YouTuber UNION: 50,000 Might Join


something really interesting going on in the
youtube space over the last week or so. You might know that for the last couple of
of years there have been struggles on youtube that
the David Pakman show channel has experienced. The first one was back in April of 2017. Back then we were sort of a middle of the
road size channel and uh, we’ve also struggled more recently in some other areas. Now we are sort of in the top one or 2% of
Youtube and the struggles that we’re having now are pretty different from the ones that
we were having a couple of years ago. As a result of different algorithm, algorithmic
and advertising related changes to the platform. And very often whenever I talk about youtube
woes, people will write to me and they’ll say, Hey David, you should unionize on youtube
so that all of you channels could bargain together with youtube for monetization and
status. And I’ve actually spoken to entertainment
lawyers about this casually. And typically what they say is that youtube
is set up legally in the United States. Uh, in a way that current law would not easily
allow a unionization of Youtube burrs without wholesale changes to the law regarding independent
contractors and employees and a whole bunch of other things. However, European law is different and there
is a huge movement in Europe for a whole bunch of youtubers to unionize and to bargain collectively
for light rights with Youtube. So this is potentially huge and I’m going
to talk about it in detail, but before we even get into that, I also need to be very
honest with you. I don’t think I’d be interested in being a
part of this youtube or as union at this point in time based on our challenge size. On our channel size, and I’ll explain to you
why I support unions. I think collective bargaining is a great way
for individual players to get more clout and have more control over their circumstances. I support teachers’ unions. I support factory workers, unions and transportation
workers, unionizing and pilots, sports league players, the whole thing. But that being said right now, given that
my channel is one of the, you know, in the top one or 2% of Youtube, I don’t believe
it would be to my advantage to get into a union unless it’s a union of news and politics,
Youtube burrs that are my size or larger, which are relatively few. And what I mean by that is now that my channel
is run as a part of a broader business that is very different than what it was even two
years ago when we had a couple hundred thousand subscribers, there is no way that a consortium
or a union of channels that are not just using politics that are everything from makeup and
gaming and sports and whatever else, uh, and drastically different sizes. There’s no way that it would be to my advantage
to be in that union because our needs and our circumstances are now so different than
those of the majority of youtube channels. Now you might hear me say this and react by
saying, oh, David, that’s because your channel is successful. That’s, that’s why I mean I’m recognizing
that I’m not denying it. I want the full freedom to do or not do anything
I want on Youtube. I want the freedom to put my content or not
on any other platforms that I want. I am actually at the point where only a union
of the top news and politics channels would actually be useful and that would arguably
defeat the kind of egalitarian nature of the union to begin with because the truth is that
at this point, even if youtube screws me, I don’t know that being part of a union like
the one in Europe would benefit me. This is why I left TYT network years ago. It had nothing to do with conflict with TYT
of any kind. It was just that I’m the most nimble and free
to do what’s right for my channel. If I’m not affiliated with anything else at
a smaller size, I might trade that. A advantage for being part of the union right
now, it’s simply wouldn’t make, but let’s explore what they’re doing because this is
serious. This could actually have a really major impact
on youtube. The Youtube has union Europe has joined with
Igg metal, which is Germany’s largest union and Europe’s largest trade union to launch
fair tube. This is the most significant Youtube Related
Organization of Labor that we have ever seen. Here are their demands monetize. Everyone bring back monetization for smaller
channels which was taken away disabled. The bots at least verified partners have the
right to speak to a real person if you plan to remove their channel. Transparent content decisions, open up direct
communication between the sensors and the creators. Pay for the views. Stop using demonetized channels as bait to
advertise, monetized channels. Stop the monetization as a whole. If a video is in line with your rules, allow
ads on an even scale equal treatment for all partners. Stop preferring some content creators over
others. Pay according to delivered values, spread
out the ad money over all youtubers based on audience retention, not on ads. Next to the content and clarify the rules
block. Bring out clear rules with clear examples
about what’s okay and what isn’t. The deadline for Youtube to respond is August
23 so far, no comment from youtube so this is really great, but if you look at the list
of demands, you will see that it is all based on the connection between ad dollars and content
in the same way that Obamacare did good things, but it also further ingrained the for profit
healthcare system that we have by giving tens of millions of new customers to for-profit
insurers. The demands that are being made here are excellent,
obviously well calibrated demands that reinforce the status quo in which content creators are
given dollars via people watching advertising funded by advertisers buying an ad contract
with youtube. This is only a bandaid. This is not a cure for the disease. Half of these demands would go away if we
completely reprogrammed how content works, if instead of having to make money by having
a video that advertisers say meets their standards of what’s okay, so that they will run an ad
and give a dollar to youtube from which the content creator gets 40 cents or 50 cents
or however much it is, this goes away, which is why I’ve been pushing for us to fund shows
we like directly, period. I am supportive of this movement. This particular union is not the right thing
for the David Pakman show at this point in time, but I want it to succeed. But the real way to solve this is separate. The ad dollars from the content by funding
shows directly. Hundreds and hundreds of you in the last couple
of months have said, I understand the importance of that, and you’ve signed up for memberships,
for example, on our website, www.joinpackman.com that severs the tie between advertisers and
our content. That is a very good thing. Hundreds of you have become patrons donating
as little as a dollar a month to our show at patrion.com/david Pakman show. I support the union and I wish it wasn’t necessary
by changing the system to one where we fund directly the programs that we want. I hope you’ll consider doing that.




