# when will the writers strike end?



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

My tivo hd does not record as much as it use to since the strike started. almost everything will be repeats soon.


----------



## m.s (Mar 8, 2007)

It will end either tomorrow or sometime later.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

I have tons of stuff on my expandded drives - With Christams specials for now I am good until March or so. Just another in the long list of TiVo benefits :up:


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Whenever the writers and the money men come to terms. If that could be predicted in advance, there wouldn't be a strike in the first place.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

They should all be fired. Any sort of union/collective bargaining system really amounts to nothing more than organized extortion. Laws should be amended to make it criminal.

In any sort of free market economy, the value of a commodity or service is determined by the price the market will bare. Organizing a strike (not just this one), is always a greedy attempt to use strength of numbers in order to get paid more than the disupted product/service is worth. If they don't think the compensation they are offered is worth it, they should quit their jobs. If these writers had any idea what a real job where one does actual work is like, they wouldn't be so dissatisfied with their hollywood jobs.

Unions and strikes are the reason is so damn hard/uneconomical to be able to buy anything "Made in USA". Unions are the first to ***** about their jobs going oversees, and it's their own fault, despite everything we're about to hear about outsourcing in the coming election year.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

<--- pulls up a chair


----------



## clam729 (Nov 28, 2004)

Why does it matter ? It's not like they're writing quality programming to begin with. So glad I have TVLand and Hallmark, about the only channels left w/o reality craptacular programming...


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I think we should have a separate forum for writers strike posts. There are lots of em.


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

CrashHD said:


> In any sort of free market economy, the value of a commodity or service is determined by the price the market will bare. *Organizing a strike (not just this one), is always a greedy attempt to use strength of numbers in order to get paid more than the disupted product/service is worth*.


Or, they could be trying to share more of the profits gained by the product they produce. Why should the big guys benefit all the profits?

Personally I can see both sides but there are clear reasons unions came into being. I am not necessarily pro-union but I am against unlimited profits with nothing trickling down to the actual worker.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

Soapm said:


> Or, they could be trying to share more of the profits gained by the product they produce. Why should the big guys benefit all the profits?
> 
> Personally I can see both sides but there are clear reasons unions came into being. I am not necessarily pro-union but I am against unlimited profits with nothing trickling down to the actual worker.


Well I guess the studios would tell you that writers took none of the risk in providing the media. But I can also sort of see both sides here. Seems like there could be a reduction in upfront money to writers for some percentage of those residuals


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

daperlman said:


> Well I guess the studios would tell you that writers took none of the risk in providing the media. But I can also sort of see both sides here. Seems like there could be a reduction in upfront money to writers for some percentage of those residuals


I agree, only the investors depend on a percentage of the profits. Others see the profits and want in but no one gives back their pay if it belly's up. Imagine if your pay was 0.02% of the bottom dollar? I could see America making better cars and American consumers buying American.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> Unions and strikes are the reason is so damn hard/uneconomical to be able to buy anything "Made in USA". Unions are the first to ***** about their jobs going oversees, and it's their own fault, despite everything we're about to hear about outsourcing in the coming election year.


yah, it was so much better when people like Getty and Rockefeller owned everything but you could count on that company paycheck every week ... getting you the bare necessities from the company store you were forced to shop in.

Neither extreme is really a good working economic model.
The writers just want their slice of pie from the download and Internet streaming sales. This is a new revenue source that causes such upheavals as everyone figures out how to work it into the old system of compensation. Hardly seems like the harbinger of doom to be wanting that


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

CrashHD is funny. We've got the greatest concentration of wealth at the top income level since 1929 and he wants more. I realize most people are Ok with this because they identify with the rich. 
There are signs that this is changing.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Hi there.

Here is a brief overview as to why the writers are on strike: 




If you want up-to-date details then I recommend going to http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/ or http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

Just so you know, the writers do not want to be on strike. The AMPTP (the television networks and movie studios) walked out of contract negotiations with the writers and caused the writers to go on strike.

The strike will continue for as long as the AMPTP refuses to negotiate with the writers. Keep in mind that in June 2008 the contract with the Actors and the Directors ends and it is very likely that those unions may go on strike as well if the AMPTP continues to refuse to negotiate.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yah, it was so much better when people like Getty and Rockefeller owned everything but you could count on that company paycheck every week ... getting you the bare necessities from the company store you were forced to shop in.


An anti-union point of view does not automatically make one pro-monopoly. It's not a binary question where the choice is one or the other. Monopolies abuse free market capitalist economies in much the opposite way that unions do. I suppose one potential solution would be if you allow the workers to have their unions, allow the companies to have their monopolies, and see how they balance out. How's that for an "everbody loses" solution? I think we would be better off with neither, but that's just my $.02, which ought to be worth a dollar soon at the current rate of inflation.



Cudahy said:


> CrashHD is funny. We've got the greatest concentration of wealth at the top income level since 1929


Please cite your source. I would like to read it.



Cudahy said:


> and he wants more. I realize most people are Ok with this because they identify with the rich.
> There are signs that this is changing.


That is not what I said. I think if people want to make more money, they should work harder/do better, and if that doesn't cut it, change jobs. The principle of supply and demand will determine the actual monetary worth of a service/occupation in much the same that it does with actual goods. That's the way capitalism is supposed to work.

I don't see where in my statement I said the rich should get richer. I also don't know about most people identifying with the rich, I can't speak for them. I can say that's not the case for me.

I do have to admit, I am unfamiliar with the exact details of this dispute. Most of my opinion is based on the fact that I refuse to believe anyone involved in tv/movie production is underpaid. I have no idea how much these writers actually make, but I bet it's an amount I would consider a fortune. The way I see it, if they win their strike, and get more money, THAT would be the rich getting richer.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

m.s said:


> It will end either tomorrow or sometime later.


Tomorrow tomorrow? Or the perpetual today is not tomorrow, today is yesterday's tomorrow, tomorrow is tomorrow, but it's not tomorrow today, today it is today.

My head are hurt. I be confused now.


----------



## msaeger (Oct 4, 2002)

What is being effected by this I haven't really noticed anything different with my tv viewing but I keep reading about people wanting the strike to end.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

daperlman said:


> Seems like there could be a reduction in upfront money to writers for some percentage of those residuals


That already happened. Now, the studios are trying to get out of the residuals as well.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Come January, new episodes of TV programs will run out, and in a while, no new movies will be released.

The way I think of it, the writers are paid a bit up front, and a bit later when the production of their work is sold, sometimes as a percentage of the success of it. They just want part of success of DVD and internet download sales. Whether it is their "fair" share they want, I won't get into that argument.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrashHD said:


> They should all be fired. Any sort of union/collective bargaining system really amounts to nothing more than organized extortion. Laws should be amended to make it criminal.


The laws already make it criminal. Rather, the NLRA provide a special exemption for duly-certified unions. It allows those folks to collude, ostensibly for the purpose of fighting unsafe working conditions and child labor, and for ensuring that full-time workers receive a wage that puts them at least above the poverty level. The fact that these unions are going beyond the bounds of what I (and apparently you) consider reasonable extensions of the foundation for the extending of that privilege to them, I (and perhaps you as well) advocate decertifying that union and any other union that uses its special privileges in a manner inconsistent with what unions were established for in the first place, i.e., fighting unsafe working conditions and child labor, and for ensuring that full-time workers receive a wage that puts them at least above the poverty level.



CrashHD said:


> Unions and strikes are the reason is so damn hard/uneconomical to be able to buy anything "Made in USA".


And why more and more our standard of living is being exported overseas. Anything that folks can do just as well there, for a little less, will be done there, and instead we'll have less productivity, less affluence, less money overall, and we'll suffer for it as a society.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Soapm said:


> Or, they could be trying to share more of the profits gained by the product they produce. Why should the big guys benefit all the profits?


Why should _writers _get *special *privileges from the government that gives them the ability to strong-arm a better deal from their employers?



Soapm said:


> Personally I can see both sides but there are clear reasons unions came into being.


And this dispute has absolutely nothing to do with any of those reasons.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Cudahy said:


> There are signs that this is changing.


What are you talking about? For thirty years the signs have been going in one single direction, the opposite of how you see it. Even the _Democrats _are pro-business now! What signs do you think you're seeing?

To be fair, I'm not saying how I would prefer things to be, with regard to the division on profits in our economy; I'm just talking about *how things are*. Let's keep things real, eh?


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

The average union writer makes only $30,000 to $50,000 per year. Over half of the writers are unemployed at any given time. The royalties paid allow these writers to earn some money so that they can continue to write. The royalties also pay into their health and pension funds. The AMPTP is trying to stop these payments. This would put many writers out of work and reduce the quality and quantity of all projects.

Add to this that the AMPTP is trying to not pay writers for anything shown streaming on the internet or downloaded from iTunes. Simply put, the AMPTP is trying to bust the union. They are telling the writers that they do not make any money off of the internet while at the same time they are telling their stockholders that they make millions of dollars off of the internet.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That already happened. Now, the studios are trying to get out of the residuals as well.


I thought the crux of the strike was that writers get zero (proceeds) from downloads and dvd sales.

IOW they do get tv airing residuals... but get none of the new ones.
So what is the studio trying to get out of?


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

daperlman said:


> I thought the crux of the strike was that writers get zero (proceeds) from downloads and dvd sales.
> 
> IOW they do get tv airing residuals... but get none of the new ones.
> So what is the studio trying to get out of?


If the AMPTP is successful at not allowing payment for any productions created for the internet and then broadcast that internet show on regular network television then they wouldn't have to pay a royalty for the rerun because the first run wasn't paid for. This would effectively eliminate all future royalties.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

daperlman said:


> I thought the crux of the strike was that writers get zero (proceeds) from downloads and dvd sales.
> 
> IOW they do get tv airing residuals... but get none of the new ones.
> So what is the studio trying to get out of?


Because reruns (with residuals) are being replaced by DVD sales and internet showings (without residuals), so the writers are losing a significant part of their compensation. The studios refuse to take this into account in their negotiations...they want to continue shifting money from writers to studios.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

While I am not anti-union as a rule, this notion that forcing individual negotiatoin of pay rather than collective collusion will somehow 'lower the quality of work performend' is absurd. Only the best would get paid the most. Others would not get paid. Simple supply and demand. As long as the supply of writers, or any other trade out weighs the demand, saleries would remain low. If that is near poverty level then so be it, that says that a pay scale near poverty is sufficient to supply enough qualified talent. If not, saleries would rise to support better talent. 

This has been true in the professional ranks for many years. Unionizing of professional talent (doctors, lawyers, engineers etc) has been always been illegal. Yet the best talent seems to do pretty well. Lesser talent seems to be removed from the talent pool. IE they find another line of work where they are suited.

Unions are needed for lower end jobs where only collective bargining can offset the size and power of the employer vs the number of qualified persons to fill them driving the cost below that of poverty line or the employment children. Hollywood writers do not fall into this category and should not be afforded the protection of law exempting them from collusion.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> Please cite your source. I would like to read it.


Here is one study from UC Santa Cruz. In summary, in 1929, the Top 1% held a 44.2% of wealth in the United States. After the stock market crash, wealth concentration fell, bottoming out in the mid-1970s. Since then, it has (more or less) steadily risen -- with a blip for the 1982 recession and for the bursting of the internet bubble in 1998-2001 -- so that, by the late 1990s, it was indeed higher than at any level since 1929, and has grown since then. This article in the Economist (sorry, subscription link, but the magazine is well worth a subscription if you are interested in a mostly libertarian, outside-the-US view of world affairs) has a less dry discussion of the data. So yes, wealth concentration in the US is at its highest level since 1929.

