The SAG AFTRA Game Strike is of concern to many. In this blog I detail my thoughts, let me know yours.
Voice Actor Strike: SAG Aftra Game Strike
I recently read Will Wheaton’s blog on why he supports the idea of a strike of actors by SAG AFTRA against the gaming industry in the USA. It was enlightening and well written, and actually made some very interesting points from the actor’s viewpoint – but I’m afraid I disagree that there should be a strike in the USA.
Why Do You Care What I Have To Say?
Voice Actor Strike – A Voice Directors Perspective
First, for those of you who don’t know me (I’m not as famous as Will) I should give you some background on myself, and why I feel entitled to have this opinion. I’m a voice director and casting director, and I own and run the company High Score Productions Ltd, which is an audio outsourcing company in the UK specialising in game dialogue. In total I’ve run around 150 game projects, including the casting, voice-direction, post-production and QA and for some great titles, such as Harry Potter for Kinect for example. I’ve worked for many companies from the large (Sega, EA, Square Enix etc) to small and obviously have worked with thousands of actors in the last 12 years since we formed the company.
UK State of Play
In the UK, there is a trade body called TIGA which represents the gaming industry, and an actor’s union called Equity (who I’m sure are also following this with interest!) What’s important to note is that both are not mandatory for either party, actors or gaming companies – it’s your decision as to whether to join them, and they make recommendations, not rules. Equity for example, specify that the rate for gaming actors must be a minimum of £170 for a 4-hour gig – which is pretty low (Correct as of 2012, may have changed!)
In the US jobs are either union or non-union – in the UK, jobs are just jobs and if you happen to be a member of Equity or Tiga, that’s fine, but they are defined by the job, not by whether it’s a union job or not.
In the UK we do talk to our agents, have them sign NDA’s and then give them and the actors as much information as possible, as it helps both sides – of course we don’t tell the actors what the job is until they’ve been successfully cast, but then that stands to reason – there’s no need to give the game away to the 250 people we have apply for each role. NDA’s are fine, they suffice and that is their purpose.
In the UK, we do have stuntmen in our Motion Capture jobs, and insurance for our actors (by law).
In the UK we do not pay actors residuals, we pay them royalty buyouts based on the amount they are paid. Most of the time (all companies have different pricing systems) this equates to circa 50% of the actor’s hourly rate. Typical pay for a UK gaming actor is between £150 and £250 ph ($250-$400) based on experience and status, although famous names command a much higher price, but it’s also based on the status of the game, e.g. an AAA title has more budget than an A title. On average then the actor gets circa £200 plus £100 buyout so a 10 hour game will net them circa £3k ($4500).
As a voice director I always put the shouty lines (call-out’s as they’re apparently called in the US) at the end of the session, or in a separate session, and NSV’s (non-scripted vocals which are notoriously stressful physically for the artist) are also separated out by default. This is because the VO artist does have to protect the voice and be able to work again – voices come to me after work, and they go to different clients after working with me…what goes around comes around, and if you razor an actor’s voice and then send them on, you can only expect actors to come back to you with poor voices.
Shut Up About the UK!! This is a USA Issue!
Ok, ok. In actual fact though that statement is completely correct for the reasons I’ve outlined above. This is a USA issue and I’d hazard a guess that most gaming actors in the UK don’t have the same issues that are being listed as reasons for the strike by SAG AFTRA.
Voice Actor Strike: What I Agree With
It’s important to note that I completely agree with SAG AFTRA and Will that these things are basic rights of actors and that all gaming actors should have appropriate pay, safe working conditions, access to information about what the production is about (once casting complete) and so on. It’s like this in the UK, and I’m genuinely surprised that they aren’t in the USA. So as a fundamental, I agree with the motions behind the action.
What I disagree with is the voice actor strike itself.
You Agree With the Issues, But Not The Strike?!