Comments
  1. David is right from his vantage point. For the exact same reasons slave drivers would not have wanted to be in the same union as the slaves.

  2. David, I gave this a thumbs up due to your honesty about how you feel but this seems sorta bad of you not to want to support others trying to be treated fairly. Bernie's field workers are complaining that his campaign isnt paying $15 an hour so I will wait and see how he handles his real world situation as opposed to his personal desires and philosophy and demand that everyone else pay $15 an hour even when their struggling business isnt able according to them.

  3. Don't bother Unions are a thing of the past run by Union leaders who want members to go on strike whilst they draw a salary from member contributions.

  4. David, I like a lot of what you do, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong about this one. Do you think that sports unions would work if superstar players wouldn't join? Do you think SAG would work if the big stars didn't join, or they left once they became big stars? Without everyone, the union won't work.

  5. I just don't think direct funding of content will ever work on a large scale I very much like the idea but the reality of the world is such that I don't believe that model will ever work. I see problems arising what a person will inevitably not value some of your content as highly as othe content leaning to feelings of dissatisfaction and it's hard to pay for something you're dissatisfied with. If it comes free over-the-air people don't have that problem and they don't realize they're being marketed to or they do but only on a subconscious level and there is always value for the marketer in that.

  6. I feel like the part that people are missing is that YouTube has to agree to a deal with the Union, if one gets created. I think if the bigger channels don't join, there will be no incentive for them to sign with the union. The recent demonetization seem to point to YouTube only caring about the very largest channels.

    I think a union would be good for this but I doubt YouTube will give it much thought unless they look to lose a significant amount of money.

  7. Yes yes yes. YouTube need to be put in check. Too many creators have suffered trying to stay afloat.

    If they unionize they should leave YouTube and bring all their followers with them to a new site.

  8. You're close to repeating the mistake you try to expose in the rest of society. please take a long hike through an inspiring environment to rethink your position on that.

  9. Ok David, but would you be OK if that union forced you and all of your employees to pay them for the work you are not interested in being a part of? Think long dude, because you have supported exactly that in your right to work videos over the years.

  10. I think you are making a bad case of it doesn't impact meism. The goal of the powerful is to divide the weak so it cannot be challenged. Once the weaker elements are disposed of they will come for this channel.

  11. Good analysis David. The only thing I would add is that many people that are hungry for your content are also in a tight spot financially.

    I think in order for this direct financing approach to work something like Andrew Yang's dividend would be necessary to put spending money into people's hands. That's one of the secondary benefits to UBI that's often overlooked. I'm willing to bet that if Yang were elected shows like yours would see a substantial spike in direct financial support.