I am not sure how relevant it is to the particular issues of the writer's strike, but hey, you said you would like to read it


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

jcthorne said:


> Unions are needed for lower end jobs where only collective bargining can offset the size and power of the employer vs the number of qualified persons to fill them driving the cost below that of poverty line or the employment children.


Please go take a look at the links that I posted earlier and you will see why the members of the Writers Guild fall into the description you just posted. Yes, some writers are paid a lot, but most are not. Most are unemployed for six months out of the year and make less than $50,000 per year and the AMPTP is trying to pay them even less than they are now.

As a matter of historical record, it was the creation of unions that created the middle-class. Prior to that it was the really rich and the really poor. With the union busting mentality that is creeping into our society today we are heading back to the time of the really rich and the really poor and I do not believe that is a situation that we would want as a country.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

No, we are not. THere is one very large difference between the US today and the US when unions were formed. Education. Far more americans have degrees now than then and thus there are far more professional careers that by default create the middle class. Jobs for the un-educated and non-skilled or skilled in non demaded professions are what creates the lower econmic class.

If there is a surplus of writers in hollywood such that they cannot earn a living wage, then there needs to be fewer writers, not collective bargining such that all writers live off the backs of those that are truly good at what they do.

I really should not have voiced an opinion here. It has very little to do with Tivo. Others here may have the last word on me. Sorry for the diversion.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> An anti-union point of view does not automatically make one pro-monopoly. It's not a binary question where the choice is one or the other. Monopolies abuse free market capitalist economies in much the opposite way that unions do. .





ZeoTiVo said:


> Neither extreme is really a good working economic model.


Gosh maybe if you read the next line in my post you might have actually avoided saying the exact same thing my reply was saying. Instead you act as if you said it first to hide your extreme POV in your anti union post

in short though, the studios are colluding to keep download/streaming residuals to themsleves. Sure the writers on high ratings shows could threaten to quit and negotiate a better deal but thatleaves the rest of the so-so writers out in th cold. How is a writer for say 'Dirty Jobs" supposed to get anywhere


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Because reruns (with residuals) are being replaced by DVD sales and internet showings (without residuals), so the writers are losing a significant part of their compensation. The studios refuse to take this into account in their negotiations...they want to continue shifting money from writers to studios.


Ok that is what I thought... but I think trying to say that "studios are taking away compensation" is a little misleading. Again the writers weren't the ones who ponied up the investment to write and copy files and DVD's. And as of now there are still reruns.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

Yeah, but the writers have never been the ones to pony up any money. I don't see why that's even part of the argument.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

flatcurve said:


> Yeah, but the writers have never been the ones to pony up any money. I don't see why that's even part of the argument.


Right... but since studios consider writers an expense, if there is a reduction to what is kept from DVD sales etc... writers should be prepared to get less as a salary. Otherwise from a practical standpoint why on earth would studios volunteer to make less money?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

daperlman said:


> Right... but since studios consider writers an expense, if there is a reduction to what is kept from DVD sales etc... writers should be prepared to get less as a salary. Otherwise from a practical standpoint why on earth would studios volunteer to make less money?


The problem is, they're trying to take money away from the writers to line their own pockets. Part of the compensation package the studios forced upon he writers (because they didn't want to pay them what they're worth upfront) was residuals. Now, they want to take the residual money that in the past went to the writers and keep it for themselves, without adjusting upfront salary to compensate.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

derekcbart said:


> Over half of the writers are unemployed at any given time.


Sounds like a labor market that has too many workers and not enough work. Market forces would ensure the best half of the workers get work continually, and the other half find other jobs. That's what should happen IMHO. As said by jcthorne:


jcthorne said:


> Yet the best talent seems to do pretty well. Lesser talent seems to be removed from the talent pool. IE they find another line of work where they are suited.
> 
> Unions are needed for lower end jobs where only collective bargining can offset the size and power of the employer vs the number of qualified persons to fill them driving the cost below that of poverty line or the employment children. Hollywood writers do not fall into this category and should not be afforded the protection of law exempting them from collusion.


:up:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

daperlman said:


> I thought the crux of the strike was that writers get zero (proceeds) from ... dvd sales.


That is factually incorrect. Rather, the writers want to _double _how much they get from DVD sales.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem is, they're trying to take money away from the writers to line their own pockets.


No, they're not. They're working to do what's best for their owners, which is their fiduciary responsibility.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

daperlman said:


> Ok that is what I thought... but I think trying to say that "studios are taking away compensation" is a little misleading. Again the writers weren't the ones who ponied up the investment to write and copy files and DVD's. And as of now there are still reruns.


Actually, the writers did pony up 20 years ago. That is a main reason why there is a strike now. 20 years ago the AMPTP said that home video was new and expensive and they didn't think that they would ever make money on it so could the writers please take a reduction in their royalty?

Here's how the royalty situation works:
A writer is paid a fee for the original script. The writer is then paid a percentage of that fee for any rebroadcasts, usually around 5% of the original fee. The writers agreed to only take 20% of their normal royalty for home video (keep in mind that this was prior to DVD). So, the writers currently only make 20% of their 5% royalty from their original script. This is where the "4 cents per DVD" figure comes from.

Now, when DVD came out and started selling like crazy and making the studios lots and lots of money, especially on TV shows, the writers were stuck with this deal because they had believed the studios 20 years ago. The writers are now asking for 40% of their 5% royalty from DVD, which would be about 8 cents per DVD. The AMPTP says that this would be an unacceptable burden and would drive them out of business. I really wish that this was just hyperbole on my part, but that is what they are actually saying.

The AMPTP is also insisting that internet downloads be paid at the current DVD rate and that internet streaming is paid a one time fee of $250 per show or movie, but only after six months of streaming. Oh, and the streaming has paid advertisements in it. And, if the studio decides to call the internet streaming of a movie or television show a "promotion" then they don't have to even pay the $250.

The AMPTP is using the same language now about the internet that they did 20 years ago about home video and the writers are not going to fall for that again. Everyone in the industry knows that the internet is not just the future of the business, it is the now of the business.

The AMPTP assumed that the writers would continue working until June 2008 and then go on strike with the Screen Actors Guild. This would have given the networks and studios a stockpile of movies and television shows and the ability to let the writers and actors be on strike for 6 to 9 months. What they didn't expect is that the writers would go on strike immediately forcing production to cease without building up a backlog of material. NBC is currently paying advertisers cash because their ratings have not been as high as they said that they would be during the upfronts. The upfronts are a whole other situation that would go on for pages trying to explain.

BTW, as you may have been able to infer, I work in the entertainment industry. I am the head of Post Production on various television shows and I have friends deeply involved in the strike situation.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

jcthorne said:


> If there is a surplus of writers in hollywood such that they cannot earn a living wage, then there needs to be fewer writers, not collective bargining such that all writers live off the backs of those that are truly good at what they do.


This is one incredibly common misunderstanding about the writer's guild (and the actors and directors guilds, for that matter.) They are not unions in the classical sense, ensuring guaranteed jobs for a large number of their membership. An unemployed writer, WGA member or not, is just that -- an unemployed writer. The WGA does not grant them employment, or force them upon a studio. If they do not work, they do not get paid. Period.

Non-working writers do not therefore "live off the backs of those that are truly good." An unemployed writer is not like a machinist at an idle factory, collecting a paycheck while the company suffers. A writer not working gets paid...nothing. Nada, zero, zip. They are not living off the backs of anybody -- they are working in other fields and/or living off residuals while they write their next spec.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> That is factually incorrect. Rather, the writers want to _double _how much they get from DVD sales.


Considering that the writers agreed a lower rate to give the studios a break due to the high cost of manufacturing *videocassete*, and that the studios held firm on this rate when they shifted to a medium (DVD) that costs far less than one-half to manufacture, this does not seem out of line, especially as a negotiating starting point.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

en masse, DVDs are ridiculously cheaper to produce than VHS. It is silly for the studios to continue to withhold 80&#37; of the royalties for it. It's greed and it's finally caught up to them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> ... this does not seem out of line...


Doubling of compensation is unquestionably out of line. Keep in mind that there is no quid pro quo. Everything being negotiated is being negotiated as compared to the status quo, not compared to some wishful thinking of the past.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Interesting graphics:


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Doubling of compensation is unquestionably out of line. Keep in mind that there is no quid pro quo. Everything being negotiated is being negotiated as compared to the status quo, not compared to some wishful thinking of the past.


...and so why would it be out of line? Was it out of line when the studios declared VHS cost more to distribute, so therefore its residual rate would be 12% that of broadcast, because tapes were more to manufacture? Was it out of line that, when the manufacturing rate of DVDs cut that cost into a tiny fraction, the rate was not raised? No, because they negotiated for it. Why do you consistently begrudge the writers the same opportunity? If anything, it would seem that the studios are the ones living in "wishful thinking" of past VHS rates here.


----------



## Pinster56 (Dec 16, 2007)

The writers should be fired and those up and coming writers who would love the chance to write for TV be hired at the same pay/benefits as the striking writers. They are probably just as good or perhaps even better as the strikers and will be happy they have a job in their desired field.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

bicker said:


> Interesting graphics:


These images are from the AMPTP and the Public Relations firm they hired to spin the media discussion. The WGA does not have a PR firm spinning the information because they are using the facts.

The AMPTP says that they cannot pay the writers because the internet is too new and may never make them any money. Here is a video of those same AMPTP executives telling people how much money they make from the internet:


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Sounds like a labor market that has too many workers and not enough work. Market forces would ensure the best half of the workers get work continually, and the other half find other jobs. That's what should happen IMHO. As said by jcthorne::up:


This presumes that the studios have perfect (or even good) knowledge of which half is the "best half." This is demonstrably false.

Frank Miller, to take one example, wrote both 300 and Robocop 3. One was critcially well received and made lots of money, and the other was a critical and (for its time) a box office disaster. Which half would you put him in? If you want to go the other direction, success first, failure later, take Chris Weitz and About a Boy/The Golden Compass. Which half would you put him in? Or Joe Eszterhas? (Basic Instinct, then Showgirls?)

With a writer (or actor or director), you cannot with 100% accuracy predict how well a the employee will contribute to your bottom line. You can make some predictions based on past experience, and the best studio executives fail least often, but the simple fact is that the majority of projects do fail, or die stillborn. As long as there is a significant failure rate, and there is some uncertainty about which writers contribute to which success, as a studio exec you want the largest possible pool of talent (and the smallest upfront cost, hence the cash/residual mixture, as opposed to all cash) to give you the most chances at success.

You want to keep that pool and potential rewards through residuals *just* large enough to keep the talent plugging away during bad times. You want to keep Glen Charles working in Hollywood, even his dismal one-episode-in-three-years track record by your bottom half logic would send him back to Ad copywriting, on the off chance that he will come up with Taxi, Cheers, and Frasier, and make you hundreds of millions of dollars. If you knew for sure which one out of 500 would be Glen Charles, you would tell the other 499 to go home. Since you do not, you need to keep the pool large to spread the risk around. Since *YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THE OTHER 499 EVER*, what again is the problem?


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Pinster56 said:


> The writers should be fired and those up and coming writers who would love the chance to write for TV be hired at the same pay/benefits as the striking writers. They are probably just as good or perhaps even better as the strikers and will be happy they have a job in their desired field.


Aside from the fact that this would be illegal, it would also mean that there would be no more episodes of Lost, Law & Order, Battlestar Galactica, CSI, Chuck, etc. because the creators and showrunners of all of the dramas and sitcoms on the air are members of the WGA and the shows would have to be canceled and then someone else would have to create new ones to take their places. The only thing that would be on the air would be news shows, talk shows, and reality shows. Is that okay with you? It's not for me.