That’s right. Here’s why:
Firstly, the gaming sector is made up of thousands of companies, not just the big 5 that get all the press (EA, Activision etc). Each company is a private investment with different ideas and ideologies. Some of these companies are well funded, some are not, but all release games in the same way. Whilst it may have been appropriate for the writers strike in 2007 to strike against multinational corporations, the gaming industry is not the same – it’s highly-fragmented and in the main made up of huge numbers of small companies who all release individual titles. The Rockstar’s of this world are few and far between, and responsible for only a tiny proportion of the games released.
Small companies are often self-funded, or have private investment and do not have huge capital reserves in most cases. Take Rovio for example who did Angry Birds – a runaway global success you may say, but before you do, consider the 40 or so other games that came before it, that no-one has ever heard of that the company didn’t make millions from. Game dev is a highly competitive environment and it’s more like a crowd of companies than a few huge ones.
To say then that SAG AFTRA has spoken to the industry but that they ‘refuse’ to speak to SAG AFTRA is just plain rubbish. The reality is that there are way too many companies for this kind of thing to happen – and why should Electronic Arts for example speak to SAG AFTRA and impose rules and regulations for different companies who are not affiliated in any way? That’s just as unfair.
The issue is that a strike like this will be the downfall of many small indie’s resulting in their closure as deadlines are not met and project’s stall. We saw it during the recession, where previously stable companies (and remember, real people work for these companies with mortgages to pay and families to feed) fell quickly – the gaming industry is a relatively unstable one in many areas.
Once the companies fail they don’t come back as we’ve seen from history, and if the companies go, there will be less of the games for actors to work on in the first place.
It’s Not The Game Companies Fault!
Secondly, what’s not taken into consideration in this equation is that (aside from the larger companies) most game developers use companies like mine to outsource their audio to – sometimes the music, sometimes the dialogue, sometimes the sound design. The game company contracts the audio outsourcer, agrees a budget and then it’s the audio outsourcer who runs the project, casts the game, directs the sessions, does the post-production on the files and then the QA before delivering the files to the developer. The game dev doesn’t pay the voices, nor write the contracts, nor agree the fees.
The implication of this is that the wrong people (i.e., the game dev’s) are being targeted by the strike, but that this is also going to affect us in some cases, which means that again, SAG AFTRA haven’t spoken to the right people, and because of this extra layer, their proposals are even harder to police. This also means that, because the outsourcers haven’t been involved in the discussions, and because the contracts are not held with the game companies but with the outsourcers, that the strike is likely to go on far longer than necessary.
Even worse than this, the game developers are actually in the middle. It goes something like this: Game Publishers > Game Developers > Audio Outsourcers > Agents > Voice Actors. That’s 3 levels of companies on ‘our side of the glass’. In the UK the trade organisation TIGA who represent the gaming industry as a collective make recommendations, but it’s not mandatory to obey their recommendations – they are recommendations.
In light of all that – just who is this SAG AFTRA Game Strike aimed at? Is it all of us? Is it just the gaming companies – because this is an ambiguous notion. Add up all those companies involved and you’re talking about tens of thousands of individual companies, none of whom have the right to speak for how the whole industry works, and who are all individual cogs.
The Symbiotic Nature
Thirdly, it’s important to note (ignoring all the idiots who don’t recognise games as an art-form in their own right) that the relationship between game publishers, game developers, audio outsourcers, voice agents and voice artists is completely symbiotic. We all need each other, we all work together and we all (usually) work together in harmony.
Striking like this presents an ‘us and them’ position and breaks that feeling of everyone working towards the same goal. Are the changes needed? Yes as I’ve already stated, but this is the wrong way to go about it and will create divides – there is a better way to solve this, which I’m building up to later, which avoids this unnecessary, destructive step. It avoids the unnecessary conversations that have to happen, and the bad feeling that will come with it.
SAG AFTRA Game Strike – Where’s There’s a Will, There’s a Way
Fourthly, the capitalist’s nature. (BTW, terrible pun based on mr Wheaton I know, but there is truth to this statement). There was a market for taxi’s, and Uber filled the gap. There was a market for renting out accommodation and AirBnB filled the gap. The private, capitalist sector will always find a way to solve problems, including its own.
