That's certainly true to some extent. However, there is an old saying "you can't steal a million dollars from a million dollar picture".
Remember we're talking about a system that tried to claim the film Forest Gump was a financial disaster when the author of the Novel came looking for payment from his contact's profit sharing clause..
Yet:
It's why many things are done as 'non-union productions' (right or wrong); as the Hollywood unions have high fee costs and strict procedures (not related to safety) as to exactly how certain things need to be done, usually meaning swelled production crew numbers, etc.Winston Groom was paid $350,000 for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump and was contracted for a 3 percent share of the film's net profits. However, Paramount and the film's producers did not pay him, using Hollywood accounting to posit that the blockbuster film lost money. Tom Hanks, by contrast, contracted for the film's gross receipts instead of a salary, and he and director Zemeckis each received $40 million. Additionally, Groom was not mentioned once in any of the film's six Oscar-winner speeches. The dispute was later resolved.
Blaming costing expenses that have to be carried no matter what to a picture to make it appear like it lost money has nothing to do with unions. But thanks for saying what political party you are a devotee of, Foxahalic.
Um, I've been a Democrat my entire voting career; and find anything FOX News says full of crap (to put in nicely). Hell just look at my posting history.
All that said, Hollywood production is what it is, and there's a reason many (if not the majority) of production these days is done in Canada, Florida, and Australia -- to cut costs and go where they get various breaks in costs. The poster I replied to was wondering why Axanar (and other non-union productions) can put much more 'on the screen' for less.
I'm not anti-union by any means, but that doesn't change why many production companies go elsewhere to film these days.
(Sorry for the de-rail.)