Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Do you ever STFU with your ridiculous ideological gibberish? :roll:
This isn't the fscking 1880's anymore, and it's pretty uncalled-for the way you always make grossly inaccurate and extremely insulting assumptions about every person you disagree with. What it does do, however, is show off what a stupid idiot blowhard you are.
You want to talk about the need for better education so that Americans get make better political choices? Trying getting one yourself first instead of constantly spouting the same rehashed far left rhetorical bullsh!t which has no more intelligence or credibility than does Rush Limbaugh's far right rhetorical bullshit.
So you ARE saying that the writers should work even when they don't want to. Interesting. So I guess you're just saying that strikes should be illegal?
You asked why the writers had the right to 'screw over the make up guy'. What did you mean? Why don't they have the right to strike?
As for finding new writers if you're already complaining how crappy the state of TV is, it's unlikely to improve when you have to replace all the writers. I doubt the viewing public would be happy either. All those shows they like right now would be completely changed and ruined. (sort of like what happens when a new author takes over halfway through a book). Tell me that's not going to hurt the networks' bottom line.
That, and it would probably be difficult to find the writers willing to do that... especially considering how poorly the new writers will end up getting paid if the networks have their way. They would also very likely be blacklisted by the writers' guild, something I don't think too many people want.
It blows my mind that people are all for capital flexing its muscle in negotiations with their workers, but when the workers do the same you get all mad.
Do you understand the nature of collective labor at all?
It's called leverage. The employers certainly have their share; when it's too one-sided, you see the nonsense we had a century ago, with people paid just enough to stay alive, working 12+ hour days, at least 6 day workweeks, alongside their children, without much any safety standards or protections if injured. And why not? It was all about the employers maximizing their profits, and those practices did so.
Any individual worker had no leverage to improve any of that - he's gone if he has an issue. The only way for workers to get any leverage to balance the employer's leverage was to organize and do it as a group, where their ability to strike could actually make it more expensive for the companies than paying more to workers. One of the workers' incentives not to ask for TOO much is that the business isn't going to enter an agreement if they can't make a profit, and they'd both lose out.
So, yes, they have the ability to hurt others, because if they didn't, there'd be nothing stopping paying them less and less and less to pretty minimal levels. Oh, you say, but then they could do something else. No, because that would be a systemic change that would drag down other workers too, so they'd all make less and less. The unions work it out among themselves about the harms a strike causes; they understand that's the only leverage to get better wages overall.
Well said; I guess it's because when the writers want more, they're greedy and don't care about the viewers, and when the networks want to pay less, that's sensible.
We really do have some uninformed far-right posters here, who do post things that 'blow the minds' of reasonable people.
You know, in the longer run, protecting the income of the writers helps ensure the availability of better quality shows, by keeping the incentives higher to attract good writers.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
OMG you're right! It was all the unions. Surely advances in technology and productivity had nothing to do with it at all.
Heh. One of the funniest things IMO when you make these ridiculous comments of yours is how you seem to be unaware that some 90% of America was rural and working on family farms back in this fictional time when you pretend that everyone was enslaved to corporate America. While today, less than 10% of America works for unions, while almost 50% work for big corporations, yet somehow it was the unions that gave us everything we love...
BTW, the issue here, as you're obviously not keeping up, is the ability of a single corporation of pooled labor being able to monopolize its product (which is labor BTW) across an entire industry.
Otherwise, in your last paragraph you're pretending that such a union, like the WGA, can always be counted on to act intelligently and responsibly -- a notion as ridiculous as expecting old Standard Oil or today's Wal-Mart to do the same in a similar position.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Uhh.. most novelists don't get paid at all... because they don't get printed, not even a first copy.
The IT analogy was very much apples and oranges (because the IT guy doesn't control the content on the server, he is technician), the novelist one was pretty spot-on. An even better analogy would be a software programmer.
Far from being a shining example of unionism in action, the entertainment industry has some of the worst income disparities of ANY industry. And the reason for that is because most of the industry is unemployed and/or non-contributing at any given time. So you can't really say that the average writer makes $X and try to translate it to the entire industry because the average writer probably didn't sell a script last year. Just like the average actor probably never got past a single audition last year.
I think what he means is that most people are willing to jump down the writers throats for wanting more money (a percentage of DVD sales) but not the corporation. I always say if it's good for the goose then it good for the gander.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter