On Oct 21, 8:55 am, Jan  wrote:

>In an industry where there's such a huge difference in
>power and money as there is between the Companies
>and the writers/actors/directors, I'm all in favor of the
>unions in order to try to balance the scales.

Well said. Whilst there's potential for abuse by unions, the potential
for abuse by the companies (I can't bear to write that word with a
capital 'C' as they don't deserve the respect) in the absence of
anyone to fight back is huge and has already occurred many times
over.

The same thing can be said for some forms of government intervention
against economic inequalities and exploitation. Particularly since the
Cold War and McCarthyism, it's become a popular idea in the US to have
an exaggerated, paranoid fear of government intervention but yet to
not be equally concerned about the abuse that can happen under "free
market" conditions where there's nothing to stop the parties with the
most bargaining power exploiting others.

This is not to say that individuals shouldn't have the right to
decline to participate in unions -- which, generally, they do.
However, individuals who make this choice face the potential to be
exploited as a result. That being said, oftentimes non-union members
end up with better conditions due to the work of unions, and so are in
effect bludging off the union without contributing.

Matthew
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32