----------



## Pinster56 (Dec 16, 2007)

derekcbart said:


> Aside from the fact that this would be illegal, it would also mean that there would be no more episodes of Lost, Law & Order, Battlestar Galactica, CSI, Chuck, etc. because the creators and showrunners of all of the dramas and sitcoms on the air are members of the WGA and the shows would have to be canceled and then someone else would have to create new ones to take their places.


If it's illegal, then how did Reagan manage to do it to the air traffic controllers?


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Gosh maybe if you read the next line in my post you might have actually avoided saying the exact same thing my reply was saying. Instead you act as if you said it first to hide your extreme POV in your anti union post


I read it. So I said the same thing, in different words, in a reply to your post. The simple point here is that I agree with you on that point, and I am not hiding my extreme anti-union POV. I believe I have made it blatantly obvious. I was simply trying to point out that being against a union does not automatically make one "for" a business, or a monopoly for that matter.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> ...and so why would it be out of line?


The fact that it is a doubling. A _doubling_.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

derekcbart said:


> These images are from the AMPTP and the Public Relations firm they hired to spin the media discussion.


Yet accurate and pretty interesting facts about the dispute.



derekcbart said:


> The WGA does not have a PR firm spinning the information because they are using the facts.


The AMPTP information is also facts. They're not facts you like, but they're facts all the same.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> The fact that it is a doubling. A _doubling_.


...and the VHS agreement was, from the studios point of view (from 2.5% down to 0.3%), an Octupling. An _Octupling._

Yes, and before you indicate that reruns and VHS are different beasts, I agree. VHS/DVD costs more than reruns, so the studios should pay less. Maybe not 8 times less -- and that is the room to bargain -- but less. Conversely, internet distribution costs next to nothing compared to VHS/DVD, so, by the same logic the studios used in 1988, internet distribution should pay more in 2007, not the same or less than DVD. I do not begrudge the studios the ability to ask for whatever they can get; good for them that they got the writers to agree to 0.3% it in 1988. Why do you consistently begrudge the writers the same opportunity to bargain?


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Pinster56 said:


> If it's illegal, then how did Reagan manage to do it to the air traffic controllers?


Actually, if I remember correctly, that was an illegal action, but Congress allowed him to do it in the name of National Security because planes needed to fly. No one actually needs movies or television shows. We just really like them, so the President could not do to the writers what was done to the air traffic controllers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Why do you consistently begrudge the writers the same opportunity to bargain?


Because they're abusing a privilege granted to them by the NLRA, a privilege which should only be used to address unsafe working conditions, child labor and poverty.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

derekcbart said:


> Actually, if I remember correctly, that was an illegal action, but Congress allowed him to do it in the name of National Security because planes needed to fly.


It should be noted that anything that is allowed to happen establishes a precedent for asserting that that *is* the law, from that point forward. There can be disagreements from there, and reversals, but for what it is worth, the way things are is the best indication of how things are going to be, with minor variance over the course of time.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Everyone, please keep in mind that it was the AMPTP that walked away from negotiations, not the WGA. The WGA is ready to meet anytime and anywhere with the AMPTP to end the strike, but the AMPTP has said that they have no interest in negotiating.

It is the studios and the networks that are prolonging this strike, not the writers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That's pretty meaningless. Staying and leaving are BOTH tactics. Both sides have equal ability to end the strike: The writers can agree to conditions that the studios find more amenable, if they really cared about ending the strike above all else. Again -- it is all tactics. There is no reason why EITHER side should be driven to end the strike, except if they feel it is to their own best financial advantage. No one gets brownie points specifically for ending the strike. That's nothing but a red herring in this discussion.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Because they're abusing a privilege granted to them by the NLRA, a privilege which should only be used to address unsafe working conditions, child labor and poverty.


Read the Wagner Act (NLRA), which established these rights. The right to collective bargaining is *specifically* granted in the bill, for situations


> arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.


In other words, payment (wages) discussions are not only allowable under the right to strike, it is deliberately and specifically included as a rationale for collective bargaining under the law. Read the rest of the bill; it deals with wages separately from working conditions, and there is no provision in the law to indicate it should be applicable only at a certain average wage. The Wagner Act survived a constitutional challenge in 1937, was amended to limit damages in 1947, and was expanded upon in 1957 and again in 1959. You may not like it, and you may not agree with how it "should" be used, and I might even agree, but that is how the law reads. To quote an earlier post in the thread:


bicker said:


> To be fair, I'm not saying how I would prefer things to be, with regard to the division on profits in our economy; I'm just talking about *how things are*. Let's keep things real, eh?


Sound advice.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

The reason things may be changing a little is that now over 2/3 of the public in polls recognize that there has been an increasing concentration of wealth at the top. Even many conservative economists recognize this. That may be why public sentiment has favored the writers union. The growing concentration of corporate wealth is partly the result of the dramatic decline of unions. 
The real per-capita wealth of our nation continues to grow year after year yet we continue to accept tens of millions living in poverty. When I graduated from UCLA in the 60's I received a virtually free education. Today I wouldn't be able to go there without going into serious debt. Yet our nation is 3 times "richer" than when I was young.


----------



## Sandlapper (Oct 26, 2003)

My Tivo has been empty recently! My Netflix account sure has been getting a lot more use lately though!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

bicker said:


> Interesting graphics:


So? The average baseball player makes 20 times a doctor or a pilot. George Clooney makes 200 times what they make.

Comparing people's salaries in the entertainment business to regular professions is pretty stupid.

-smak-


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

smak said:


> So? The average baseball player makes 20 times a doctor or a pilot. George Clooney makes 200 times what they make.
> 
> Comparing people's salaries in the entertainment business to regular professions is pretty stupid.
> 
> -smak-


Supply and demand. The average professional sports athlete has skills that are rare, and in demand, (although they too are overpaid, IMHO). A doctor or pilot has earned an education and/or skills that are rare, and in demand. As for George Clooney, I have no idea what makes him worth anything.

As for the writers, if there's so many of them, so out of work, it suggests the supply is in excess of the demand. If they don't want to take AMPTP is offering, they should be free to turn it down and walk away, and the AMPTP should be free to hire someone else who does think their offer is acceptable.


----------



## jebbbz (Sep 7, 2007)

derekcbart said:


> Actually, if I remember correctly, that was an illegal action, but Congress allowed him to do it in the name of National Security because planes needed to fly. No one actually needs movies or television shows. We just really like them, so the President could not do to the writers what was done to the air traffic controllers.


Actually, it was the strike that was illegal. Flaw prohibited government employees from striking. PATCO members were government employees. They went on strike anyway and Reagan ordered them back to work invoking peril to national safety. Those who refused to go back to work were fired.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> Supply and demand. The average professional sports athlete has skills that are rare, and in demand, (although they too are overpaid, IMHO). A doctor or pilot has earned an education and/or skills that are rare, and in demand. As for George Clooney, I have no idea what makes him worth anything.
> 
> As for the writers, if there's so many of them, so out of work, it suggests the supply is in excess of the demand. If they don't want to take AMPTP is offering, they should be free to turn it down and walk away, and the AMPTP should be free to hire someone else who does think their offer is acceptable.


See the earlier post -- this logic works only if you have a reliable way to measure a worker's contribution to your bottom line, and if you can expect consistency of results from project to project. You can do this with a factory worker, and even to a lesser extent to an athlete or a doctor or a computer programmer, but you cannot with any certainty do this with writers, directors, or actors. The best executives make the best guesses, which is why, say, a Brandon Tartikoff was so valuable, because he failed less than most. Even Tartikoff had many failures, however, because studio executives are trying to anticipate a fickle public's taste. They realize those "out of work" writers are just as likely, if not more so, than the employed staff writer to generate the next hit. Les Charles sold 1 episode in three years, before hitting on Taxi, Cheers, and Frasier. Larry David sold 2 episodes in 4 years -- essentially out of work -- before co-creating Seinfeld. Shonda Rhimes had 1 writing credit in 4 years before creating Grey's Anatomy. Should they have gone home? If they did, TV and studio pockets would be the worse for it. The truth is, no studio executive would eliminate those "excess" writers, because they are very often the source of their next cash cow. They quite understandably want to limit their costs as much as possible, but those "excess" writers are a result of supply and demand, not a distortion of it.

I understand where you are coming from regarding unions, but you consistently ignore the point that, unlike members of every non-entertainment union, those writers who do not work *DO NOT GET PAID*. Do you know what NBC paid Larry David before Seinfeld? Residuals from Saturday Night Live, as agreed by both sides in his earlier contract. Do you know what NBC paid Les Charles before Taxi? Zip. Do you know what ABC paid Shonda Rhimes before Grey's Anatomy? Bupkiss. Only those writers who supply what the studios demand get paid. The rest get squat. So again, what is the problem?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Cudahy said:


> The reason things may be changing a little is that now over 2/3 of the public in polls recognize that there has been an increasing concentration of wealth at the top. Even many conservative economists recognize this.


Even if there were a growing concentration of wealth at the top, that doesn't make it a bad thing.


Cudahy said:


> That may be why public sentiment has favored the writers union.


What makes you think public sentiment favors the union?


Cudahy said:


> The growing concentration of corporate wealth is partly the result of the dramatic decline of unions.


It would be more fair to say that the growth in the economy is due to the decline of unions. Hey---if you want to participate in profits from MGM or Disney, just buy stock; anyone can do it.


----------



## markjrenna (Mar 23, 2006)

Selfishly speaking... I hope NEVER.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> What makes you think public sentiment favors the union?


Perhaps this Gallup Poll, so far the only opinion poll conducted by a third party (Gallup/USA Today), and not by either the WGA or the AMPTP.
From the USAToday article:


> Sixty percent of Americans say they favor the writers in the dispute. Just 14% favor the studios who employ them.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

Fassade said:


> See the earlier post -- this logic works only if you have a reliable way to measure a worker's contribution to your bottom line, and if you can expect consistency of results from project to project. You can do this with a factory worker, and even to a lesser extent to an athlete or a doctor or a computer programmer, but you cannot with any certainty do this with writers, directors, or actors


Their contribution can most definately be measured. A writer is a writer. It does not matter who. I care which writer writes which show like I care which plumber fixes my leaky toilet, or which McTeenage McNosePicking McJobber mcflips my McBigMac.



Fassade said:


> Should they have gone home? If they did, TV and studio pockets would be the worse for it.


That is purely conjecture, and is as pointless as the old pro choice argument "what if I abort the next hitler." There is no way of knowing what would have been written in their place, had they gone home, and there's equal probability between whether it would have been better or worse.



Fassade said:


> I understand where you are coming from regarding unions, but you consistently ignore the point that, unlike members of every non-entertainment union, those writers who do not work DO NOT GET PAID.


No, I get that point. In fact, I think that's the one thing right about this. If they don't work, they should not get paid. Why do you keep drilling on that point?



Fassade said:


> Only those writers who supply what the studios demand get paid. The rest get squat. So again, what is the problem?


 I can summarize what I think is the problem here in one point. If the writers think what they're being offered for their writing is not sufficient, they are within their right to decline to write for it. The studios should be free to extend the same offer to any other writers (with/without union membership/affiliation). The short of it is, if they don't want to take what's being offered, they shouldn't be able to use their union to keep someone else, who is willing to write for that offer, from doing it.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

CrashHD said:


> Their contribution can most definately be measured. A writer is a writer. It does not matter who. I care which writer writes which show like I care which plumber fixes my leaky toilet, or which McTeenage McNosePicking McJobber mcflips my McBigMac.


Do you care who builds your car? Do you care who builds your house? Do you care who builds your computer? Do you care who builds your DVR? I'm guessing that you do because you see value in certain products.

