I may not think much of film makers but if forced to choose, I would side with them over the unions. No need to list the historical and present union "abuses" under the guise of "rules."
No one can be abused without their consent. Unless you are claiming physical abductions and slavery...
Brain dead and delusional doesn't begin to describe it.
The issue seems to be about "residuals." This is a good example of a good idea being perverted by the incompetent. I have no idea how "residuals" originated, but I would love to read an impartial book about its development and its ultimate self-destruction.
How many actors would agree to pay a plumber a "residual" every time they use a plumbing fixture? What is it about "acting" that makes them unique?
Extortion by the incompetent is still extortion no matter how you phrase it.
If producers make a lousy picture there are no residuals if people don't buy tickets.
I have a very strong suspicion that the concept of "residuals" originated in the competition to get great actors for a given film, in lieu of an exorbitant salary up front. It was offered, not demanded. It was still a take it or leave it world, as it should be.
If the pay for a job offered is not enough, don't take it. If residual is offered, good for you! It confirms you as a professional.
Being a union hood, with your selective history of the benefits of unions, simply marks you as an ignorant, delusional idiot.
I remember Henry Ford and his approach to unions. His workers, I suspect, were competent and diligent, not incompetent crybabies.
Sorry. If you don't want to hear about the history of abuse, then there is only one argument. Don't hire from unions and see what kind of films, or commercials you can make with out union actors.
Like I said, the producers have tried and couldn't do it. If the film makers can claim the rights of businessmen, than so can unions collectively bargain for what they want. The free market cuts both ways.