Writer's Guild Strike

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
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.

How does it blow your mind? It's quite simple actually. They don't have some high-minded ideology, they just want to watch TV. How is that confusing?

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.

Yep. Although again it's not really about the DVD sales... it's about them not being horribly raped when all the shows go to internet distribution.

 

[MadRat]

I wonder if people remember a year ago there was a similar stagehand strike that was brought to a quick end before the broadway season. It is not just the writers that are unionized.

 

[bctbct]

A good show generates tons of money for the studio. If they feel they can replace that revenue without these writers they should. If they cant they should share the wealth.

Since the shows are going off the air I see that as a sign that they need these guys.

WGA :thumbsup:

 

[SirStev0]

You have no idea why they striking... find out and then com back.

 

[Rainsford]

Here's what I don't get about the anti-union stance that seems to come flaming out of the ears of every conservative when strikes like this come up. Employment isn't a damn charity, a company pays you because you make money for them...they aren't doing it to be nice, and YOU'RE not doing it to be nice. It's the foundation of capitalism, and if one side or the other thinks the current situations is unfair, they are free to try and rectify it. But a bunch of people can get together and start a company to take advantage of collective bargaining power, so it seems reasonable that labor should be able to do the same thing.

And that's exactly the point, it's two groups with a stake in what's going on. The pedestal the anti-union people place the company on and the pit they feel the need to shove the workers into is silly, both sides need each other, which should be obvious or strikes wouldn't work.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I just read an article about Leno writing his own stuff and violating the rules, and ya know what I'm fed up with the guild. F them. The studios will pay what they're going to pay, and as with any employment, whether you're a Wal-Mart cashier or a hollywood writer, you'll either take it or leave it.

The Writer's guild is just another craptacular union trying to bring this country down.

Capitalist negotiation = bringing this country down? Give me a break.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder if Jadow has realized by this point how dumb what he wrote was.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
unions used to be needed...just not in this day and time

Wow. Wow.

This WGA strike emphasizes that unions ARE needed. Without the union there would be no way to fairly negotiate with the studios for royalties from online distribution.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I wonder if people remember a year ago there was a similar stagehand strike that was brought to a quick end before the broadway season. It is not just the writers that are unionized.

Well all reports are, the actors will likely be striking over summer when their contracts expire.

All of hollywood is unionized.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here's what I don't get about the anti-union stance that seems to come flaming out of the ears of every conservative when strikes like this come up. Employment isn't a damn charity, a company pays you because you make money for them...they aren't doing it to be nice, and YOU'RE not doing it to be nice. It's the foundation of capitalism, and if one side or the other thinks the current situations is unfair, they are free to try and rectify it. But a bunch of people can get together and start a company to take advantage of collective bargaining power, so it seems reasonable that labor should be able to do the same thing.

And that's exactly the point, it's two groups with a stake in what's going on. The pedestal the anti-union people place the company on and the pit they feel the need to shove the workers into is silly, both sides need each other, which should be obvious or strikes wouldn't work.

What you don't understand is that the writers are greedy. The athletes are greedy, the writers are greedy, the malcontents who try to unionize Walmarts are greedy, the autoworkers are greedy. In fact, anyone making more than minimum wage is probably greedy, as are the people who demanded that there be a minimum wage in the first place.

I, on the other hand, make much more money than you, not because I'm greedy, but because I'm worth it.

 

[BoberFett]

LMAO, after your first sentence I was about to write a scathing rebuttal 3chordcharlie, then I got to the last sentence. Funny stuff.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
So should IT guys continue to be paid for a server they installed because it continues to run for years and years? I mean the big fat corporation used that server to make millions and millions, but IT guy was only paid once?

Damn straight! :thumbsup:

Also, those stupid novelists who want to get paid for more than the very first copy of their book. I mean, are they printing the damn things? :|

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.

So does the architect of the Golden Gate Bridge still get a check everytime a toll is collected?

Why is the entertainment industry the only one where people feel entitled to continued income after the work is done?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
So does the architect of the Golden Gate Bridge still get a check everytime a toll is collected?

Why is the entertainment industry the only one where people feel entitled to continued income after the work is done?

You should probably find out why the entertainment companies keep making you watch commercials on shows you've already seen and make you pay full price to see a movie you've seen before.

