|
Post by keagan on Mar 4, 2018 17:54:00 GMT
After extensive research, and economical management textbooks, I have found, that because all creators on youtube do not actually work for youtube, a union is not a great solution, because all discussions, and petitions within the union may be ignored, because you are not a youtube employee. I will link a site below, for evidence that backs this statement. The only solution that I see moving forwards, would be to boycott youtube in some or other way. “YouTubers could create a union, but the union wouldn't really be able to do anything. YouTubers don't work for YouTube, so any complaints they had about working as a YouTuber would probably be ignored. You have to agree to YouTube's terms if you want to post videos there, that's it. There's no legal standing to sue YouTube over their terms of service unless YouTube is doing something illegal.” — via www.quora.com/Can-Youtubers-start-a-union
|
|
|
Post by Mike Smithski on Mar 4, 2018 17:59:23 GMT
Not with that attitude...
|
|
|
Post by crul on Mar 4, 2018 18:00:16 GMT
I agree we cannot create an union in the legal sense [Edit: as people has pointed out below, that's not so clear under some laws]. And that would be extremely complex (if it was possible) because different countries laws.
But we can organize and coordinate our actions to, at least, try to have some leverage over youtube decisions.
|
|
|
Post by olorin on Mar 4, 2018 18:06:57 GMT
It's true, we can't sue them. Neither we are a legal or a illegal union.
But this doesnt mean that we have to accept everything what they do!
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 4, 2018 18:07:56 GMT
Well, this was never supposed to be a "run of the mill" union. It is more like a community powered movement.
But we can employ similar tactics and strategies than unions.
In fact using fully dependent "self employed" work force is a common method some companies use to evade employment laws. Unions know about that and fight against such behavior. YouTube has to be very careful indeed not to be seen an employer by German law. In case that happens, they will have to pay social insurance for all the German creators and for many years back. €€€€
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 18:10:03 GMT
The Youtube Union may not fit most countries legal definition of a union but really all a union is is a group of people coming together to push a collective agenda.
We may not fit the typical definition of employees but we are working for youtube in exchange for compensation. I wonder if any counties have a precedent that applies here. We are effectively sub-contractors on performance related pay. While I don not think the standard Employerr-emloyee model applies to youtube I do think we shoul dbe considered stakeholders in youtube as much as the rest of its team
|
|
|
Post by geobelmont on Mar 4, 2018 18:12:03 GMT
I agree we cannot create an union in the legal sense. And that would be extremely complex (if it was possible) because different countries laws. But we can organize and coordinate our actions to, at least, try to have some leverage over youtube decisions. Indeed,this isn't so much a "worker's union", it's more like a group united against how those who chose to use youtube have been treated. although if someone could scour through and disect Youtube's TOS, it might prevent some suprises down the road...
|
|
|
Post by midknightloki on Mar 4, 2018 18:12:48 GMT
This is less about a being a union in the traditional sense and more about Creators United. It's about giving a voice to creators through publicity, pressure, and coordinated action.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 18:17:11 GMT
Well, this was never supposed to be a "run of the mill" union. It is more like a community powered movement. But we can employ similar tactics and strategies than unions. In fact using fully dependent "self employed" work force is a common method some companies use to evade employment laws. Unions know about that and fight against such behavior. YouTube has to be very careful indeed not to be seen an employer by German law. In case that happens, they will have to pay social insurance for all the German creators and for many years back. €€€€ I just realised if Youtube gets classified as an employer they will be liable for minimum wage laws for all the 302 videos I have made. They want to be careful pushing out hobbyist and casual creators. If treating Youtube as a full time job is the only way to become successful they take a massive step closer to being classed as en employer. Maybe we shoudl add that to our list of possible actions "Lobby lawmakers to reclassify Youtube as an Employer as they actively discourage hobbyists" That would put the fear of God into them. I bet that is a rabbit hole they don't want to go down. Honestly I wouldn't like to see that happen, it would effectively kill Youtube in its current form, but as i've said already talking about something might be enough to effect change
|
|
|
Post by Mike Smithski on Mar 4, 2018 18:21:10 GMT
I just realised if Youtube gets classified as an employer they will be liable for minimum wage laws for all the 302 videos I have made. They want to be careful pushing out hobbyist and casual creators. If treating Youtube as a full time job is the only way to become successful they take a massive step closer to being classed as en employer. Maybe we shoudl add that to our list of possible actions "Lobby lawmakers to reclassify Youtube as an Employer as they actively discourage hobbyists" That would put the fear of God into them. I bet that is a rabbit hole they don't want to go down. Honestly I wouldn't like to see that happen, it would effectively kill Youtube in its current form, but as i've said already talking about something might be enough to effect change This kills YouTube and other platforms instantly.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 18:28:18 GMT
Yeah probably pretty dark road to go down for all of us. Not saying I want that to be a thing.