The gaming industry is no different, and the SAG AFTRA Game Strike will simply produce non-union jobs, and if the companies don’t fold, will find people to voice the games who will be willing to work, be that from different countries (such as the UK) or different talent pools. The voiceover world has exploded in the last few years and there are fantastic emerging voices who aren’t yet even with agents who would be happy to do the work.
I’m not using this as a threat, just as an illustration of the reality of the situation – the industry will find a way round the SAG AFTRA Game Strike.
This SAG AFTRA Game Strike is a bad thing for the game companies, but it’s also a bad thing for Sag Aftra’s actors who are going to unnecessarily miss out on work – and you know what happens when a company finds a resource they’re happy with? They stay with them. The majority of successful games on the marketplace are iterative in that after a game gets a foothold, V2 will be released, then V3 and so on and the actors that miss out on the nice roles during the SAG AFTRA Game Strike will have missed out on them for good.
The Nature of the Beast
Next I want to talk about the much-discussed Call-Outs, or shouting. Yes there is a lot of shouting in gaming – no where near as much as people say, but yes there is a lot of it. Should we deal with it appropriately? Of course we should and here we do – we segment high-tension lines as is being suggested.
There are also techniques which can be used such as the “illusory shouting technique” pioneered by my business partner Peter Dickson (see our voiceover for gaming course for more info) which drastically reduce this strain on the voice and which all professionals should learn.
However the issue of being tired (as per Will’s blog) from working for 4 hours on non-shouted material where the director asks for more takes, and more repeats (either because he/she isn’t happy with the performance or has a genuine requirement for Alt-takes to try and combat in-game-repetition) is simply the nature of the beast. I was quite disappointed to read this from Will as he is using the general nature of a game recording session to illustrate having your voice ripped apart, which just isn’t the case.
Gary Oldman famously said to Jonathan Ross (UK talk show host) that gaming was the most tiring aspect of his acting career, and he’s absolutely right – it can be very draining at times, but that’s the nature of the beast, and if you don’t want to work in that environment, then that’s your choice as an actor. I wouldn’t dream of forcing you to run a marathon either – some people are suited to it and others are not. The gaming industry should not be forced to accept lesser performances than are required just because a VO isn’t physically fit enough to do the job.
And anyway – the vast majority of gaming dialogue sessions are not like this, and are standard dialogue between characters in the same way that films and television are – there are high-points of hard work, and then all the normal work that you would expect.
As a footnote to this point, it must be remembered that it’s up to the actor to ensure he/she is properly warmed up and is trained adequately as a professional VO. You can look after your voice if you know what you’re doing, if you’re properly hydrated, properly warmed up and instilled with techniques such as the illusory shouting technique. We do not expect to hire un-trained amateurs, we expect to hire professionals and as such it’s up to the actors to ensure they are professionals.
A Sticky Residual
Lastly I want to mention residuals. Game companies in the main are privately owned by a single individual, or a few individuals and some investors. It’s a capitalist society and it’s simply not going to happen. The game companies take all the risks and invest all the money – actors do not. They are paid for a job. The voice performances are incredibly important – don’t get me wrong – bad dialogue can ruin a game and great dialogue can truly enhance it. But so can the music, and so can the graphics, and so can the gameplay and so can the network connectivity and so on. All the aspects that go together to create a game are just as important as each other – it’s actually quite insulting, and not a little bit arrogant to think that your performances mean more to the game than the contribution by a graphical artist, or the musician.
Residuals (in the main, unless privately agreed) are not going to happen for VO’s. This is something that the voiceover industry just has to accept and deal with. No one gets them. VO’s are just as important as the artists and the programmers but they are not more important.
The real issue here is that it appears that the US VO’s are not paid appropriately – which (having seen some of the figures) I agree should not be the case.
So What’s the Solution?!
