Unions can make sense for talent and services that you don't want to keep on your payroll full-time. You could argue that rideshare drivers qualify in that sense, given that the whole idea is to keep them off of a regular payroll... but watch them fight tooth and nail to lock out autonomous operators like Waymo. That'll be next, rest assured. It'll be about "jobs," "safety," and probably, somehow, "the children."

Otherwise, the people you list are very well-represented by private agencies. Unions like the SAG can benefit the lower-level people in some respects, but they mostly serve to gatekeep their industry and encourage films to be made outside their jurisdiction.

I live near Detroit, not Hollywood. Most union workers are not movie stars, directors, staring quarterbacks or soccer stars. Most are cops, teachers and automotive workers.

Speaking with a friend around me who worked in automotive, the unions are a double edged sword. They provide security for you, but they also provide security for a bunch of folks who realized they won't get fired if they put in the bare minimum. My friend found this incredibly frustrating.

Many unions here put large amounts of money toward political goals I don't support. If I want a job at such a company, under Michigan state law I can be compelled to pay the dues, even if the union is working against me politically. Until I can work somewhere without being forced to pay union dues, I am not interested in those jobs, even if they pay more.

The research is mixed, with lots of researchers directly blaming unions. This is remarkable, given being a professor is a unionized position and researchers/professors are some of the furthest-left leaning groups (famously a 2006 study showed 25% of sociologist professors identify as Marxist). I would also argue working in unions was never considered an especially big privilege (or any more than it is today). I mean it couldn't be, the Packard Plant employed over 30,000 people. That's just too many people in one city to be an exclusive, privileged job.

Cities do not fall from grace like that for no reason; Detroit and Flint fell from grace because they made it impossible to invest in the cities future. It's easy to say who cares about rideshare drivers, but if you can't operate companies in CA then people will stop founding them there, and then good engineering jobs will leave. Everyone once thought MI would be prosperous forever too

Very tangential: In the 1967 Disney film "The Happiest Millionaire", a character sings a song wanting to move to Detroit and get a job designing cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tYKSzlZiUo

It such an anachronistic song.

> US trade policy destroyed Detroit

US trade, fleet environmental standards and yes, the unions turning into an insular political force each destroyed Detroit.

i feel like people who use waymo are probably an extreme minority within california. we'll all be just fine, and rideshare drivers can actually afford to live decent lives in exchange for their labor. i'm fine with your doom and gloom scenario.

> a strong enough rideshare union will eventually force autonomous vehicles out of the state

Zero chance. What we may see is the legacy rideshare providers ceding the market to autonomously native providers.

But even then, this is ringfenced to California. If the unions go Luddite, one can contain the problem the way California’s home insurance market is segregated.

Pretty much all companies are created in order to make the owner(s) money.