I do think Youtube are moving from a platform that is for hobbyists and casual creators to being an employer where the only way to get a job is to do 1000s of hours of volunteer time over a long period.
Once you remove hobbysists and causla creators Youtube becomes a company wwho is manipulating you into working for them for free with the promise of maybe giving yo ua well paid job. There have been business getting in trouble iun teh past for abusing volunteers in that manner. If they continue down the road of pushign out hobbyists and casual creators its only going to eb so long before someone has the same thought I just did. I don't think we are anywhere near fitting that definition yet, but the current road is going that direction.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 18:54:28 GMT
I wouldn't worry about the name too much - it has a very positive note when dealing with YouTube. They are obsessed with the idea that they have democratised and socialised media. It's not really ever truly been the case, but in the past year they have completely taken leave of this 'ideal' in practice. Calling it a Union is good way to remind them of what they preach, but do not live.
In the end the one thing they fear the most is public exposure in negative terms where they look like the big, nasty, corporation. The name Union implies that they ARE the big corporate and someone else is suffering under them (which we are). So I say it's exact right to call it Union. Remember that the Alphabet companies (previously Google) have the motto 'do good' - lets remind them.
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 4, 2018 19:19:28 GMT
Yes. But in Germany they are close.
Total dependency on a single customer is a very strong attribute of a so called "false self employment".
If the authorities rule that YouTube creators are in fact employees in reality, then the YT executives will be prosecuted personally AND of course the company has to pay the skipped social insurance fees.
Not long ago a large insurance agency, the MEG AG, went through exactly that. The authorities ruled that the 150 "self employed" agents were in fact employees by nature, and MEG had to pay all those social insurance fees (about 20% of the income) for several years, plus a 720.000 € (roughly 800,000 $ US) personal fine for the owner of the company. The company had to declare bk shortly after.
But I don't think we should attack from that angle. It would kill YouTube and our channels with it.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 19:24:40 GMT
No I don't think we should attack form that angle, fear of Youtube heading in that direction is part of why I am here, we need to stop the train before it goes off the cliff
|
|
|
Post by midknightloki on Mar 4, 2018 19:27:35 GMT
Yes. But in Germany they are close. Total dependency on a single customer is a very strong attribute of a so called "false self employment". If the authorities rule that YouTube creators are in fact employees in reality, then the YT executives will be prosecuted personally AND of course the company has to pay the skipped social insurance fees. Not long ago a large insurance agency, the MEG AG, went through exactly that. The authorities ruled that the 150 "self employed" agents were in fact employees by nature, and MEG had to pay all those social insurance fees (about 20% of the income) for several years, plus a 720.000 € (roughly 800,000 $ US) personal fine for the owner of the company. The company had to declare bk shortly after. But I don't think we should attack from that angle. It would kill YouTube and our channels with it. I agree, I think that the best way is to use publicity to get thier attention then offer a carrot of driving premium membership so that YouTube can rely less on advertisers and more on users. Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
|
|