To be fair, it's understandable that more niche games like Fire Emblem are non-union. But perhaps your argument is that Nintendo does voice acting rare enough to where they should unionize the games that do have voice acting.
To be fair, it's understandable that more niche games like Fire Emblem are non-union. But perhaps your argument is that Nintendo does voice acting rare enough to where they should unionize the games that do have voice acting.
Fire Emblem doesnt have unionized voice acting and is fine.I think it's why basically no English Nintendo game has good voice acting. So, imo it's more of a stupid choice than an unethical one.
To be fair, it's understandable that more niche games like Fire Emblem are non-union. But perhaps your argument is that Nintendo does voice acting rare enough to where they should unionize the games that do have voice acting.
Nah, this is entirely about paying people equitable wages for their labor.
If you're going to do voice acting, hire union actors. If you think that paying voice actors what they're worth is too expensive, the correct play is to cut the voice acting, not to try to underpay VAs.
Would Smash Bros going union make it hard for them to have non-union actors like Martinet voice Mario?
Smash Bros voice acting situation is really weird, to be honest. The game actually does have quite a few union voice actors mixed in with non-union.
"Fine" might be the summit of ninty voice acting. Botw is atrocious.
echoes is some of the best voice acting ive heard"Fine" might be the summit of ninty voice acting. Botw is atrocious.
I
Is it ethical? Depends on your perspective.
From a shareholder perspective it's unethical for Nintendo to NOT do everything they can to save some money and increase shareholder value.
I'm not sure from what perspective or school of thought it would be unethical to not use a union. A union may or may not be good but unions themselves aren't intrinsically good even the majority of them do good for people.
By what standard or philosophy is it unethical?
I work for a company that almost lost all of the business in the state because of Unions. I have very little sympathies for them.
His point is that unions and corporations aren't really ethical actors either way, they just are. Corporations exist to create a return for the people who put forward the funding in return for partial ownership, and unions exist to monopolize a resource and increase the price of that resource to benefit the holders of it. It doesn't really make sense to try to prescribe ethics to those things, it's like asking if it's ethical that a toaster will burn toast if you leave it in too long.Getting hung up on definitions and arguing for large corporations is a pretty bad take.
And yes unions are largely good because they empower workers so they can be treated well. I'm not surprised youd make the argument considering you argued on behalf of shareholders.
Can you elaborate?
Not sure what Nintendo's history is on this matter, but I imagine a lot of places went with non-union VAs during (and, as a result, after) that year+ long strike a couple of years back.
Didn't the strike happen because unionized voice actors collectively thought they were worth more and deserved residuals on top of whatever payments they were receiving for the individual recording jobs (in addition to other issues).
Who gets to desire what they're worth in the end?
His point is that unions and corporations aren't really ethical actors either way, they just are. Corporations exist to create a return for the people who put forward the funding in return for partial ownership, and unions exist to monopolize a resource and increase the price of that resource to benefit the holders of it. It doesn't really make sense to try to prescribe ethics to those things, it's like asking if it's ethical that a toaster will burn toast if you leave it in too long.
Stating a system of ethics under which a business would be compelled to behave a specific way isn't a take or arguing for large corporations. A question of ethics was asked, not a question of support.Getting hung up on definitions and arguing for large corporations is a pretty bad take.
And yes unions are largely good because they empower workers so they can be treated well. I'm not surprised youd make the argument considering you argued on behalf of shareholders.
Can you elaborate?
scabs is a strictly derogatory term that's made to paint people who are working during strikes as opportunistic and lesser than workers in unionsThere's a term that's used to describe non-union workers who choose to replace workers who are on strike. They're called "scabs".
I'm not saying it's okay to mistreat workers by any sense, I'm just don't really see those as being linked at all.I absolutely disagree with this. Dismissing criticisms of how large corporations treat their employees, and by all accounts Nintendo is better than most, by arguing about whether they can be ethical or not is missing the point. Also I know what the words mean, I don't need a refresher.
Large corporations in 2019 are some of the worst human rights offenders besides governments in my eyes. Acting like unions are anywhere close, or equal as you're trying to do here, is disingenuous. Honestly it's fucking gross. Whether they can be ethical, I swear Billy fucking Madison covered this 20 years ago, may be relevant to this specific thread, but ignores how much damage these companies do on a macro scale. Anyone caping for Nintendo over a union of voice actors should probably reevaluate their priorities.
Stating a system of ethics under which a business would be compelled to behave a specific way isn't a take or arguing for large corporations. A question of ethics was asked, not a question of support.
Unions being "largely good" does not make them intrinsically good.
You could actually talk specifics about why one thing is or isn't ethical as the thread asks or you can keep strawmanning it up.
I'm not saying it's okay to mistreat workers by any sense, I'm just don't really see those as being linked at all.
You shouldn't need unions in order to not have terrible work conditions or not fire workers if they're not willing to work 80-hour work weeks. In fact, Nintendo is a great example of a company that does just that, treats the employees with respect (at least by all public accounts we've heard so far) while not being unionized.
