Voice actors are among "those who actually make the games." Voice acting in particular also is strenuous work that can and does cause physical injury when workers are compelled to work long hours doing rough voices and so on. People end up having to have surgery on their vocal cords.
We don't need to devalue voice actors to value other game industry workers. The only difference is the voice actors organized first, probably because of the injury risk, and when you form a union you have to define a group that you can reach and coordinate. It shouldn't be an us vs them among works.
Don't forget mocap. A lot of actors are doing mocap for games now, which also potentially results in injury.
This also includes stunt workers (who do the more intensive motion capture work) and stunt coordinators, many of whom are in the Screen Actors Guild already.
They should then let engineers, artists, and designers in their union.
There are different unions for different trades. Stop trying to sound so smart, you keep failing.
There are no unions for those trades in games currently. I'm not trying to sound smart. I am trying to tell you why I think VAs are overreaching here.
Oh, great, trade unions. That never caused any issues for worker's unity. If you can't organise everyone, from tech lead to cleaning staff, in the same industrial union you're playing right into the capitalists' divide and conquer game.
Not so. It makes sense to organise in trade unions. The heads of those unions are on the same side most of the time, as it would be in this case, and they can easily coordinate their actions. But in some cases the interests of one trade have no bearing on another, or are even in opposition, in which case it would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to organise a balloted action across the entire union. Thus nullifying the strength of the union and playing right into the capitalist's hands.
So instead of coming to terms with your fellow workers you rather have them fight capitalists by themselves? Leave them to the scraps the bosses deem sufficient while you're wheeling away a wagonload of concessions won through your unique bargaining power?
You're limiting the strength of worker's. If train conductors don't strike for train toilet cleaners noone will.
And any opposition between worker's interests is negligible compared to that between workers and capital, who have no interests in common at all.
You've misread my comment I think. Unions can coordinate and organise together. So nobody would be leaving their fellow worker to fight by themselves.
Voice actors are among "those who actually make the games." Voice acting in particular also is strenuous work that can and does cause physical injury when workers are compelled to work long hours doing rough voices and so on. People end up having to have surgery on their vocal cords.
We don't need to devalue voice actors to value other game industry workers. The only difference is the voice actors organized first, probably because of the injury risk, and when you form a union you have to define a group that you can reach and coordinate. It shouldn't be an us vs them among works.
Don't forget mocap. A lot of actors are doing mocap for games now, which also potentially results in injury.
This also includes stunt workers (who do the more intensive motion capture work) and stunt coordinators, many of whom are in the Screen Actors Guild already.
They should then let engineers, artists, and designers in their union.
There are different unions for different trades. Stop trying to sound so smart, you keep failing.
There are no unions for those trades in games currently. I'm not trying to sound smart. I am trying to tell you why I think VAs are overreaching here.
Oh, great, trade unions. That never caused any issues for worker's unity. If you can't organise everyone, from tech lead to cleaning staff, in the same industrial union you're playing right into the capitalists' divide and conquer game.
Not so. It makes sense to organise in trade unions. The heads of those unions are on the same side most of the time, as it would be in this case, and they can easily coordinate their actions. But in some cases the interests of one trade have no bearing on another, or are even in opposition, in which case it would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to organise a balloted action across the entire union. Thus nullifying the strength of the union and playing right into the capitalist's hands.
So instead of coming to terms with your fellow workers you rather have them fight capitalists by themselves? Leave them to the scraps the bosses deem sufficient while you're wheeling away a wagonload of concessions won through your unique bargaining power?
You're limiting the strength of worker's. If train conductors don't strike for train toilet cleaners noone will.
And any opposition between worker's interests is negligible compared to that between workers and capital, who have no interests in common at all.
You've misread my comment I think. Unions can coordinate and organise together. So nobody would be leaving their fellow worker to fight by themselves.