Believe it or not, I do have a solution and it’s a workable one. I also don’t think that it’s too late to call the SAG AFTRA Game Strike off in favour of this solution, which would be better for everyone.
By default, SAG AFTRA have got this process the wrong way round. They are inexplicably handing the power to the gaming industry by effectively saying “Talk to us so you can tell us what you will raise the pay to, and what you’re willing to do re: mo cap safety etc”. This is the wrong approach by 180 degrees.
Here’s what SAG AFTRA should do. They should consult with their members (the actors) and their agents and do some market research (including other territories such as the UK) and set a minimum wage threshold for members. Once this has been done it’s up to the agents to enforce it for their actors. If the minimum wage is $200ph, then you don’t work for less if you’re a union member. It’s simple.
Then they set a rule for performance royalty buyout’s if the gaming companies don’t want to pay royalties. For example, a minimum of 50% per hour up to a maximum of X% of the total payment would do the trick. The VO’s are then adequately compensated.
Then they form a rule saying that no union actor will partake in motion capture work where there is not adequate insurance, safety and stuntmen present. it’s really very simple – you don’t work if it’s not a safe environment.
Then they form a rule saying that no union actor will work for more than 2 hours doing call-outs. Simple. The agent agrees this with the hirer at the point of hire or doesn’t agree to put their actor into the production.
It’s not realistic for a game company to give out confidential project details to everyone, but with an NDA, and as soon as the voice has been cast, the agent should be told the name and project details so that the voice can make a decision. That’s how we do it here. In the same way as above, the agent simply refuses to let their actor onto the job, or even agree the job until this condition is satisfied. Easy.
To Summarize
SAG AFTRA could do all that and make a constructive difference for their members rather than creating a destructive, negative one which the strike will cause.
Just because 95% of their members voted for the SAG AFTRA Game Strike does not mean that the 95% were presented with another option to vote on, (i.e. my solution above) which I believe just as many actors would have voted for rather than down-tools.
So SAG AFTRA (and Will come to that if you’re listening) call off the SAG AFTRA Game Strike – put your (very necessary) measures in place, engage your actors and the agents in a constructive way and create a solution…
Take the power back and tell the gaming companies what your minimum standards are for gaming work, and stick by them: This SAG AFTRA Game Strike is wholly unnecessary and will do more harm than good.
I think the Contact on your High Score website is broken. I’ve tried to send a message twice now through that site and was re-directed to a broken link to “Toast Mt” when I hit Submit.
I’m a voice artist in southern california and audiobook narrator, and would like get into game voicing. I agree you’re solution makes a lot of sense. I do hope something like that can get put into effect here in US.
Hi Anna.
Thanks for your message. I’m glad you agree – it does seem to run a little more smoothly here. For more info on the gaming voice, head over to http://www.gravyforthebrain.com/us and we can help you there. 🙂
Hugh.
Thanks for a really enlightening opposite view point. I truly enjoyed reading it and like what you had to say.
Thanks Marc. 🙂
I enjoyed your article very much, Hugh. I’m on the sidelines here, since I don’t do gaming work myself. However, many of my colleagues do. I wish we could engage in a reasonable discussion of alternate solutions such as you have proposed. However, it seems to me that the union does everything possible to deepen the ‘divide’ between talent and producers. And the divide is a construct, because as you point out, we have a symbiotic relationship. We cannot exist one without the other.
Thanks for your thoughtful article.
Thanks Roxanne – here’s hoping eh. I also feel like SA is doing this to flex it’s muscles rather than find a diplomatic solution…..
It is my understanding, from reading Mr. Wheaton’s blog, that the vote was NOT a vote to strike. It was a vote to authorize sag aftra to strike as a last resort if negotiations fail. The union is not currently on strike.
Hi Jonathan. Yes that’s my understanding as well from the SAG AFTRA site (http://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-interactive-media-video-game-agreement-strike-authorization-results)
Hence the post – no one votes for strike authorization unless they’re happy to strike, and my blog is aimed at providing another way! 🙂
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for your well thought-out post. In theory all of your ideas and proposals make so much sense and as an agent for 35 years now, I’ve seen union strikes sometimes help and sometimes do much more harm than good. I certainly agree with you that keeping symbiosis as you described it is the better way to go about making a change.
