Just look at the amount of sincerely antisocial comments that boil down to effectively what I wrote above

It’s disappointing but not surprising

Yes, unsurprisingly I've had these exact sorts of conversations at work (gamesdev).

Some of these people truly, truly believe that they are so gifted and so talented that the work opportunities will simply never dry up.

If work opportunities dry up, how the union would help? Unions don't create work opportunities, they only can redistribute who gets the ones that are still there - e.g. by excluding nonmembers or by mandating that less senior members will be fired first, etc. Given that, why "these people" would be sure they aren't ones who'd get the short straw?

I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make, had LeBron James and Tom Cruise made a choice to join a union? Was the not joining an option for either of them? From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member. From what I can imagine each of them would do much better w/o being a union member if they are as good as you described them.

>had LeBron James and Tom Cruise made a choice to join a union?

Yes

>Was the not joining an option for either of them?

Yes

> From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member.

That isn't true. It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA, but some people decide to not join or leave the union. Jon Voight is the most famous example that comes to mind. He continues to work despite quitting SAG-AFTRA. It is also more common for actors who live in cities where non-union productions are more common (outside of LA and NYC).

>It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA

Can you expand on this, what is "harder" exactly? They don't enjoy the benefits of the union or they cannot get high paying roles? Also, are you implying Jon Voight is not a SAG member, if so, I'd like to see your sources because from what I can find he is a member while being in dispute with it (also shows how great the unions are).

And as far as NBA goes, not being a member is irrelevant as you are still paying dues and obey union regulations, fun fact I've found looking for this: Michael Jordan was not a member of the union and does seem to do better than LeBron James, e.g. there are those "Jordan" shoes which seem to do much stronger than "LeBrons".

The unions have power in the industry and they work to maintain that power. That includes trying to establish rules making it difficult for union members to work non-union gigs and vice versa. This gives incentives for studios to make their productions union jobs which strengthens the union.

An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work because people generally don't want to deal with these headaches. However, actors can certainly have careers without being in the union. This is easier in places like Chicago or Atlanta were there is still a decent amount movie/TV production, but a lower percentage of the work is union work.

Jon Voight is a "fees-paying non-member". He is not part of the union. He has to pay dues whenever he wants to work union jobs.[1] Same as your NBA example.

I think you are mistaken about Michael Jordan. He opted out of union's shared licensing agreement[2] which is just one of the many benefits of the union. Have you found something that says he completely left the union?

[1] - https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/voight-gets-nom-i...

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/01/sports/sports-of-the-time...

>An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work

This does not make membership an option, does it then? This is exactly the reason programmers like myself oppose the unions. Bringing up SAG in this context seems to be counter-productive to me but you can do that if you think this increases union's support somehow.

So I was wrong on the Jordan's membership, then who was playing in NBA without being a member if you say it's possible?

>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.

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.

>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.

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...

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.

This response is thoughtful, but I'm not sure why you're bothering. The other guy is playing the lazy "just asking questions" game.

LeBron James is also underpaid, at least his NBA salary. That's why he chose his team based on whatever would be best for his "brand" so he could make real money.

He has the third highest annualized salary in the league, at $47.6 million. Curry is the highest paid at $52. Durant is second at $47.65.

He's definitely been underpaid in the past, but I'm not seeing it in his current contract.

> LeBron James is also underpaid, at least his NBA salary.

By what logic?

The NBA has a cap on how much each player can make (around $50M this year). Lebron could be, say, worth $100M/yr, yet they can't be paid this. I'm guessing that there are around a dozen players in the league worth more than the max salary.

$50M is not underpaid for any profession, that sounds like a sizeable salary regardless of what you do or the sacrifices you have to make.

It's "underpaid" in the sense of like, if teams would pay him more in the absence of the salary cap, which the other posters kindly reminded me of, then his "true" salary is higher than his current.

NBA has maximum contract sizes in its CBA. James (and many others) get the max contract allowed, which is why the best players choose teams for reasons other than money.

Ah, salary cap, forgot about those.

The comment you replied to was only two sentences, one of which described “by what logic?”

Do they have a choice? I mean, can you work jn the industry and not be member of the union and not strike? Would you have trouble getting hired if you chose not to be a member?