There isn't any. The Screen Actors Guild is a union that merged with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists union to make what the grandparent comment is likely referring to as the "actor's guild". They are a traditional labor union and member of the AFL-CIO. They are also seemingly poised to go on strike at the end of next month.
Often times when someone criticizes the idea of unions, it is because they don't fully understand their purpose, flexibility, and flaws. For example, that comment could imply that unions somehow cap payments and benefits, but that isn't some universal truth of unions (that person also could just be using guild as a synonym for union, but that isn't necessarily true and it doesn't appear to be how they're using it). Unions negotiate on behalf of their members. If the union members don't want caps on compensation, the union can negotiate for no caps.
And it may be worth noting that "aspiring actor" is probably not considered the epitome of someone on a guaranteed safe and lucrative career path. But it does guarantee that if they can land a job, they're going to get paid scale (~$1k/day I believe).
The film and television unions are a tough nut to crack. On the west coast, that's almost all there is and if you're working you will be in the union easy. Unless you do youtube/streaming content and most of that is non-union.
On the east coast, you're going to be working probably for 10 years before you can get into your union and it's an uphill struggle the whole way.
And union or not, you're only going to get work if people like working with you. One day with a bad attitude and you can find yourself unable to get hired by anyone. Film and TV is long hours and a stressful environment and nobody wants to work with anyone who makes the day harder.
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.
>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.
Amazon is preventing the union from organizing. The larger union is not preventing another union from organizing, it is just saying you can't create a rival union while staying a member of another union. People are still free to create a smaller union, they just need to leave the big union.
The smaller union can negotiate with Amazon, the Hollywood studios, or whoever else. The bigger union is also free to negotiate on behalf of its members and get Amazon, the Hollywood studios, or whoever to not work with the smaller union. That is just a negotiation. The group with the more power will get a better deal. That is the whole point of a union. A smaller union has less power and therefore will inherently be less successful than a big union.
Unions often work to solidify power because that results in better deals for its members. That will include both mergers like the previously mentioned SAG-AFTRA merger and this type of behavior to squash rival unions. It all depends on what its members think is the best strategy.
>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 just don't understand why this is a flaw. What value do you think this second smaller union will bring to its members that the bigger union can't? If the smaller union wants its own seat at the negotiation table, then it no longer acting as part of the bigger union anyway in which case there is no restriction on the second union being created (unless the big union negotiates for this exclusivity which is within their rights).
Often times when someone criticizes the idea of unions, it is because they don't fully understand their purpose, flexibility, and flaws. For example, that comment could imply that unions somehow cap payments and benefits, but that isn't some universal truth of unions (that person also could just be using guild as a synonym for union, but that isn't necessarily true and it doesn't appear to be how they're using it). Unions negotiate on behalf of their members. If the union members don't want caps on compensation, the union can negotiate for no caps.