But here’s my concern: if the union sets prices and rules, which it is designed to do, what’s to stop all those great non-union talent from scabbing the jobs that the union talent can’t take because they are union members? This is the age-old question and concern regarding demands that talent and unions make on producers. There always seems to be someone to undercut the fee and negotiate their own safety for a few bucks and a credit. I work with union and non-union talent and I don’t allow my talent to play that game, but there are many out there who do. How will it play out in the long run for union talent or even for those great non-union talent who are trying to make a living doing VO’s? Any thoughts?
Donna Summers
Managing Partner, VOplanet
Hello Donna.
Thanks for your post. I think the issue is with SAG AFTRA itself as a union. That may sound incredibly harsh, but it’s because we have a different system here that is (in effect) non-union for all jobs rather than the two-tier system you have there. I did touch upon this on the blog, but I’ll try and explain further:
In the UK the actor’s union Equity covers things that you would expect an actor’s union to cover, for example, insurance, taking up gripes with other employers, helping with legal aid where necessary, promotion of the trade and so on. It also provides recommendations for minimum wages, and lots of guidelines and assistance. It’s very useful for actors.
Before the 80’s, almost all actors were a member of Equity, and the holy grail was to get your Equity card, which re-enforced your status as an actor and was the club to be in. The BBC and most other organisations did all the jobs the same way as you do – union style. Then things changed and cut to present day, it’s no longer the case at all. The idea of a job being an Equity job, just simply isn’t heard of. (Actually you do hear that from time to time, but it’s for musicians who are paid at ‘Equity Minimum Rates’ in things like orchestral work. )
What this means is that we now have a self-regulating workplace where everything is price, experience, status and job led. All hirings reflect those four pillars. Because of this, the system self-regulates. The agents (at least the London professional agents) keep their prices held (in the main) and if you want those people to work for you, you pay their rates as they are proffered to be experienced and professional VO’s. Agents sift through a lot of talent to get their voices/actors and have the pick of their choice. Because of this they can justify their charges. Non-agent VO’s find worth themselves or through subscription sites, some people will work for rock-bottom and some set price-bars that they won’t work below.
There will always be those who decide to try and undercut the price, but more often than not, price is presented by the hirer at the start, or confirmed after casting. This means that you don’t enter a bidding war with voices. It’s also true that experienced directors and producers know that you get what you pay for, so don’t tend to go for voices who go out at bargain-basement prices. Don’t get me started on fiver for example.
For all this to work, you need a self-regulating workplace which isn’t yet what the USA has, as the unions are so fierce in protecting their power-base. Until it changes you’re always going to have that issue.
That’s why I was suggesting that (to side-step that) the union sets their own recommendations and then polices those. If you think about it, most VOs do this anyway, e.g., I’m not working for less than $30pa, or $500pa etc.
One must never be scared of turning down jobs because they aren’t well paid enough or aren’t suitable – I know some people need the money, and especially experience in the early days, but chasing the money down to the bottom only creates a downward spiral – and as I said, if you set the bar realistically then stick to it, every thing will eventually self-regulate.
I hope that helps! 🙂
Hi Hugh, I feel like you’re missing two important points…
First, not all video game companies contract with Union talent. Really, only the biggest (like the EA, Activision, Sony, etc) do. And those larger huge budget games companies are the focus of this strike. Games companies like Rovio (Angry Birds) that rarely use anything but vocal expressions, are not a part of this deal and will continue to hire non union talent regardless. The small fish always have, and always will hire non union talent. Second, the Games companies are dragging Talent Agents into this agreement where Talent Agents have no voice which is absurd (much like your point about being a studio that has no voice yet has a stake in the outcome – this is just more direct). The Games companies want to be able to fine, or revoke any agent’s SAG/AFTRA franchise (their ability to submit actors on any other union job such as commercial or film work) simply for not sending one of their actors on the audition – what if the actor doesn’t want to read for EA because they’ve been burned in past sessions? Now you’re going to revoke that actor’s agent’s ability to send any other union actor on any other union job? That is an insane ask, and since Games Companies aren’t willing to sit down and even talk about anything, what else can the Union do? I repeat, these companies wont sit at the table to talk or to work on reasonable solutions. If they had been willing to talk, there would not have been a strike.