This is the TiVo Community so I'm guessing that you have a TiVo. Why don't you just use the cable or satellite company's DVR? I'm guessing that it is because you prefer the quality of the TiVo over other company's DVRs.

Same thing with writing.

By your logic there would be no difference between William Shakespeare and the people who write Harlequin Romance novels. Personally, I think that there is a huge difference between Harlequin Romance novels and William Shakespeare.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> That is purely conjecture, and is as pointless as the old pro choice argument "what if I abort the next hitler." There is no way of knowing what would have been written in their place, had they gone home, and there's equal probability between whether it would have been better or worse.


I'm tempted to invoke Godwin's law here , but instead I will just say that I agree with you. I was merely pointing out that having an "excess" of writers around gives you more of a chance of finding the right one for your particular studio's need. It is not a religious issue, just a matter of probabilities. Since the "excess" writers do not cost the studios a dime (sorry, drilling again), I fail to see the downside for the studios, or what they would do to change the situation, if there was one. Cutting across the board payments in half would theoretically cut the number of writers in half, but that same theory suggests that the top half of producers would be the first to leave, so that is not an option. The pay level is just a matter of degre; the studios want to pay just enough to have a comfortable level of "excess" to draw from, and no more than that.


CrashHD said:


> No, I get that point. In fact, I think that's the one thing right about this. If they don't work, they should not get paid. Why do you keep drilling on that point?


Because every few posts there is a comment either tarring the WGA with the same sins as other unions, or against the WGA simply because of an general anti-union bent. This fundamental difference, that the WGA cannot and does not artificially create or maintain jobs that otherwise would not exist, renders it incapable of the same excesses as most unions. When people stop criticizing the WGA on a general anti-union stance, but point out instead specific flaws in their current position, I would be happy to stop drilling.



CrashHD said:


> I can summarize what I think is the problem here in one point. If the writers think what they're being offered for their writing is not sufficient, they are within their right to decline to write for it. The studios should be free to extend the same offer to any other writers (with/without union membership/affiliation). The short of it is, if they don't want to take what's being offered, they shouldn't be able to use their union to keep someone else, who is willing to write for that offer, from doing it.


A union can only come into being if the government has determined an industry has "an unfair bargaining position" over the labor pool, and enough of that labor pool jumps through the necessary hoop to be certified as a union. Once these conditions are met, that union is granted the power to bargain collectively for the employees in that industry. Should or should not does not enter into it; it is simply the law since the Feds found that studios had this "unfair bargaining position" decades ago.

Does that mean the studios are stuck with it? Not at all -- under that same Taft-Hartley act and its amendments, the employers have the legal right in any negotiation to petition the NLRB to ensure the given union represents a majority of employees, or that employees themselves petition to decertify their union. Legally, the studios can negotiate with the union, or choose one of these options. Period. Since they have walked away from the table, I presume their intention is to wait out the union, and attempt to get it decertified when enough cracks form. Attempting to break the union is certainly a valid tactic on studios' part, provided they can live with any market consequences, or any consequences the writers are able to bring to bear.

While I am sympathetic to the writer's cause, I am not sure how much leverage they have left against the studios. Several have indicated they would be willing to give up not only the rest of this season, but next year's pilot season, and, if necessary, the entire next season, not to mention the disruption in movies. In the face of that stated willingness to lose hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, I think it reasonable to ask what about the WGA's proposal elicits such a response in the studios. It cannot be as simple as the doubling of the DVD residual; you could grant every WGA demand, and raise it by 2^20 before it would approach those estimated losses. So something else has to be at work here. The question I have repeatedly asked is: what?


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

^
|
Points well made.



Fassade said:


> I'm tempted to invoke Godwin's law here , but instead I will just say that I agree with you.


Yeah, when rereading that, I thought the illustrating example was unnecessary, and made the paragraph redundant (pause to see who gets the pun). A less extreme analogy would probably have made the point just as well, but I used the one that came to me first.



Fassade said:


> So something else has to be at work here. The question I have repeatedly asked is: what?


I have not researched this issue so in depth as to notice that, but that is a very curious point. They are putting a lot at risk, for what looks like a rathaer small gain. Methinks the studios have an ace in the hole?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> I have not researched this issue so in depth as to notice that, but that is a very curious point. They are putting a lot at risk, for what looks like a rathaer small gain. Methinks the studios have an ace in the hole?


That, or they wildly disagree with those estimated potential losses. If a writer's contribution truly is 0.3% or less, it might only be tens or at most hundreds of millions of dollars, and they can surely stem the bleeding a bit by going heavily into reality and animated series, assuming the audience goes for it, and maybe a bit more by bringing in shows from Canadian TV and BBC (which could be nice actually). Still, GE saw fit to flag in their quartely report that the writers strike would hurt the NBC/Universal division enough to note it as a potential profit dampener for the overall conglomerate (quarterly earnings of ~$4.5 billion), so it must not be an insignificant impact.

Unless you are d*** sure you will win, it does not seem like good business sense to risk even tens of millions against paying out single digit millions, so, again, we agree . The studios either have an ace in the hole, as you put it, or some other motivation that is not yet clear.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Read the Wagner Act (NLRA), which established these rights. The right to collective bargaining is *specifically* granted in the bill, for situations


That's exactly what I said. Did you even read my entire sentence? Did you miss the word "poverty" there? I made it very clear that one point of the Act is to ensure that folks doing a good job, working a full day, day after day, don't get paid poverty wages.

The Act, when drafted, was never intended to be used in the manner it is being (ab)used by this union.



Fassade said:


> You may not like it, and you may not agree with how it "should" be used, and I might even agree, but that is how the law reads.


I agree with you about that. That's why I'm very meticulous about saying that I want to see things changed. I want this union, and any union (ab)using the Act in this manner decertified. I believe that will go far in restoring the proper balance in the labor market, and help foster national prosperity long-term.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Cudahy said:


> The reason things may be changing a little is that now over 2/3 of the public in polls recognize that there has been an increasing concentration of wealth at the top.


One: There are no indications of such changes. Two: Fostering unions doesn't do anything to help most folks in this regard; if anything it hurts most folks since it biases the resources towards a small group.



Cudahy said:


> Even many conservative economists recognize this.


Please provide three specific instances where a conservative economist has said that America is ready to reverse Reaganesque economic perspective.

Just look who's running for President! 'nuf sed'



Cudahy said:


> That may be why public sentiment has favored the writers union.


No. Public sentiment favors the union for the same reason that public sentiment is against Comcast -- because it is a big company. People favoring "the little guy" over big companies has been the norm for as long as I can remember. However, talk is cheap. Look at how people vote, and look at how they spend their money, and you'll get a far better view of what they really feel.



Cudahy said:


> The growing concentration of corporate wealth is partly the result of the dramatic decline of unions.


Uh, no. The dramatic decline of unions, perhaps, is due to the growing concentration of corporate wealth, but the growing concentration of corporate wealth is much more readily attributable to forces that even the American voter cannot control. It may be comforting to think, "Oh gosh, all we have to do is strengthen unions and everything will be okay," but it is totally false. The reality is companies can, and do, go elsewhere for workers, and nothing we do inside this country can change that. That's the single biggest driver of the decline in our standard of living. Neither unionization, economic policy, nor tariffs will constructively reverse that trends. It's a cold, hard truth, but better to face the truth than believe a lie that will simply make things worse.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smak said:


> So? The average baseball player makes 20 times a doctor or a pilot. George Clooney makes 200 times what they make.


And why they heck are both ALSO covered by unions. It's insane.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Fassade said:


> While I am sympathetic to the writer's cause, I am not sure how much leverage they have left against the studios. Several have indicated they would be willing to give up not only the rest of this season, but next year's pilot season, and, if necessary, the entire next season, not to mention the disruption in movies. In the face of that stated willingness to lose hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, I think it reasonable to ask what about the WGA's proposal elicits such a response in the studios. It cannot be as simple as the doubling of the DVD residual; you could grant every WGA demand, and raise it by 2^20 before it would approach those estimated losses. So something else has to be at work here. The question I have repeatedly asked is: what?


Bear in mind, however, that the studios ALWAYS have these kinds of apocalyptic pronouncements about their willingness and ability to hold out. In the last big strike, they said they had enough material backed up to last them for months; it began to run out days after the strike began and was completely dry within a few weeks. The only difference is, this time the writers seem much more willing to call their bluff.

And what's at work here is the studios' desire to roll back writers' pay again by continuing to no let them participate in the shift of revenue from reruns to DVD and internet. If they can succeed with internet as they pretty much already have with video, which has netted them billions in unshared profits, then they stand to make billions more in unshared profits at the expense of the writers. Who could pass up a deal like that? Unless, of course, they had an ounce of integrity...


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

derekcbart said:


> Do you care who builds your car? Do you care who builds your house? Do you care who builds your computer? Do you care who builds your DVR? I'm guessing that you do because you see value in certain products.


This actually reminded me of something. A friends grandfather purchased a Caddy during a GM strike and immediately noticed problems with it. Eventually he came to understand that GM employees actually sabotaged the work that fill-in employees did. Broken glass shoved into door mechanisms, nails smashed through parts etc... 
Not that this relates at all to writers... just something that I found incredible though


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> A union can only come into being if the government has determined an industry has "an unfair bargaining position" over the labor pool, and enough of that labor pool jumps through the necessary hoop to be certified as a union. Once these conditions are met, that union is granted the power to bargain collectively for the employees in that industry. Should or should not does not enter into it; it is simply the law since the Feds found that studios had this "unfair bargaining position" decades ago.


You're missing the point. I believe that CrashHD's point was not "should the unions be allowed to exist", but "should they be allowed to have closed shops".

The whole "closed shop" issue is one of the key reasons why I am anti-union. If you want to work in a closed-shop union industry, you have no choice but to give part of your salary to the unions in order to be allowed to work. That is extortion.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> You're missing the point. I believe that CrashHD's point was not "should the unions be allowed to exist", but "should they be allowed to have closed shops".
> 
> The whole "closed shop" issue is one of the key reasons why I am anti-union. If you want to work in a closed-shop union industry, you have no choice but to give part of your salary to the unions in order to be allowed to work. That is extortion.


The entertainment industry is not a "closed shop". There are many productions currently being made and many more getting ready to be made. However, they are talk shows, game shows, and reality shows because those are traditionally non-union. There are also some semi-scripted shows in production that have comedians as the actors. Even during a strike a comedian can write their own material for their own performances. This is partly why the late night talk shows are coming back in January. However, they will become primarily interview shows because they will not be able to have opening monologues.

The WGA does want to unionize reality shows and the AMPTP does not want that to happen at all because it would make any future strikes much more difficult to counter-program. However, many of the "writers" on reality shows (they are usually credited as "story producers") want to join the WGA, but they have been unsuccessful in organizing so far because there are so many people willing to work the illegal numbers of hours just to be in the industry. And I am not using hyperbole when I say "illegal". There have been some lawsuits already regarding the working conditions on reality shows because some are in violation of state and federal workplace regulations.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> That's exactly what I said. Did you even read my entire sentence? Did you miss the word "poverty" there? I made it very clear that one point of the Act is to ensure that folks doing a good job, working a full day, day after day, don't get paid poverty wages.


Apparently you declined to read the text of the act, as I suggested and linked. Poverty is *one* point of the act, not the only point. Wage bargaining when the bargaining positions are unequal, without reference to poverty or current levels, is deliberately and specifically another point.



bicker said:


> The Act, when drafted, was never intended to be used in the manner it is being (ab)used by this union.
> 
> I agree with you about that. That's why I'm very meticulous about saying that I want to see things changed. I want this union, and any union (ab)using the Act in this manner decertified. I believe that will go far in restoring the proper balance in the labor market, and help foster national prosperity long-term.


