I know this is about as far as you can get from a hard-hitting journalistic podcast, but I was a little disappointed to hear some anti-union propaganda slip by unchallenged during the interview with Buck’s chief comms person, Justin Cone.
It’s unsurprising that Cone would argue against unions in the ad industry: he speaks for Buck’s management. But the argument he makes—that an environment in which artists have the flexibility to move between strictly defined roles is only possible in a non-union, freelance context—is misleading at best. When companies negotiate with unions, workers gain the power to collectively set the terms of their employment. That’s the whole point. Just because roles are strictly regimented in the TV industry doesn’t mean more flexibility can’t be baked into contracts in other sectors.
Furthermore, the “flexibility” Cone lauds always benefits the employer more: it means the flexibility to hire and fire as they please, to deny basic worker protections, and to drive down rates. We all wonder how this came to feel like such a precarious occupation: it’s because of a relative lack of worker power, and the tendency of firms like Buck to play on artists’ introversion and desire for validation by putting “superstar” talent on a pedestal.
It’s obvious that this is a difficult industry to organize. We’re geographically diverse and fractured across disciplines and mediums. There’s an individualism inherent to being an artist. But that doesn’t mean organizing can’t be done or shouldn’t be done, or that it isn’t already being done. I know advertising is the business of hype, but this is one instance where you shouldn’t believe it.
