I'm also wondering. I know a bunch of you have more knowledge about both the history of wrestling and unions, so does anyone have any insight/thoughts?
I'm also wondering. I know a bunch of you have more knowledge about both the history of wrestling and unions, so does anyone have any insight/thoughts?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 04:08 pm (UTC)The brass is very canny; wrestlers are often meatheads. They get played against one another, shifted around, blackballed, and are mostl y easily replaced. There won't be a union until either SAG makes a move to unionize them for being on TV or until there is enough locker room solidarity that the lights go up on a live TV show or PPV and nobody comes out of the prep area until demands are met.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 04:18 pm (UTC)I can't google this while I'm at work. ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 04:46 pm (UTC)It can be hard to set up a union in a field where you've got folks who crave fame and money, an elite few who get it, and a whole mass willing to sell their soul for a break. Add to that a divided history followed by a period of centralized domination by manipulative bosses, and you've got a situation where mass action is highly unlikely.
(I'm always pretty impressed that screen actors got a guild together, btw, as they fit a lot of those categories. Of course, the studios overplayed their hands, and the 30s had a history of mass movements lacking ever sense, and so far the wrestlers haven't gotten either of those breaks.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 05:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 07:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 07:59 pm (UTC)