And here you are not even reading your own posts. When people disagree with you, you dismiss their arguments by telling them to "keep things real, eh," but then, when it suits your own purposes, you retreat from solid reality and make *should* based arguments. It makes it difficult to have a cogent discussion. I am happy to debate with you in either setting -- believe it or not, I respect your opinion, and, in the case of most unions, actually agree with you, and I am getting a lot out of the back-and-forth -- but I do wish the frame of reference would stop changing whenever convenient.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

derekcbart said:


> The entertainment industry is not a "closed shop".


Who said anything about the entertainment industry as a whole? If I'm a writer and want to write for a drama or comedy series in Hollywood, then I must agree to give a certain percentage of my salary to union thugs for "protection".

(OK, I got a little carried away, but you *are* forced to join the union whether you like it or not)

This is America---you should be free to join or not join the union as you choose.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> One: There are no indications of such changes.


The concentration of wealth is occurring. I first jumped onto this thread because this was simply denied, with no sources. When I first jumped into this thread, I quoted a UCSC study (liberal), and The Economist (libertarian/conservative fiscally) both indicating this has been on a near-constant trend since the mid-1970s. Without disputing either source, you and at least one other poster continue to maintain this has not occurred. If you insist on making the same points when they have been rebutted by sources, please at least deal with the sources already cited, before demanding for second and third sources from people.



bicker said:


> Please provide three specific instances where a conservative economist has said that America is ready to reverse Reaganesque economic perspective.


It is, at best, questionable form to demand somebody provide examples of people who are predisposed to agree with you, disagreeing with you. It is like asking for the Economic Policy Institute (extremely liberal) to provide opinions declaring subsidized housing a bad thing, or three Cato Institute (libertarian) thinkers to expound on the wonders of socialized medicine. Absurd. If somebody presents evidence, examine it, taking the source into account while you examine, and rebut it. Placing demands on the direction of the source beforehand does nothing to advance the discussion, especially when you have not provided any yourself, either from people who agree to support your ideas with you or people who disagree with you to rebut those of others.

That diatribe aside, I agree with your basic point here; I do not think America is ready to reverse most basic tenets of Reaganomics, and I am not convinced it would be a good thing if we did. That is why I keep drilling (sorry, again) on the differences between the WGA and most other unions, because, since they do not guarantee jobs, they *cannot* cause the ills typically laid at Labor's feet. What nobody has answered is what, if the WGA/SAG cannot cause those social ills, what is specifically wrong with their demands to cause the studios to risk losing several orders of magnitude more than the sumtotal of their demands.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> You're missing the point. I believe that CrashHD's point was not "should the unions be allowed to exist", but "should they be allowed to have closed shops".
> 
> The whole "closed shop" issue is one of the key reasons why I am anti-union. If you want to work in a closed-shop union industry, you have no choice but to give part of your salary to the unions in order to be allowed to work. That is extortion.


Beleive it or not, we have a lot in common here -- this is my problem, generally speaking, with unions as well, but it does cut both ways. If you want to write a certain type of Hollywood release, you have to deal with one of only a handful of production companies, all of which are acting in concert. (Boo management!) Similarly, if you want to write a certain type of Hollywood release, you eventually have to be involved in WGA. (Boo labor!) If you do not play by either set of rules, you have to work outside Hollywood, e.g. go to a different country, and try to find a distributor later, at which point you most assuredly have to abide by their rules at that point. Closed shops, and industries that toe the line until the government allows closed shops -- they *both* suck.

I did not miss the point -- I was outlining that a "closed shop" is a franchise granted by the government only after they find that an industry has stepped over the line to such a degree that only a closed shop can restore the balance. The government decided the studios stepped over that line decades ago, and the NLRB certified the unions. It may be distasteful to all involved, but it is a fact, and both sides have to deal with it, or change it.

I believe that "changing it" is the studios' most likely strategy, given their tactics to date. I have no problem with that attempt; when the time is right, the studios are within their rights to attempt to get the union decertified. If the studios can break the union, then the onus is on them to negotiate individually fairly enough to shoo away government oversight and closed shops. If they can manage that, I agree with you -- I would be all for it. However, the studios' past history of shady accounting and sweetheart deals leaves me skeptical that they can resist the temptation long enough to avoid restarting the cycle of government-oversight-leading-to-unionization. (Seriously, read about decertification and rebirth of the NFL players' union -- this one recent permutation of the scenario I mean.) This would get us right back where we started from, with nobody richer except each side's lawyers.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Fassade said:


> I did not miss the point -- I was outlining that a "closed shop" is a franchise granted by the government only after they find that an industry has stepped over the line to such a degree that only a closed shop can restore the balance.


No, you described how unions are allowed. Just because there's a union doesn't mean there has to be a closed shop.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

Fassade said:


> ...(Boo management!)...
> ...(Boo labor!)...


Hooray Beer?!

sorry...the christmas drinkin has poot me in a purty good mood. :up: 

Merry Christmas everybody!!


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> No, you described how unions are allowed. Just because there's a union doesn't mean there has to be a closed shop.


Correct -- but it is a necessary precondition. In case you did not read the rest of my post, I *agreed* with you that closed shops generally suck; I just do not deny the studio's poor behavior as a contributing factor in their creation. This is critical to understand, because, if the studios deny this, even if they manage to get the union decertified, they are going to repeat the same missteps that led to unionization in the first place.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> Hooray Beer?!
> 
> sorry...the christmas drinkin has poot me in a purty good mood. :up:
> 
> Merry Christmas everybody!!


LOL! I hope nobody else is having as many problems as I am with those dreaded words "some assembly required"


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Apparently you declined to read the text of the act, as I suggested and linked.


Don't make that error again: I know far more than you're ever going to be willing to acknowledge.



Fassade said:


> I do wish the frame of reference would stop changing whenever convenient.


Then stop trying to argue against what is easy to argue against instead of what people actually post.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> The concentration of wealth is occurring.


You misunderstood what Cudahy was talking about. Here's what he wrote:


Cudahy said:


> We've got the greatest concentration of wealth at the top income level since 1929 and he wants more. *I realize most people are Ok with this because they identify with the rich.* *There are signs that this is changing.*


*That* is what I was referring to when I said that there are no indications of *such* changes, i.e., the that trend we've seen over the course of the last thirty years of more and more pro-business perspective is not changing in any significant way.



Fassade said:


> I first jumped onto this thread because this was simply denied, with no sources.


And I didn't rebut your messages in that respect because I agree with you *about that*.



Fassade said:


> It is, at best, questionable form to demand somebody provide examples of people who are predisposed to agree with you, disagreeing with you.


If you claim that they disagree with me, then it is your obligation to support your assertion or accept that you're just blowing smoke, and you've been called on it. Get over it.



Fassade said:


> That diatribe aside, I agree with your basic point here; I do not think America is ready to reverse most basic tenets of Reaganomics


That's what I've been saying. I'm sorry you've confused my points with that of other posters.



Fassade said:


> and I am not convinced it would be a good thing if we did.


Note that I'm not and will not say either way. It's not my point.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Don't make that error again: I know far more than you're ever going to be willing to acknowledge.


Traditionally, in a debate, one demonstrates demonstrates knowledge by citing sources that support one's logical position. In this case, since you imply that you read the linked bill, it should be simple for you to cite the sections that exclusively tie collective bargaining to poverty or near-poverty situations.

In the case of increasing concentration of wealth, I have cited two sources - one fiscally liberal, one fiscally conservative, that contradict your assertion that "there is no indication of such changes." And yet, you continue to make the assertion, without rebutting those sources or citing any of your own.

To date, you have demanded sources from other people, while providing none yourself. Thus far, I have on two separate occasions provided external references directly in reponse to your points, references which have gone ignored and unrebutted. All I ask is the same courtesy -- some research and facts to support your position. It makes the discussion more interesting. (I would say more productive, but there is nothing you or I can do to get the two sides to settle one moment sooner.)



bicker said:


> Then stop trying to argue against what is easy to argue against instead of what people actually post.


I argue against assertions I feel are unsupported, and I have agreed with you on several occasions as well. If you would like to make a summary set of assertions, I would be happy to reply only to those.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> You misunderstood what Cudahy was talking about. Here's what he wrote:*That* is what I was referring to when I said that there are no indications of *such* changes, i.e., the that trend we've seen over the course of the last thirty years of more and more pro-business perspective is not changing in any significant way.


If that is what you mean, then I did mistake which line of Cuday's to which you were responding, and as a result misinterpreted your post, and attributed to you something which you did not say. I apologize. For the record, again, I agree with Cudahy's post; I do not see that pro-business perspective changing, either. That raises an interesting question, then...if the public is still solidy pro-business, but is strongly against the studios, why? You may be right in asserting it is as simple public hypocrasy -- the public talks one game against big companies but acts in favor of big business. It may also be that a significant percentage of the public legitimately sides with the writers, though I do not know how a poll would be able to isolate those factors.



bicker said:


> If you claim that they disagree with me, then it is your obligation to support your assertion or accept that you're just blowing smoke, and you've been called on it. Get over it.


I did not provide you evidence for those other posters, because I think you misinterpreted me  -- heck, I *agreed* with you. If anything, I would be right next to you, asking them for evidence too. I am only pointing out that putting restrictions on the type of presenter you are willing to accept ("3 conservative economists") is a debate tactic used to provide an escape clause to disagree with a post*er* without critically examine the content of the *post*. That is stacking the debate, and bad form, no matter who does it.

Everyone is responsible to support their assertions -- including you, including me. I did not in that post, because it was a response to you, and, again, I agreed with you. In this thread, though I joined it when it was already almost a page old, I have provided evidence to support assertions on at least three separate occasions, probably more than anybody else, and definitely in detail that bores *everybody* else.  If you feel I have made other unsupported assertions, please link to the posts in question and I will try and address your points.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Traditionally, in a debate, one demonstrates demonstrates knowledge by citing sources that support one's logical position.


You must be mistaking this for a dispute of facts. It isn't. This is a moral issue. Facts are only a foundation for what essentially is a matter of discretion. Your failure to acknowledge that is either a failure of understanding or a deliberate attempt at flame-baiting.



Fassade said:


> In the case of increasing concentration of wealth...


This makes me think you're just flame-baiting, since I've *already *told you that you're replying to the wrong person.



Fassade said:


> I have cited two sources - one fiscally liberal, one fiscally conservative, that contradict your assertion that "there is no indication of such changes."


No, you haven't provided one source that have contradicted the assertion *I actually made*.



Fassade said:


> To date, you have demanded sources from other people, while providing none yourself.


You're mistaken. Read my messages again.



Fassade said:


> I argue against assertions I feel are unsupported


Then you'll always have problems debating moral issues with people. Get used to it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> If that is what you mean, then I did mistake which line of Cuday's to which you were responding, and as a result misinterpreted your post, and attributed to you something which you did not say.


Thank you for acknowledging that.



Fassade said:


> I apologize. For the record, again, I agree with Cudahy's post; I do not see that pro-business perspective changing, either.


Cudahy asserted that the pro-business perspective is changing. So, instead, you actually agree with me, since it was in my reply to his message that I asserted that it was not.



Fassade said:


> That raises an interesting question, then...if the public is still solidy pro-business, but is strongly against the studios, why? You may be right in asserting it is as simple public hypocrasy -- the public talks one game against big companies but acts in favor of big business. It may also be that a significant percentage of the public legitimately sides with the writers, though I do not know how a poll would be able to isolate those factors.