  12. The Slingshot Channel attempted to start a union a year or so ago. I'm not sure if it every went anywhere.

  13. Anyone read Orson wells animal farm? Davids comments remind me of what happened to the pigs when they took over the farm, very disapointing

  14. Unsubbing although I trust you as a reporter and appreciate most of your content. If a CC Union is created in the US I hope you change your mind about joining.

  15. Sounds alot like a "right to work" state mentality that is criticized by the right. Thats the problem with many people with more hardline views on many topics. They want idealistic laws that "apply to thee but not to me."

  16. If you want to know the actuall Demands of Fair-Tube, here is the Link
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ&t=45s
    also check out the Channel, its awesome

  17. Why would I buy the cow when the milk is free? I don't have money to throw around, so I wouldn't be able to spend money even for content I like. LOT of people in the same boat.

  18. During the pro baseball strike of old I tried to form The Baseball Fans Of America union. I was getting a little traction with it until the players returned to work. Everyone forgot their grievances.

  19. David says he wants to keep his freedom, I don't really understand how a union would limit his freedom. Can anyone explain? I also get that specific unions for specific topics would be better, but starting off with 1 big union that can fight for rights that apply to ALL youtubers is a good thing for sure!

    I feel like David wants to start running when we can't even take tiny steps yet.

  20. I'm disappointed.
    You would only act to help the oppressed when it's convenient for you. You talked a good game but you showed your true colours. If you thought the fight won't work in the long run why didn't you reach out to the union to help advise? Do something even if it wasn't on the front lines? But nope, you're comfortable.

  21. This coming only weeks after stating your channel any many others are at risk of not existing let alone growing and that we need to support channels – like yours – to help them survive. How about YOU help support those other channels too? Where did that empathy go, David..?

    Edit: I have a current list of 273 musicians – both large and small – in a google doc that I only wish I could financially support. About 70 or so artists. 15 or so entertainers. And I'm constantly discovering new wonderful talented people who deserve both more money and recognition than they get for their works. None are more deserving than the others. How in the absolute hell am I supposed to support those people besides standing beside them and trying to enact change so they can successfully support themselves?

  22. New to the channel. I had a lot of hopes for it, but after seeing this, I'm wondering why he's so popular.

  23. This is the stupidest thing ever.

    You dont work for YT, it runs at a loss. the fact you get ANY kind of ad revenue is a nicety they gave you.
    What are you gonna do if they just tell you to fuck off? Quit? Whos gonna affect? Certainly not alphabet, they couldnt give any less fucks about people using or not using this site. You are just here for data, that they could gather literally anywhere else.

  24. Rewatch "Horrifying Dystopian Capitalist Stories AREN'T INSPIRATIONAL!" and then watch this. You're contradicting yourself David

  25. I didn't know YouTube hired YouTubers. Sorry but you guys are getting out of hand. How about YouTube kicks you off their platform? You all should be happy they don't completely block you. I'm not talking about David I'm talking about YouTubers in general. How about YouTube ends all ads and stops paying anyone?

  26. "I support Unions! but i wont…well actually support them"
    David Pakman 2019
    ps look up Joerg Spraves(Founder of the Union) Video, if you want to know whats actually about
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ&t=49s

  27. "I support Unions! but i wont…well actually support them"
    David Pakman 2019
    ps look up Joerg Spraves(Founder of the Union) Video, if you want to know whats actually about
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ&t=49s

  28. Your top 1% attitude towards the union is disturbing, David. As is your continued failure to declare who your preferred Democratic candidate is. That's two strikes.

  29. Thanks David, it was a fair explanation about the issue. I personally think unionization is the only solution for internet jobs with big companies. However, another aspect of this issue is that companies such as Youtube are too big for any countrywide union. For this matter, we don't have worldwide unionization, therefore, other unions should reach out to content creators even if they are not part of their union to be able to be effective and being able to gain the power to negotiate well-thought points with Youtube on behalf of everyone else.
    In recent years, we saw how EU managed to enforce its regulations to companies. I guess if you were not busy with elections and Trumpian crisis you could call your representatives to scrutinize Youtube for their unfair trade with their content creators.

