent.

>> The more leverage you have as an individual, the less relevant a union is for you.

> If this was true, why are the highest paid and in-demand stars and directors in Hollywood all still dues paying members of their unions?

I am trying to parse these two statements and here is my thought. Being a union member can never hurt as long as dues are reasonable. You can always negotiate a better deal but at least you will get a baseline and really if acting is your career, you probably care about more than just total compensation.

Here is what I found on Google:

> To join SAG, a performer must pay an initiation fee plus the first semi-annual basic dues. The national initiation fee rate is currently $3,000 (initiation fees may be lower in some areas). Annual base dues are $201.96. In addition, work dues are calculated at 1.575 percent of covered earnings up to $500,000..

I don't know if this is up to date but assuming it is, 500000*1.575/100 + 201.96 is just over eight thousand dollars a year. Even at USD 10k a year, I think it is a good deal. If I were a highly paid on-screen talent, I would not want to stir a storm in a teacup over USD 10k if I was making over USD 500k a year. It simply wouldn't be worth my time.

Probably because California is NOT a right-to-work state, and all studios that matter have agreements with all the unions (guilds) that make their productions union-only jobs. So, even if you are Tom Cruise, Dwayne Johnson, or Scarlett Johansson, you have to join the union in order to get work.

* Yes, there are small studios and some other ways of avoiding this if you only want to film in certain states, but if you want to earn the big bucks, you have to join the union.

The union helped them on their way up, and they are grateful, even though strictly speaking they no longer need the union.

Not to mention that SAG’s dues are quite regressive, only being applied to the first $500K in earnings, so being highly-paid doesn’t cost them anything additional.

Unions still help movie stars negotiate deals.