Polls are unnecessary and irrelevant. Follow the money and watch who people vote for. Like I said before, even the Democrats are pro-business now.



Fassade said:


> I did not provide you evidence for those other posters, because I think you misinterpreted me  -- heck, I *agreed* with you. If anything, I would be right next to you, asking them for evidence too. I am only pointing out that putting restrictions on the type of presenter you are willing to accept ("3 conservative economists") is a debate tactic used to provide an escape clause to disagree with a post*er* without critically examine the content of the *post*.


You're amazing. *I didn't suggest the economists!!!!!!!!!!!* Cudahy did!!!!!!!!

Look, if you're not going to discuss this with integrity, then please don't reply to my comments directly.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> You're amazing. *I didn't suggest the economists!!!!!!!!!!!* Cudahy did!!!!!!!!
> 
> Look, if you're not going to discuss this with integrity, then please don't reply to my comments directly.


Now you are making the same mistake I ackowledged I did -- crossing up posts and misreading. You most certainly did ask Cudahy to provide examples from economists, and that they follow a specific idealogy:



bicker said:


> Please provide three specific instances where a conservative economist has said that America is ready to reverse Reaganesque economic perspective.


In fact, I quoted this very blurb of yours in my original reply. All I was saying was that, even though I agreed with you that America is not ready to reverse most of Reaganomics, is that it is bad form to put conditions on the people you are willing to listen to, without being open up to look at what they are saying first.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Fassade said:


> Now you are crossing up posts and misreading. You most certainly did ask Cudahy to provide examples from economists, and that they follow a specific idealogy:
> 
> In fact, I quoted this very blurb of yours in my original reply. All I was saying was that, even though I agreed with you that America is not ready to reverse most of Reaganomics, is that it is bad form to put conditions on the people you are willing to listen to, without being open up to look at what they are saying first.


But, to be fair, Bicker was responding to:


Cudahy said:


> The reason things may be changing a little is that now over 2/3 of the public in polls recognize that there has been an increasing concentration of wealth at the top. Even many conservative economists recognize this.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

wow... this debate took a turn two pages ago...

anyway, I just want to sum up my whole feelings on this issue because I had it out with some family members on monday over this whole fiasco... (they just want their shows back and think that it's a futile fight on the writers' part) The writers are creating the product that is being sold by the studios. Just like an inventor gets paid a licensing fee on his or her patents, so should a writer get paid residually for their creation. If you have ever created something from nothing, you would understand this feeling. And when a studio is taking the lion's share of the profits on new media that is cheaper to produce and sells better than previous media, the writers compensation should be adjusted accordingly. They're not asking for all of the profits, or a majority of the profits, or even an obscenely greater amount than they have already been getting. We need to remember that the writers aren't asking for money that isn't there. They're asking for money that the studios have been putting in their own pockets for years now.

And additionally, in a lot of cases this is more about principle than actual money. In film school, one of my professors had written and directed a movie that was released about ten years ago. Yes, he still gets residual checks. His last one was for about three dollars. I think he at least deserves six.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> then I must agree to give a certain percentage of my salary to union thugs for "protection".
> 
> (OK, I got a little carried away, but you *are* forced to join the union whether you like it or not)
> 
> This is America---you should be free to join or not join the union as you choose.


the Studio is the one that employed the Thugs and brought about the situation. What do you do when one side does not negotiate in good faith with individuals of the other side?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Now you are making the same mistake I ackowledged I did -- crossing up posts and misreading. You most certainly did ask Cudahy to provide examples from economists, and that they follow a specific idealogy:


*Go back to the message I was replying to!!!!!* He said there were such economists. He did. Just go check. :geez:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> The writers are creating the product that is being sold by the studios.


Exactly like I create a product that is being sold by my employer. My process is just as unique, just as creative, just as remarkable as that of writers (in general). And I don't have special privileges granted to me by the government that allows me to collude with co-workers to pressure my employer to give me more of what I want. I think it is important to remember that a lot of us don't begrudge people wanting more; it is instead simply a matter of _how_ they have chosen to go about getting it that we take issue with.


----------



## visionary (May 31, 2006)

Flat, the whole thing boils down to paying someone for not working verses pay for someone doing work. A writer writes and ought to be paid by the hour and that's all. His job is done, he does no more work. When a studio later makes a DVD of the show, they are spending money doing that, and marketing it, while the writer does no work. Who deserves the extra money? It is that simple.

The other thing is stopping this mode of payment NOW, before we have cops all over the internet tracking every web visit to "pay" someone for doing no new work. They'd have to document EVERY download, track everything and everyone, to do what the WGA wants. I am amazed all internet people are not violently against that kind of snooping. It would mean all DRM on everything! 

It would not stop there, other greedy unions like auto workers would soon want pay for cars they create every time they change hands, pay me again and again for no work. If you think that is kidding, they right now have all kinds of other pay me for not working clauses and don't doubt for a moment they would not try this too. Stop it now, hire new writers. Many shows would end up a lot better.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Cudahy said:


> The reason things may be changing a little is that now over 2/3 of the public in polls recognize that there has been an increasing concentration of wealth at the top. Even many conservative economists recognize this. That may be why public sentiment has favored the writers union. The growing concentration of corporate wealth is partly the result of the dramatic decline of unions.
> The real per-capita wealth of our nation continues to grow year after year yet we continue to accept tens of millions living in poverty. When I graduated from UCLA in the 60's I received a virtually free education. Today I wouldn't be able to go there without going into serious debt. Yet our nation is 3 times "richer" than when I was young.


and this is one example of this concentration
http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html


> When he was worth $40 billion, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was worth more than the bottom 110 million Americans (the bottom 40 percent of the population). By 1998, Gates was worth $59 billion; a year later, he was worth $85 billion. Gates is twice as wealthy as the second richest American, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen (worth $40 billion). (Source: open letter from Ralph Nader (December 1998), citing Edward Wolff of New York University, whose calculations included home equity, pensions and mutual funds, but excluded personal cars, based on Gates' then-current net worth of $40 billion).


and aside from innovators/empire builders having the ability to amass more wealth that even the Federal Govt. can not stop is the growing problem of wealth sitting with the idle.


> (Source: Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind. By David Cay Johnston, New York Times, June 5, 2005).
> But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and ultimately stifle economic growth by putting too much of the nation's capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators. Speaking of the increasing concentration of incomes, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, warned in Congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen."
> 
> Others say most Americans have no problem with this trend. The central question is mobility, said Bruce R. Bartlett, an advocate of lower taxes who served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. "As long as people think they have a chance of getting to the top, they just don't care how rich the rich are."
> ...


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

visionary said:


> Flat, the whole thing boils down to paying someone for not working verses pay for someone doing work. A writer writes and ought to be paid by the hour and that's all. His job is done, he does no more work. When a studio later makes a DVD of the show, they are spending money doing that, and marketing it, while the writer does no work. Who deserves the extra money? It is that simple.
> 
> The other thing is stopping this mode of payment NOW, before we have cops all over the internet tracking every web visit to "pay" someone for doing no new work. They'd have to document EVERY download, track everything and everyone, to do what the WGA wants. I am amazed all internet people are not violently against that kind of snooping. It would mean all DRM on everything!
> 
> It would not stop there, other greedy unions like auto workers would soon want pay for cars they create every time they change hands, pay me again and again for no work. If you think that is kidding, they right now have all kinds of other pay me for not working clauses and don't doubt for a moment they would not try this too. Stop it now, hire new writers. Many shows would end up a lot better.


Then the studios need to pay the writers/actors/directors a much higher rate up front. Remember, the studios came up with the residual system in order to pay these creatives less money up front. The studios wanted the residual system so that they could spread out the payments over several years. Now the studios are wanting to roll back on that system. The difference between the auto workers is that the car companies and workers came up a structure that pays the workers all of their money up front while the studios and the writers/actors/directors came up with a structure that splits the costs over the initial broadcast and subsequent reruns.

Please don't get mad at the writers for being involved in a payment system that the studios and networks actually wanted.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> Exactly like I create a product that is being sold by my employer. My process is just as unique, just as creative, just as remarkable as that of writers (in general).


And everyone in Woebegone is above average.

I know that in my business, residuals (or more acccurately a similar sort of payment scheme) used to keep me in beer money. I'm salaried now, but back then it was nice to get the checks once in a while. I wouldn't expect them from my current employer, but then my work structure is different now. I get paid to produce _for my company_, I don't have to work on spec and hope to get a nod from someone to move on with a project. Back when I was an indie, I wrote for myself sometimes and sold through larger entities (who took a cut and gave me back a percentage).

I get that some folks don't like collective bargaining. Shall we just take that as a given and the rest of us can actually go back to discussing this situation as it actually evolves rather than having to argue the entire history of labour relations and the bizarre compensation structures of modern business every time this comes up?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

visionary said:


> A writer writes and ought to be paid by the hour and that's all.


I don't buy into that. Writers should be paid however they and their employer agree they should be paid. They just shouldn't be allowed to collude with each other to force employers to give them a better deal than what is necessary to keep working writers out of poverty.



visionary said:


> The other thing is stopping this mode of payment NOW, before we have cops all over the internet tracking every web visit to "pay" someone for doing no new work. They'd have to document EVERY download, track everything and everyone, to do what the WGA wants. I am amazed all internet people are not violently against that kind of snooping. It would mean all DRM on everything!


That's an interesting perspective. I don't think it flies though because, as things are now, people earning a certain amount based on sales or revenues or profits are not paid based on theft, so DRM is not specifically required due to the writers.



visionary said:


> It would not stop there, other greedy unions like auto workers would soon want pay for cars they create every time they change hands, pay me again and again for no work.


No; rather, it would be more along the lines of automobile designers and engineers, artistic creators and innovators themselves, holding automakers hostage.



visionary said:


> Stop it now, hire new writers. Many shows would end up a lot better.


I think this touches on my biggest concern: Why don't other creative folks play this selfish game the writers are playing? Because the writers are parlaying the language barrier (which makes it harder to import their work from other countries) into a bludgeon. The NLRA was never intended to be a shield behind which workers could hide from charges of collusion when they had such intrinsic leverage to _start _with.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> And everyone in Woebegone is above average.


Don't miss the point though: The writers don't deserve special privileges that other creative workers in our society don't have.



mrmike said:


> I get that some folks don't like collective bargaining. Shall we just take that as a given and the rest of us can actually go back to discussing this situation as it actually evolves rather than having to argue the entire history of labour relations and the bizarre compensation structures of modern business every time this comes up?


No perspective deserves an unrebutted soap-box. As long as folks post supporting collective bargaining, then folks should post objecting to collective bargaining.

If, however, the angle is to get all discussions of who is right and wrong in the dispute out of the thread, and get back to discussing solely WHEN WILL THE WRITERS STRIKE END (check the thread subject -- eh?), then I'm all for that.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> Exactly like I create a product that is being sold by my employer. My process is just as unique, just as creative, just as remarkable as that of writers (in general). And I don't have special privileges granted to me by the government that allows me to collude with co-workers to pressure my employer to give me more of what I want. I think it is important to remember that a lot of us don't begrudge people wanting more; it is instead simply a matter of _how_ they have chosen to go about getting it that we take issue with.


Well, I don't know what you do so I can't really compare it. I "create" products for my employer, as in I produce the final product... but he is the one who actually designed them. My fiance's father worked as a chemist for union carbide creating new compounds. I know he wasn't granted any rights for any of his work... but he knew that going in. It was a contractual agreement. It's an entirely different world (and contract) in the entertainment and creative industry.