You should be really really really happy that things are this way. If people got paid a flat salary to write books you would have horrible horrible books for sale. The current system rewards people who write well by giving them money proportional to the amount of books that they sell. Everyone wins. More basic though, they get paid that way because that's what the market has determined they are worth. If they thought they could get away with it the companies would have monkies bashing away on typewriters, but they know that the writers are essential to their business... and so they pay them.

Are you done yet, or should we all keep beating you up over this?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: MadRat
I wonder if people remember a year ago there was a similar stagehand strike that was brought to a quick end before the broadway season. It is not just the writers that are unionized.

Well all reports are, the actors will likely be striking over summer when their contracts expire.

All of hollywood is unionized.

Let them bleed themselves dry, it's good entertainment watching Hollywood implode.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
...
So does the architect of the Golden Gate Bridge still get a check everytime a toll is collected?

Why is the entertainment industry the only one where people feel entitled to continued income after the work is done?

The entertainment industry ISN'T the only industry like that. The Golden Gate Bridge is a dumb example because there is ongoing work that tolls pay for, so the work isn't actually done. Almost all industries, in fact, have some sort of setup where individuals are not only paid for their time and effort, but for the amount of money they earn for a company on an ongoing basis. This doesn't always apply to everyone in an industry, but it IS present in almost every industry.

But you're not actually arguing that after a season of a TV show wraps up production they should just sell DVDs of the show at cost, right? When you say "people", what you REALLY mean is "certain people". Any business that is based on intellectual property is going to keep making money off of a product after they finish working on it, that's how the business world works. What you're complaining about is that the people who help create the show, and make money for the studios, want a share in those future profits. Their work is continuing to make money for the studios, why shouldn't they be entitled to a cut of it?

The problem with your argument is that you're drawing an artificial line between the company and the individual worker, and demanding that certain "rules" be enforced...heavily balanced towards the company. I'm saying, we're all capitalists here, if I create something good, I want to make money off of it. Sometimes that means my yearly salary, but if I create something that's going to make my company a boat load of money, why the hell SHOULDN'T I be able to ask for a little of that? What sacred cow are we slaying when labor wants to be paid for the value of their work rather than a fixed price decided in advance? And let's not forget, the entertainment industry has been like this for a long time...the writers aren't demanding NEW benefits, they're simply asking that the benefits be extended to new revenue streams that didn't exist when they first wrote their contracts.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: MadRat
I wonder if people remember a year ago there was a similar stagehand strike that was brought to a quick end before the broadway season. It is not just the writers that are unionized.

Well all reports are, the actors will likely be striking over summer when their contracts expire.

All of hollywood is unionized.

Let them bleed themselves dry, it's good entertainment watching Hollywood implode.

You know, it's absolutely fascinating to see how quickly you "conservatives" turn into red faced communists when you don't like the group trying to make a profit. Corporations can lie, cheat and steal to make a buck, but if WORKERS try to get a little more money, it's like they're terrorist sympathizers or something. If companies don't have an obligation to anything other than the almighty dollar, doesn't it seem hypocritical to demand that workers follow some sort of bizarre rules about corporate allegiance and civic duty?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
So should IT guys continue to be paid for a server they installed because it continues to run for years and years? I mean the big fat corporation used that server to make millions and millions, but IT guy was only paid once?

Damn straight! :thumbsup:

Also, those stupid novelists who want to get paid for more than the very first copy of their book. I mean, are they printing the damn things? :|

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.

So does the architect of the Golden Gate Bridge still get a check everytime a toll is collected?

Why is the entertainment industry the only one where people feel entitled to continued income after the work is done?

So it's OK with you that the entertainment corporations get paid after the work is done, but not the employees who did the work?

Pick a position and stick to it. If you want to argue against nearly infinite copyright I'm right with you. But as long as the media conglomerates get paid in perpetuity for their "property" then those who actually created it have every right to try to get their piece of the pie.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just think it's hard to feel sorry for people who already make $250,000/yr... and I don't watch a lot of mindless TV, so I can't say I really miss them either!

I do respect Leno and Conan for their decision to support the other staff who would have been laid off. I think that's pretty decent of them.

writers don't make that much.