  30. If you support the union, you'd join it and add your strength. What you're saying is that you aren't actively acting against it… but you're too powerful to want to help the little channels because "what's in it for me?" meanwhile you want channels bigger and more powerful than you to do for you what you won't do for others.
    The Fairtube union, meanwhile, might need to have stages of operation. Start of with the sort of "improve the status quo to help all members" approach outlined by the current demands that would at least change the ad-based model to be more equitably distributed. Then, start by pooling viewer donations for all members and distributing that equally among members.That might take some time to reach a point of being self-sustaining. And if it proves genuinely successful, the union could become strong enough to start a co-op competitor to youtube. And that would be far different from the current attempts to do that because if the union is that strong it likely has most of the popular content creators and just generally most content creators, so that if they collectively move to another platform and remove their past content from YT, then YT suddenly winds up a ghost town and the new platform has everything people want to watch. Honestly, that's the key to a platform migration, just a large group of people to agree to do so at once (or within the span of a week or two). And if the donations to the union have been handled in a way to be completely separate from YT, then there's no fear about the need of monetization on the new platform. Just let viewers know where to go and the union could completely cut ties with YT; the new platform would be a socialist co-op. With the added benefit of seeing if any far-right individuals joined the socialist co-op and then yelled and screamed about how awful socialism is compared to capitalism.
    The biggest concern for the union, I think, is that YT has complete control over the tools and interface of their platform, and over the content created by the creators. Youtube has almost full control over the labor power. Deleting videos is an option controlled by YT if they so choose. Monetizations is an option controlled by YT. Uploading when you want is an option controlled by YT. Visibility is controlled by YT. Comments are controlled by YT. Most of these things have been pretty much handled in a hands-off approach by YT (Google) but I can see them suddenly changing that when trying to break the union. How would one strike on YT? Not make videos, sure, but what about past videos? If YT decides to prevent deletion of those videos and then push them in the algorithm and keep the ad revenue entirely for themselves, they have the ability to do so. And what about "scabs" on a global platform? The union will need a LOT of people involved to truly have power. If they could get the majority if not all European youtubers to join, they'd at least be a faction that YT wouldn't want to just nuke.
    Meanwhile, it's awful that US law is so pro-corporate and anti-worker. With US-based tubers joining the European ones, that'd be a union to be reckoned with (language barriers notwithstanding).

  31. I don't think this YouTube union would really benefit anybody because YouTube isn't an employer, they don't hire creators to create content for them, users sign up to their platform, and YouTube will give you a slice of the ad revenue they generate from your activity.

  32. You should probably reevaluate your answer and views because you are a powerful and influential YouTuber and having your backing gives legitimacy to the unionized YouTube whether you benefit from it or not. Everyone wins when everyone is winning. Just because you’re not part of the 99% of YouTube who could use the union you just turn the other cheek??? Hypocrite for sure. Use your success to improve other people’s lives man. Unsubscribing for sure.

  33. Sorry to say, but this is pretty hilarious, David. You spend so much time advocating for progressive politics, and then you’ll serve up an argument like this about unions. “It wouldn’t benefit me, and that’s why I’m against it”. This is the exact same argument a lot of conservatives present in opposition to higher taxes. C’mon dude. At the very least have a laugh at the irony.

  34. What everyone needs to know is this. I am a card-carrying member of the Teamster's Union. and I truly support labor unions. There are a few things that I haven't found answers to though. Employees must all become members of the union and therefore must pay dues. Those high priced attornies and accountants don't work for free. Most of all I wonder this. Once a shop or a business has been unionized it is then no longer allowed according to union rules and collective bargaining agreements for said shop or business to hire nonunion employees except under certain conditions such as probationary training periods or part-time seasonal help. So if this union takes hold and somehow forces YouTube into a collective bargaining agreement it may very well turn out that only content creators that are union members can become monetized or possibly even not allow nonunion creators to upload to the servers at all. I don't know if this will happen but it is worth wondering. If this union were to unionize Youtube it would most certainly want dues and therefore protect its members exclusive right to employment on YouTube. So creators who happen to be in the top 3 percent or so may have absolutely no say in the matter at all. This is what happens when companies overlook and even bully their greatest resources.