I understand that you have more of an issue with the strike itself than the fact that they want more money... but you have to remember that the studios are the ones that walked away from the table and called the writers' bluff. They got cocky and felt like they had all the power. Look at it now. This was a last resort for them and the only option they felt that they had left. The studios forced their hand.

If somebody can think of a better way for the writers' to show how serious they are about wanting a fairer share of the profits without striking, I'm all ears.



visionary said:


> Flat, the whole thing boils down to paying someone for not working verses pay for someone doing work. A writer writes and ought to be paid by the hour and that's all. His job is done, he does no more work. When a studio later makes a DVD of the show, they are spending money doing that, and marketing it, while the writer does no work. Who deserves the extra money? It is that simple.


This statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin. First of all, what a writer does is not as tangible and definite as what you or I do. They create something for the studios that could potentially reap profits for decades. It is work that does not have a defined value because it's revenue is volatile and unpredictable. That's why there's a residual payment system in place. There is nothing I'm going to do at work today that will significantly benefit my boss financially one, two, or even ten years _after_ I stop working for him.

The studios spend money producing and marketing DVDs because they know there is a profit to be made on them. The content on that DVD wouldn't exist if not for the writers. If there was no profit to be made, the movie/TV show would be buried or the rights sold. It happens all the time. The risk doesn't lie in the DVD or online sales at all... it's all in the initial production of the movie or show. That's why writer's take smaller up-front payments for their work and get residuals that are supposed to reflect the value of what they created (for the studios).

And as it stands, the studio will ALWAYS get the lion's share of the profits. ALWAYS. So an extra one or two percent of that going to the people who made their cash cows for them will never seem unreasonable to me.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> Well, I don't know what you do so I can't really compare it. I "create" products for my employer, as in I produce the final product... but he is the one who actually designed them.


Without getting into details, figure I'm like your employer (except I don't get a piece of the profits, assuming he does).



flatcurve said:


> My fiance's father worked as a chemist for union carbide creating new compounds. I know he wasn't granted any rights for any of his work... but he knew that going in. It was a contractual agreement. It's an entirely different world (and contract) in the entertainment and creative industry.


And remember that I have no problem with the concept of residuals... none whatsoever, and my objections are not even strictly collective bargaining itself. My objection is to the writers' (ab)use of the special privileges granted them, _not _ to the actual details of the demands the writers are making.



flatcurve said:


> I understand that you have more of an issue with the strike itself than the fact that they want more money... but you have to remember that the studios are the ones that walked away from the table and called the writers' bluff.


If there wasn't a strike in the first place, there wouldn't have been a table to walk away from. My objection is to the construct of collective bargaining itself being (ab)used.



flatcurve said:


> They got cocky and felt like they had all the power.


You've gone way off-topic again. I don't care about subjective evaluations of personalities. I care about what I consider abuse.



flatcurve said:


> This was a last resort for them and the only option they felt that they had left. The studios forced their hand.


Let's all say it together: "Cop out!" "They made me do it!" What's next? "I heard voices!"  No sale: The writers are solely and completely responsible for whatever they do; the studios are solely and completely responsible for whatever they do. Neither is responsible, not in the slightest, for what the other does. Personal accountability is another big problem... but let's not open that can of worms here eh?



flatcurve said:


> If somebody can think of a better way for the writers' to show how serious they are about wanting a fairer share of the profits without striking, I'm all ears.


Have them quit and find other jobs. Or go to other countries and sell their services there -- wherever they think they can get better arrangements. Oh wait -- there isn't any place that provides better arrangements than the US. That's why all the best writers, actors, directors, etc. from the UK are coming HERE.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> Let's all say it together: "Cop out!" "They made me do it!" What's next? "I heard voices!"  No sale: The writers are solely and completely responsible for whatever they do; the studios are solely and completely responsible for whatever they do. Neither is responsible, not in the slightest, for what the other does. Personal accountability is another big problem... but let's not open that can of worms here eh?


It's not a cop out. The studios walk all over their talent every day. Not just the writers. If the writers didn't do something this drastic (or as you call it, abuse) then they would continue to be taken advantage of... or quit, as you suggest. Then we'd be left with great movies like _Armageddon_. As I said before, the writers have very limited options to express how serious they are about the issue. Sure, they could quit, but they'd be replaced by green talent who would eventually find themselves in the same situation down the road once they realized they got a raw deal. This is why people organize. To not only keep themselves from being taken advantage of, but to protect those who follow. I don't think it's abuse at all.

Incidentally, this is actually one of the (many) reasons I chose not to go to Hollywood after film school and went into a completely unrelated field.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> It's not a cop out.


Of course it is. Anytime anyone says someone else "made" them do something it is generally a cop-out. If you make a decision, you are responsible for that decision. It is as simple as that.



flatcurve said:


> The studios walk all over their talent every day.


From the employee's perspective, employers walk all over their employees every day. From the allies' perspective, the United States walks all over its allies every day. From the child's perspective, parents walk all over their children every day. I won't say that that's a cop-out, too, but rather simply a fact-of-life that people have to accept (unless they are able to (ab)use special privileges granted to them to avoid that reality, of course).



flatcurve said:


> Then we'd be left with great movies like _Armageddon_.


Bull. The market will match the best talent with the best offers for work, and the best products will result. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the results of this strike will have any impact on the end-product. This strike is all about WHO will get WHICH money, nothing more.



flatcurve said:


> As I said before, the writers have very limited options to express how serious they are about the issue.


Since they're willing to (ab)use the special privileges afforded to them by the NLRA, they have that many MORE options than *the rest of us*. And that's what's "wrong" with this situation: They don't deserve any more options than the rest of us.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

oh and I saw a few people throwing around some numbers about how many unemployed writers there are and I just have this to add: That's because they suck. Their properties suck, they can't write a screenplay to save their lives, and they pretty much have no hope of becoming a working writer. There's no requirement stating that you have to be any good to join the WGA, nor does it guarantee work. These legions of unemployed writers are comparable to all the hopeful beauty pageant queens from Oklahoma who move to LA to become an actress and end up waiting tables. They all probably have SAG cards too. These are not people waiting in line to fill the few seats at the table... there's always a demand for GOOD writers in Hollywood, just like there's always a surplus of terrible ones.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> Of course it is. Anytime anyone says someone else "made" them do something it is generally a cop-out. If you make a decision, you are responsible for that decision. It is as simple as that.


it's cause and effect. Nobody makes anybody do anything. That's not the point I'm debating. But the studios are the ones who walked away from negotiations, which was the action that evoked the drastic response from the writers. To not consider that fact is myopic.


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

Like ZeoTiVo, I have enough on my expanded drives to last all the way to summer. There are multiple Fall series that I haven't watched a single episode of yet.


----------



## visionary (May 31, 2006)

Well Flat, if the show making money years later because of the WRITERS work entitles them to pay again, what about the makup artists, the set designers and now days ESPECIALLY the special effects team???? All that applies to them just as much and is a reason to stop this kind of system now. I will point out however, if the claim is not enough money up front to pay, there could be a structured payment. They do that all the time in other business. Like they get 20 bucks an hour now, and another 20 bucks an hour a year from now, in lieu of say 35 an hour right now. That would allow time for money to come in from the work and yet the payment is known and there is no police on the internet keeping track of downloads and DRM and the nightmare of accounting that would make. If the writers work did not make money, the studios option would be to offer them far less for their next work, or even not use them at all. If it did make a bunch, the writing team could sure ask for more for their next effort, so this would be fair to all.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

In answer to the original question; I don't think the strike will end until the WGA caves, and/or is broken. I do think the producers will 'win'; I don't really feel that's either a 'good' or 'bad' thing. 

Something I don't think is mentioned enough in these discussions is that Hollywood writers work in a 'glamour' industry. By that I don't mean that everyone doing it is rich and famous; but that the rich and famous aspect of it draws many people into the business. So much so, that people with college degrees, with ample other opportunities, will sacrifice a great deal in terms living below what they could achieve elsewhere for the chance at making it big as a script-writer. I think that's far different than say grocery checkers or hotel janitors; the last strikes I remember around here. No one dreams of being a grocery checker when they grow up and there is no chance of making much more than a subsistence living at it, and there is less opportunity for the average checker in other industries than your average Hollywood writer. I think at some point the average person thinks "If it's so bad, go drive a truck, teach school, be an accountant, whatever.&#8221;


I think those firmly in the writers camp misapply the conventional wisdom that the average person is on the writers&#8217; side. I do think it's true that most people 'side' with the writers, in the sense that most people feel that the studios make money hand-over-fist, so good for you getting your share; but that doesn't translate into boycotting TV or somehow going out of our way to support the writers. When it comes down to it, the average person just wants their shows back; they don't really care how the economics work out. When the strike does end and if (as I believe) the writers get screwed, no one is going to say "I'm not watching _____ because they screwed the writers".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> To not consider that fact is myopic.


What are you trying to say, when you advocate "considering that fact". I'm telling you that the writers are responsible for their actions. I'm speaking plainly and clearly. What are you implying.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> What are you trying to say, when you advocate "considering that fact". I'm telling you that the writers are responsible for their actions. I'm speaking plainly and clearly. What are you implying.


I'm implying that there was a CAUSE to their EFFECT (which, as you correctly stated, they are responsible for taking.) What's so hard to understand about that?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

As for the whole thread taking a detour, that was (mostly) my fault. I completely misread Bicker's response to Cudahy. I could blame it on posting in a rush while doing Christmas things, but that does not change the fact that I blew it, and as a result took the thread off topic. Again, my apologies.



visionary said:


> Flat, the whole thing boils down to paying someone for not working verses pay for someone doing work. A writer writes and ought to be paid by the hour and that's all. His job is done, he does no more work. When a studio later makes a DVD of the show, they are spending money doing that, and marketing it, while the writer does no work. Who deserves the extra money? It is that simple.


Writers get paid residuals (what you are discussing) because they were able to negotiate it. Legally, only the creator of an original work (script) has the right to make derivative works (Burger King collectible cup, videogame tie-in, or even the movie itself), with the exception of certain work-for-hire situations. Different industries have handled this issue in different ways. A book author or playwright, for example, retains quite a lot of control. In movies, however, the writers need the financial backing and access to other talent (actors, directors, gaffers) of the studios just as badly as the studios need the legal rights to the writer's work. Residuals are the means by which the two sides compromised.

The writers are not against residuals (obviously), because it gives them the dream of a pot of gold, and an incentive to work through hard times. I do not think even the studios are against the basic concept of residuals, either, because it provides them a tool to hedge bets (pay less up front) and cap costs for the vast majority of projects which fail. Neither side wants to torpedo residuals as a whole, but there is quite a lot of room to negotiate what the actual numbers should be.

What the WGA is demanding, however, is a residual floor (rates not less then X % for a given medium Y) for any WGA-member writer. Forgive me if I am putting words in anybody's mouth again, but I think that is the primary objection here -- not against residuals per se, but that the writers should have to negotiate payments and residual rates individually, as opposed to collectively, unless there is a legitimate case of poverty/working condition abuse. In theory, I even agree, but I think the studios history of questionable accounting to the detriment of net players (writers/actors/directors) makes a rate floor reasonable until the studios can demonstrate changed behavior.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> When it comes down to it, the average person just wants their shows back; they don't really care how the economics work out. When the strike does end and if (as I believe) the writers get screwed, no one is going to say "I'm not watching _____ because they screwed the writers".