Writers who get on a network show do get paid that much (some more). It's because there are so many craptastic unemployed writers that make it sound like they are paupers. And it's the ones that make $250k/year that are asking for streaming internet money (that generate negative income at the moment) and an increase in all other royalty revenues.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I strongly disagree with Jadow - he sounds to me like one of the righty ideologues who just doesn't understand the issues, specifically the whole concept of the balance of power between owners and labor, which is core to the strength of the middle class in this country - and he sounds like a guy in a dirty t shirt and a beer in a chair (figuratively) spitting about rich California liberals.

There's an ideological error commonplace, in which the poor think of themselves as on the billionares' team, as if the money rubs off on them if they just support what's in the interests of the super wealthy, and if they attack the lesser paid people.

Their ideology was illutrated for the crock and evil inhumanity it is in the gilded age - an era pretty much every person I see advocating this ideology is almost entirely ignorant of. So what you get is this reactionary sort of 'you know what - F them' level commentaries that are an insult to the freedom they have to get informed before speaking.

People today make a lot more share of the nation's wealth than they would otherwise because of the hard work of a couple generations of Americans a century ago fighting for the ability for labor to get a share of the power. We really do need to do a better job of educating Americans on the ideas behind labor and economics so they can make better political choices.

Wow...bunch of rhetoric and no facts.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ironwing
Yea, screw unions. We should all wait around for the rich to piss in our mouths.

What gives one union the right to hurt so many people that aren't in their union?

What do you mean 'the right'? You are in effect saying that the writers have to work in conditions they find unacceptable. They aren't slaves, they will work when they want to.

I'll never understand the anti union stuff I hear on here all the time. I guess people quickly forget how much unions have done for them.

So...the writers can screw over the make-up crew? the janitors? the light guy?

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?

no..just find new writers.

So why aren't they doing that?

Because the writer and the employer would get blacklisted once the strike is over. WGA never forgets and will make sure you NEVER work in Hollywood ever again (until the next strike).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Because the writer and the employer would get blacklisted once the strike is over. WGA never forgets and will make sure you NEVER work in Hollywood ever again (until the next strike).

You missed his point. GoPackGo was in effect saying that the writers were replaceable with new ones. If that were the case, and the new ones would be just as good as the old ones (or good enough from a business sense), then you wouldn't NEED to worry about the WGA again because you would never bother to resolve the contract dispute. This is obviously not the case.

You know as well as I do that the internet is where media distribution is going. To allow themselves to be screwed by the entertainment companies in terms of royalties for that would be incredibly stupid on the writers' part.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
LMAO, after your first sentence I was about to write a scathing rebuttal 3chordcharlie, then I got to the last sentence. Funny stuff.

thx

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Because the writer and the employer would get blacklisted once the strike is over. WGA never forgets and will make sure you NEVER work in Hollywood ever again (until the next strike).

You missed his point. GoPackGo was in effect saying that the writers were replaceable with new ones. If that were the case, and the new ones would be just as good as the old ones (or good enough from a business sense), then you wouldn't NEED to worry about the WGA again because you would never bother to resolve the contract dispute. This is obviously not the case.

You know as well as I do that the internet is where media distribution is going. To allow themselves to be screwed by the entertainment companies in terms of royalties for that would be incredibly stupid on the writers' part.

You missed everything. The establishment right now will not allow such a huge change without government intervention disbanding the union. The current system is such that they cannot just refuse to hire from the union and hire non-union members permanently.

To strike for a revenue stream that does not exist right now is incredibly stupid. I doubt streaming on demand TV will ever have any material revenues.

 

[GoPackGo]

Do software developers get royalties?
Do journalists?

How about the AOL "You've got mail" guy?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80
You missed everything. The establishment right now will not allow such a huge change without government intervention disbanding the union. The current system is such that they cannot just refuse to hire from the union and hire non-union members permanently.

To strike for a revenue stream that does not exist right now is incredibly stupid. I doubt streaming on demand TV will ever have any material revenues.

Either nobody is watching TV over IP and so the royalties that the studios have to pay are so small as to not be a big deal, or lots of people use it and they are making money on it anyway. If you think on demand TV will never have any material revenues you are insane. In the not too distant future I imagine ALL TV will be streaming on demand.

And gopackgo, why do you keep doing this? Yes by the way, software developers get royalties. As Rainsford said, any business that relies on intellectual property tends to license that property, and royalties are paid.