Hello James.
I do agree with you on both points actually. The idea of fining actors is as stupid as the strike in my opinion, and I suspect is the games industry ‘returning fire’ in light of the proposed strike. Sometimes sessions just don’t work out, but that’s part of the job and it’s very rare indeed. In my entire career I’ve only stopped two sessions where the actor just couldn’t do the job.
I think to agree with your comment about the large companies vs the small ones – I do accept your point, but the outcome of all this will have ramifications for the industry in general and shouldn’t be taken lightly. Again, I still feel that SA should just set the bar where they feel reasonable and let the industry deal with it as they see fit – it shouldn’t be a negotiation on any of these points – regardless of company size.
The only point I don’t agree with that you make is about bringing Agents to the table; the agents are the gatekeepers of this kind of policy, and that’s most certainly the case in the UK – and they have experience and credibility to this argument – if you left them out of the discussion you’re leaving out the middle man, which would cause even further issues…
Thanks for the reply!
I think you missed the point about Agents – they are not allowed a seat at the negotiation table, but under the current Games proposal, could be punished severely for actually doing their jobs and protecting the talent. Leaving them out of the conversation is exactly the problem.
For sure, the agreement will have ramifications across both union and non union Video Game work (in the US, many agents try to keep union/non union rates very close in commercial work for example – not sure how it works in the UK), but it’s all for the good of the actor. I get it if your argument is that it’s not in the best interest of the Games industry, but that’s for another blog. Games companies treat their employees terribly and there are many stories/blogs/rants/books on the topic.
Regardless, it’s up to the Games Industry to bend here. You know actors, we’re always willing to talk. 😉
Well that isn’t right of course – the agents should be involved, as well as the outsourcers and everyone in the mix as I described in the blog. Still, there’s many a slip betwixt cup and lip, and hopefully they will get it sorted out before they strike.
Your last comment though is just the point – actors really are our friends in the UK – and it’s genuinely symbiotic – such a shame it isn’t the same there, by all accounts.
The fines being proposed by those big developers were requested in tandem with the rejection of the union’s requests; before the word “strike” was ever uttered.
The union is moving in the direction of a strike as an absolute last resort. They’ve tried to negotiate, and the developers aren’t willing. James is 100% correct, the folks the union is talking to on this are the ones who matter for union work. The indie developers always have and always will go non-union, anyway. Sure, the triple A titles might outsource to others for their voice work, but these big publishers are still the ones who cut the checks, and therefore, they’re the ones the union has to come to terms with. The alternative plan you’ve presented isn’t a plan at all; it was the first failed attempt that’s already taken place. A strike is the only bargaining chip the union’s got.
I’m a non-union voice actor. I’ve been eligible for a good long while, and I’ve avoided joining. I disagree with a lot of the union’s mandates, and I’m not sure I won’t go Fi-Core when I have to make the decision to join or not. But they’re doing what they’ve gotta do here. There really isn’t any alternative.
Hi Kyle,
We shall have to agree to disagree I’m afraid! My point is that they shouldn’t negotiate at all. There is no need to, and I genuinely mean that. What they should do is set the rates and terms by which Union actors work, your actors vote to approve them, and then that’s it – the rest falls into place. By negotiating with the gaming companies you are telling them that they can dictate your pricing for you – you try and push it up, they try and push it down, oh, and they then have tender to put in all their own terms as well, so you’re probably going to end up worse-off in some areas than you were before this. It is a plan, and it would work – the reason I know that is because it works 100% successfully here.