  35. David you are coward! You support money! You little coward! Everyone who sponsors you should unsub you and not support anything you are doing! Don't give David another cent. He is a Scumbag!

  36. I like your videos 😊 and agree with many of your opinions, I appreciate your honesty…. Listening to your why "I won't join" seems rooted in selfishness. 🤔 Not that you don't have the right to be selfish. But makes me wonder where we draw that line….the group would benafit from senior successful Chanel's like yours

  37. Its a great idea, but to you Americans who have little or no idea about unions, go look at what happened in NASCAR when the drivers tried this. YouTube is just like NASCAR it is owned by someone, it is not a democracy, it does not exist for your benefit, it exists to make money for Google. Google and YouTube started with noble goals but look at what they are now.

  38. Check out Christo Aivalis's video response to this video: "What David Pakman gets Wrong About Unions": https://youtu.be/B9edEaUXRF0

  39. Unsubbed after seeing this. Quite hypocritical of you to be pro union for other industries but not for YouTube since it doesn’t benefit you. Screw the little guys, huh?

  40. This is a disappointing video, David. You just told us that you are pro-union, but showed us that you are not.

  41. I'm disappointed. It isn't just about you ——- and why are you so sure that it wouldn't end up being good for you? It's about the rights of all youtubers.

  42. I've joined on my leftist channel. I hope many more as well. I'd love to have you, but I get why not.
    That being said, keep spreading the word!

  43. What a load of Bull …

    A Union would not impede his ability to post content anywhere.
    I thought David was a lefty, yet he won’t actively support one of the core pillars of leftism.
    Instead he goes on a tirade about crowdfunding…
    Jeez.

  44. For more infomation about this union, Ian, on forgotten weapons has attached the video announcing the union to this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUxxLZz_2NU

  45. It doesn’t affect me or work in my favor even though it will the other 99% of creators is okey with your support system of patrion’s & subscribers?

  46. I understand that joining a union might put you at a disadvantage. But I think you should consider that your self-interest is the same self-interest that companies use to maximize their profits and fuck everyone else. If you were to join a union it would incentivize other large channels to join and give more bargaining power to the other small channels in the union. You seem to be looking at this from the viewpoint of a business person (which I understand you are) but, as a leftist, I think you should use the power that you have to help the community.

  47. So what you're saying is, there should be a "Donate" button next to the Like, Share, and Subscribe buttons?

  48. You guys would be crazy not to create a Union. What about Canada? Is it set up similar to Europe? If you don’t do it for yourself maybe consider doing it for the good of society

  49. David, can you not see how you making such statements flies in the face of progressivism in general (as it pertains to America's present social and/or societal issues)? I know you've made it clear that you don't identify as a socialist, so let me say this as a capitalist: This is the kind of video that can utterly undo months of added (total) subscriber counts in the span of a day or two. I hope you reflect on the content of this upload of yours and attempt a more nuanced double-take. This can turn into a catastrophic P.R. nightmare in the worst-case scenario. I hope it doesn't, good day.

  50. I don't really get David's point here: obviously a powerful a youtuber union would be able to petition to end serial demonetization: something which affects David's channel specifically. It would stop frivolous copyright strikes by old media: that also affected David's channel. I can't see how a union would not help him personally, regardless of whether you should join anyway in the collective interest (which I think you should).
    And sure subscription models work better than ad models but why the hell wouldn't you take the ad money also-most channels need both to thrive or even survive ? In any case there are always going to be channels where a sub model doesn't work.

  51. This is exactly why the left fails, sadly. When you're left wing only when it suits you and throw out integrity when it doesn't. A union would protect everyone but bigger YTers won't let that happen easily because they'd have to share the pie and monopolisation would become harder.

  52. You are a piece of shit if you dont join a union because the little people will bring you down… fuck you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *