> why employer would employ "commodity devs" who are part of the union, and why devs, who standout and have a leverage would option to join union?
The parent poster answered that question for Hollywood. Union members (and here I'm speaking of SAG-AFTRA, which represents actors) are not allowed to work on non-union productions. Union productions, which encompass almost all major studios, are required to give first preference to union members and only hire non-union members when they are of "essential skill and quality"[1][2]. A non-union member who works on a union production has 30 days to join the union. If they do not join, they can't work on any more union productions.
Since all the big name stars are union members, big studios have to have union productions in order to be able to hire them. Stars make plenty of money regardless of whether they're in a union or not, because their agents negotiate well for them.
But most stars were once unknown and so they had to join the union when starting out, in order to be able to book gigs and build their career. For a millionaire actor union dues aren't a big financial hardship, and union membership doesn't affect how much money they make now. And they need to maintain union membership in order to continue working on union productions with other big stars.
A game industry union would probably work the same way. An employer would be forced to give first preference to a "commodity" union dev if they want to be able to employ the star producer or designer on their production. A non-union commodity dev has to take union membership after getting their first job offer else they can't work on another union project.
It would also probably mean that game industry jobs become like entertainment industry jobs: you're hired for a specific project and you move on when it's finished - instead of being like the rest of the white-collar workforce's model, where you're hired at a single company and build a career there.
The way you explain the Hollywood example, it sounds like the star actors are the linchpin of ensuring junior actors and commodity workers get union benefits - and yet, the star actors don't need the union's negotiating power, as their agents negotiate much better rates.
That's all very well for Hollywood, but surely it's a difficult model to kickstart in other industries.
Not necessarily. Every production will need mostly non-star workers. If they're all unionized, the stars have little choice but to sign up or work in the few productions that re non-union. Additionally, the Hollywood model is to sign up stars to unions before they're stars. This is further bolstered by the fact that every trade in Hollywood - directors, writers, producers, technicians and handymen - has its own union.
I think what confuses me is the chicken and the egg problem - I wonder how did Unions in Holywood become so powerful, that they could command companies to hire only unionized employees.
The SAG's own history page is pretty vague about why big stars signed on: "Protests against provisions in FDR’s National Recovery Administration's proposed Motion Picture Code of Fair Competition result in mass exodus of stars from Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in early October. Major stars like Robert Montgomery, Fredric March, James Cagney, Ann Harding, Eddie Cantor and Groucho Marx join SAG." [1]
I think the amount of control studios exerted over even big names was a factor. Stars did well financially but were still treated as disposable and second-class. They were signed to multi-year, exclusive contracts that had onerous restrictions.
The parent poster answered that question for Hollywood. Union members (and here I'm speaking of SAG-AFTRA, which represents actors) are not allowed to work on non-union productions. Union productions, which encompass almost all major studios, are required to give first preference to union members and only hire non-union members when they are of "essential skill and quality"[1][2]. A non-union member who works on a union production has 30 days to join the union. If they do not join, they can't work on any more union productions.
Since all the big name stars are union members, big studios have to have union productions in order to be able to hire them. Stars make plenty of money regardless of whether they're in a union or not, because their agents negotiate well for them.
But most stars were once unknown and so they had to join the union when starting out, in order to be able to book gigs and build their career. For a millionaire actor union dues aren't a big financial hardship, and union membership doesn't affect how much money they make now. And they need to maintain union membership in order to continue working on union productions with other big stars.
A game industry union would probably work the same way. An employer would be forced to give first preference to a "commodity" union dev if they want to be able to employ the star producer or designer on their production. A non-union commodity dev has to take union membership after getting their first job offer else they can't work on another union project.
It would also probably mean that game industry jobs become like entertainment industry jobs: you're hired for a specific project and you move on when it's finished - instead of being like the rest of the white-collar workforce's model, where you're hired at a single company and build a career there.
1. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInH...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act#Close...