The only reason that your first failed attempt happened is because it was approached in the wrong way – which is exactly what my plan proposes. Stop trying to negotiate what the rates and terms are with the gaming companies – just do research and due diligence, find out & set what the fair minimum rates are, set them, and then have all your actors abide by them. The same with the terms – set the required terms, and then vote on them and stick by them. Then the market systems will catch up, and balance will be restored, plus this will filter into the non-union sector as well.
The other way is strike authorization > strike > bad feeling and loss of revenue (and stability) for all sides.
Also, if what you say is true and all the indie developers go in the US as non-union (which is the vast majority), surely this makes a mockery of the whole union/non-union system as a bit of a farce in the first place, no? I highly suspect that in 10 years you won’t have non-union/union jobs….you’ll just have jobs as most other territories do. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but it’s the way it works here and most of Europe and that’s with a union here (Equity) which is still incredibly valuable to it’s members.
I think we will have to continue to agree to disagree – I think there is a viable alternative, but due to being in the public spotlite, it’s seen as not taking the bull by it’s horns and ‘having to do something about it’ when they could just act in their members interests as I’ve laid out.
I should also point out though – I’m in the UK and it’s not my problem to solve – I’m just trying to provide an alternative and viable option.
Hugh,
I’ll start by saying I probably don’t know what I’m talking about… this is relatively new to me (not in the industry at all), so be gentle.
I very much like you approach, but I really think you’re just suggesting a strikeless-strike.
Your approach is basically to decide what’s right, have actors agree then tell the game developers that this is the deal. Play ball or our people don’t work for you. If the game companies refuses to live up to those rules, no union people work for them.
I’m not sure how that’s different from, “we want to negotiate changes; here’s what we want. If you don’t give it to us, we’re going on strike and not working for you at all.”
What am I missing?
Perhaps the missing element is what you call ‘fairness.’ Equity and such come up with ‘fair’ salaries and conditions. Unions over here are not perceived as being interested in ‘fair.’ Only ‘best possible. To be fair, big organizations are also perceived as looking for ‘best possible,’ and so the lines are drawn.
Hi Marc,
I quite agree. Fairness is the sticking point with this. If SA went for a figure that’s OTT it won’t be adopted, however a fair marketplace evaluation would be…fair….
I think the terms could be what they want though, i.e., must have insurance and stuntmen where appropriate for physical work in mo cap etc.
Well said Hugh.
Not to get political, but I think that in general the core of most our problems in the US boil down to the lack of “fairness”, or put another way, “balance”.
As Marc has said, as long as both sides are fighting for ‘best possible’, we end up with extremism, and it’s tearing us apart at the seams. Both sides are so afraid of ‘leaving money/power/bargaining chips on the table’ that they are unwilling to ‘do the math’ on what is fair.
If they only fought for what is fair and not ‘as much as they can get’, maybe we wouldn’t be in all the messes we’re in.
I think this precept is applicable to all of the problems we face today.
/rant
Yes.. a lot of the ‘best possible’ has to do with having additional chips to use when negotiating down. It’s perfectly possible that both the game developers and the union would agree on ‘fair.’ But, as soon as one asks for ‘fair’ the other tries to get more. So, everyone asks for everything possible and negotiates down to what they really want, and if they get more, all the better.
There was a great quote I once saw.. “When in a 50-50 deal, he wants the hyphen, too.”
Thank you Hugh:
This article really speaks to me.
A wonderful, erudite and comprehensive treatment of the issue. This doesn’t just highlight the challenges; but, offers a solution too; one which would be welcome across other aspects of the Performance Arts (SA, SSA & Walk-On pay rates, spring to mind).
I have spent an entire career facing (and decrying) the Dutch-Auction/Race-to-the-Bottom, culture. Where desperate (often unprofessional) providers undercut each other, to such an extent that they actively devalue themselves and this – our otherwise amazing – industry.
This should be mandatory reading for all in “The Biz.”
Thank you again, Hugh. 😀