People really should not underestimate the clusterfuck that Code Name: S.T.E.A.M.'s casting turned out to be. NOA reached out for Hollywood talent and it bit them in the ass with the most toxic result possible. One that they could never have foreseen when they did the casting, and one that they couldn't get rid of after the fact, probably because of the union contract.
it's a damn shame too. If Baldwin wasn't in that game, i don't think there would have been nearly as much controversy.People really should not underestimate the clusterfuck that Code Name: S.T.E.A.M.'s casting turned out to be. NOA reached out for Hollywood talent and it bit them in the ass with the most toxic result possible. One that they could never have foreseen when they did the casting, and one that they couldn't get rid of after the fact, probably because of the union contract.
"Everything I don't like is unethical."Wherein we equate "not actively going out of their way to be benevolent" with "unethical."
The amount of driveby tut-tutting in this thread shouldn't be surprising to me, but come on guys.
People really should not underestimate the clusterfuck that Code Name: S.T.E.A.M.'s casting turned out to be. NOA reached out for Hollywood talent and it bit them in the ass with the most toxic result possible. One that they could never have foreseen when they did the casting, and one that they couldn't get rid of after the fact, probably because of the union contract.
The game's lead character is voiced by Adam "coiner of the term 'Gamergate'" Baldwin.What happened? All I know about Codename STEAM is that it bombed.
Unethical because of what? Are you implying hiring union workers exclusively is ethical? Because it's easy to make the reverse argument.
If you only hire union workers you are excluding those trying to break into the industry. Therefore it is unethical.
Oh the horror, I'd never want to be that.
If you only hire union workers you are excluding those trying to break into the industry. Therefore it is unethical.
Oh the horror, I'd never want to be that.
And as someone who works for a company with tons of both union and non-union employees, in a state that's been both right-to-work and had mandatory unions at different times while I've worked there... they're really not that efficient at doing much beyond propagating their own existence. The best thing for workers would be to governmentally or socially incentivize companies to treat them better from the start, not to force them all into these bureaucratic nightmare monopolies.
Are you really comparing the hiring of a full-time developer employee with the hiring of a voice actor who will only be a part of a specific production for as long as their services voicing their role are required?Interesting. So when Nintendo doesn't consider hiring an inexperienced developer for a position, it's also unethical?
Are you really comparing the hiring of a full-time developer employee with the hiring of a voice actor who will only be a part of a specific production for as long as their services voicing their role are required?
Interesting. So when Nintendo doesn't consider hiring an inexperienced developer for a position, it's also unethical?
Why are we talking about efficiency and bureaucracy? Now you're just changing the argument.
Also being libertarian is gross, I truly hope you're not.
I'm saying the ethics in this situation is related to how you treat the workers as individuals, not how big institutions interact. It's unethical to crunch a worker, it's not unethical to not do business with some behemoth bureaucracy. I know hypothetically unions are supposed to be a way to create better conditions, but they're not the only way to do so (and it's not exactly part of my original point, but I also don't think they're even very good at doing so.)Interesting. So when Nintendo doesn't consider hiring an inexperienced developer for a position, it's also unethical?
Why are we talking about efficiency and bureaucracy? Now you're just changing the argument.
Also being libertarian is gross, I truly hope you're not.
I don't think everyone has a clear understanding of how Unions work in the entertainment industry in comparison to other Unions... if you're hiring non-union, it's more about saving money than it is anything else. There are pay differentials between being SAG and not and sometimes they're quite significant. It has nothing to do with Nintendo or anyone seeking "lesser talent" or because they're against workers' rights. Non-Union talent still have to audition just like anyone else.
Do you all think the big names we know today like Troy Baker, Nolan North, Laura Bailey, Tara Strong, etc. just walked into the SAG office, plopped down $3000 and said "I want to join the Union!". No. They just like everyone else and had to earn their eligibility to join. And joining SAG is a big part of an actors career and not always an easy thing to accomplish. If it was, then everyone would be joining for the better pay and benefits that come with it.
Interesting. So you need to be accomplished and have a good record of work before you're admitted into the club, then? Even more reason calling this unethical is insanity.
It had two big names, one that coined the term GamerGate and sided with them, and the other who was supremely against GamerGate. And yeah, contracts and all that preventing them from simply ending the deal. And even if they could have ended the deal, by the time they revealed the cast for Code Name Steam, everything was already likely dubbed up to a certain point that simply recasting wouldn't work without a very big delay. The game appealed to no sides out of principal of who was casted on top of people's disinterest with its art style. It was a mess all around.People really should not underestimate the clusterfuck that Code Name: S.T.E.A.M.'s casting turned out to be. NOA reached out for Hollywood talent and it bit them in the ass with the most toxic result possible. One that they could never have foreseen when they did the casting, and one that they couldn't get rid of after the fact, probably because of the union contract.
OP asked about ethics. There's many different ethical philosophies. Some posit one thing while others posit another. You apparently lack the ability to engage in a conversation about any of them without reducing it to taking sides. An observation of how one system supports a notion is not voicing support for that notion.I never argued for unions being intrinsically good, which seems irrelevant and silly when factoring in your claim of strawmanning.
As far as talking specifics, I don't need to as I was responding to your post which empathized with a corporation and its shareholders which I would argue is plain shitty. Even if it's ethical as you argued it to be.
I absolutely hated the voice acting in BotW. They need to go union to get better quality.