This is very true and very important for understanding some of the broader issues raised in this thread. "Supporting the writers" really does mean sacrificing something _above and beyond_ what those of us who aren't supporting the writers give up, and I think very few people are really willing to sacrifice anything like that for the writers -- perhaps not even their union brethren in the DGA and the SAG.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

visionary said:


> Well Flat, if the show making money years later because of the WRITERS work entitles them to pay again, what about the makup artists, the set designers and now days ESPECIALLY the special effects team???? All that applies to them just as much and is a reason to stop this kind of system now. I will point out however, if the claim is not enough money up front to pay, there could be a structured payment. They do that all the time in other business. Like they get 20 bucks an hour now, and another 20 bucks an hour a year from now, in lieu of say 35 an hour right now. That would allow time for money to come in from the work and yet the payment is known and there is no police on the internet keeping track of downloads and DRM and the nightmare of accounting that would make. If the writers work did not make money, the studios option would be to offer them far less for their next work, or even not use them at all. If it did make a bunch, the writing team could sure ask for more for their next effort, so this would be fair to all.


Writers aren't the only ones who get residuals... Although make-up artists, gaffers and other crew typically don't. However, with experience as a gaffer, I can say it's a bit easier to get work doing that than writing a movie. and one could easily argue the point that without the writers there would be no need for any of those other people. It is a fairly integral part of the process.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> I'm implying that there was a CAUSE to their EFFECT (which, as you correctly stated, they are responsible for taking.) What's so hard to understand about that?


It isn't a matter of _that_ being hard to understand -- what is hard to understand is why you're making such a generic and therefore arguably off-topic point in this thread. I say this because, in the absence of some addition _meaning_, it is vacuous to state that there is cause and effect: Everyone knows that there is cause and effect. There is no special significance to the existence of cause and effect with respect to this thread, unless you provide such context. So my question is what purpose, what meaning, what point are you trying to make by pointing out that there is cause and effect, in this thread?

My interest is to ensure we're not discussing things via innuendo. Let's lay it all out on the table eh?


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> It isn't a matter of _that_ being hard to understand -- what is hard to understand is why you're making such a generic and therefore off-topic point in this thread. I say this because, in the absence of some addition _meaning_, it is vacuous to state that there is cause and effect: Everyone knows that there is cause and effect. There is no special significance to the existence of cause and effect with respect to this thread, unless you provide such context. So my question is what purpose, what meaning, what point are you trying to make by pointing out that there is cause and effect, in this thread?


In reference to our early posts regarding creativity, I'm starting to think that the only thing you create is trouble here on these boards. that's all I ever see out of you.

I bring this up because you claimed it was a cop out for me to say that they had no other recourse but to strike. You, sir, started that train of thought. Forgive me for not saying: They had no other recourse but to strike or give up.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> In reference to our early posts regarding creativity, I'm starting to think that the only thing you create is trouble here on these boards. that's all I ever see out of you.


You've missed the other 2,134 messages I've posted. 

Seriously, follow these links:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5818905#post5818905
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5818399#post5818399
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5818397#post5818397
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5818393#post5818393

And that's just today. The issue is that when you post a factual message, there isn't any back-and-forth reply-and-rebut-and-counter-rebuttal. It's just a single posting. Whereas in threads where there are matters of dispute, there is more messages of that sort.



flatcurve said:


> I bring this up because you claimed it was a cop out for me to say that they had no other recourse but to strike.


That is surely not what I implied. Rather, it is a cop-out for the writers to blame the producers for what they did. I didn't intend to imply anything about you. Please rest assured about that.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> You've missed the other 2,134 messages I've posted.
> 
> That is surely not what I implied. Rather, it is a cop-out for the writers to blame the producers for what they did. I didn't intend to imply anything about you. Please rest assured about that.


Understood. But I still don't think it was a cop-out on their part. I posed this question earlier: If there was any other way for the writers to effectively express how serious they were about this issue, I'd love to hear it. As I understand the situation, the only two options could have been strike or give up. Since giving up is always an option, I think it's fair to say that they really had no other choice. The studios knew this and called their bluff.

But that's a moot point anyway.

I support the writers because I think they should get recognition and just compensation for their work. Putting pen to paper is where the magic starts, and it's a lot harder than any of you could imagine. If the studio continues to reap profit, so should the person who gave them the opportunity to do that in the first place. Who is to say that just because the work is being shown off a DVD or a computer that they deserve less than what they got from other arrangements? Why does that make sense? I won't waiver on my position.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> Understood. But I still don't think it was a cop-out on their part. I posed this question earlier: If there was any other way for the writers to effectively express how serious they were about this issue, I'd love to hear it.


I'll give you the same answer I gave earlier, just more clearly. Assuming you're not in a union, what would _you_ do if faced with such a quandary?



flatcurve said:


> Putting pen to paper is where the magic starts, and it's a lot harder than any of you could imagine.


Practically anyone who does any work that requires innovation and creativity (like me ) could say the same thing.

Beyond that, I always say that if you want to venerate a discipline, venerate plumbers. When you need one, you realize just how much more important they are than, say, writers.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Someone mentioned it would be illegal for them to hire temporary workers? I've always heard of company's hiring people to keep things going during a strike. Why can't they hire ambitious writers who'd like to take a crack at it...?


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> I'll give you the same answer I gave earlier, just more clearly. Assuming you're not in a union, what would _you_ do if faced with such a quandary?


I work with one other person. Technically it's impossible for me to strike. If it was a contract negotiation in which the other party was refusing to negotiate, I really wouldn't have much of a choice. My only bargaining chip is leaving. Unless I already have a job lined up, my boss knows that I wouldn't do that voluntarily. Therefore, he holds all the cards. I would love the opportunity to have another option and those that are fortunate enough to have that are lucky. Just because I can't strike doesn't mean they should lose that choice.



> Practically anyone who does any work that requires innovation and creativity (like me ) could say the same thing.


and I would hope that anyone in such a position would never sell their creative efforts short. Some people have different definitions of what short is. Some, like my fiance's father, are happy to work for a salary and hand over all their creations. (actually he wasn't happy about it, but I guess it's hard to raise a family as a freelance organic chemist. He invented something that has made millions of dollars for them and I can tell it's a sore spot when he talks about it.)



> Beyond that, I always say that if you want to venerate a discipline, venerate plumbers. When you need one, you realize just how much more important they are than, say, writers.


There is no question that writers are non-critical to surviving. But entertainment is a big business... and to people who pay their mortgages by working in that business, a writer can be more important than a plumber. It all starts there. Can't make a movie without a screenplay...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Illegal? Hmmm... I can't see how. Do keep in mind that anyone they hire will be practically assured of never working in the industry again after the strike is over, or at least encountering a very substantial hurdle over which they would have to climb to overcome the stigma of having worked during the strike.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> Practically anyone who does any work that requires innovation and creativity (like me ) could say the same thing.
> 
> Beyond that, I always say that if you want to venerate a discipline, venerate plumbers. When you need one, you realize just how much more important they are than, say, writers.


What is it you do again?

And it's funny you should mention plumbing, since that's a union job. And one known for, shall we say, interesting collective bargaining behaviours.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> I work with one other person. Technically it's impossible for me to strike. If it was a contract negotiation in which the other party was refusing to negotiate, I really wouldn't have much of a choice. My only bargaining chip is leaving.


Bingo. That's what is _normal_; that's what is _appropriate_ under the circumstances.



flatcurve said:


> Just because I can't strike doesn't mean they should lose that choice.


First, it is not a "choice" -- it is a privilege. And second, yes, the fact that you don't have that privilege does mean they should lose that privilege if they (ab)use it for things that it isn't in the public interest for them to use it for, as I believe is the case in this case, i.e., anything other than workplace safety, child labor and ensuring working workers are paid better than poverty wages.



flatcurve said:


> and I would hope that anyone in such a position would never sell their creative efforts short.


If you are unwilling to walk away from a job because it isn't providing a good environment for you to have your creative efforts properly rewarded, then you've basically made your own bed.



flatcurve said:


> Some people have different definitions of what short is.


Absolutely, and unions should not disrupt that natural aspect of the labor market, unless there is a consensus to switch our entire economy to a more socialistic one (which there is not).


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

Bicker, I should add that I'm practically a full blown socialist. We could argue about this for days... so I'll just stop here. I stayed out of the union debate on purpose and I don't plan on getting into it now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> What is it you do again?


I didn't say, and I won't because this thread isn't about me and I won't help anyone make it about me. I'm irrelevant. There are *people *who do work as creative and innovative as screenwriters who aren't screenwriters. That's all that matters.



mrmike said:


> And it's funny you should mention plumbing, since that's a union job.


And if plumbers abuse the privileges granted to them, I'll condemn them too, but (and this is the point) not so fervently, because they are more important. You want to talk about pecking order -- above the plumbers are the nurses, eh?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> Bicker, I should add that I'm practically a full blown socialist.


Ah, that explains a lot.  I have to say you come across much more reasonable than I would expect from a socialist.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> This is very true and very important for understanding some of the broader issues raised in this thread. "Supporting the writers" really does mean sacrificing something _above and beyond_ what those of us who aren't supporting the writers give up, and I think very few people are really willing to sacrifice anything like that for the writers -- perhaps not even their union brethren in the DGA and the SAG.


Agreed -- just because I think the WGA has a good cause does not mean I think they will win. The studios are hurting significantly right now, while there is no production, but if they can weather that hit and outlast the writers, the WGA has little else to bring to bear.

People *might* stay away if favorite actors (SAG) walked, because they know the face/voice. They *might* even walk if certain directors (DGA) walked. Writers have no such resonance with the public, and so have a ton less leverage. The WGA totally miscalculated this.

At best (from the WGA point of view), the audience will slowly bleed away if, as the writers suggest, show quality declines as good writers leave from unsatisfactory contracts. Even this would be a slow drain, not a big-bang impact that studios would feel and could point to as a cause. Unless the public stays away or boycotts advertisers long-term -- which is unlikely -- they only thing the WGA would have left would be to drag the courts into it, which is an expensive and final gamble.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> Ah, that explains a lot.  I have to say you come across much more reasonable than I would expect from a socialist.


I'll take that as a compliment I guess


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

Fassade said:


> Agreed -- just because I think the WGA has a good cause does not mean I think they will win. The studios are hurting significantly right now, while there is no production, but if they can weather that hit and outlast the writers, the WGA has little else to bring to bear.
> 
> People *might* stay away if favorite actors (SAG) walked, because they know the face/voice. They *might* even walk if certain directors (DGA) walked. Writers have no such resonance with the public, and so have a ton less leverage. The WGA totally miscalculated this.


agreed. I feel that ultimately the writers won't succeed because of this. A lot of people are saying "just get new writers" without understanding the implications of doing that, just because they don't associate a particular writer with their favorite show. The reality is that the writer brings as much to the show as a particular actor's performance does. It'd be like replacing Dick York on Bewitched... ultimately they won't be able to fool anybody.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> I didn't say, and I won't because this thread isn't about me and I won't help anyone make it about me. I'm irrelevant. There are *people *who do work as creative and innovative as screenwriters who aren't screenwriters. That's all that matters.


Well, I'm not the one who keeps putting sly winky comments in his posts about how he's just as creative as the writers (and by inference that this informs his position on the subject). Methinks thou doth protest too much.

I'd love to hear what disciplines you think are as creative and innovative as screenwriters and that have a more sensible and equitable financial and practical business model, though.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> Well, I'm not the one who keeps putting sly winky comments in his posts about how he's just as creative as the writers (and by inference that this informs his position on the subject).


I'm sorry that you misconstrued the point I was making. I am definitely NOT in the television industry. I have a creative job -- that's all. My *point* is that *other* people have jobs just as <insert descriptor here> as screen writers. That's the entirety of my point in regard to this specific statement you're following up on.



mrmike said:


> I'd love to hear what disciplines you think are as creative and innovative as screenwriters and that have a more sensible and equitable financial and practical business model, though.


I think you're confusing me with another poster: I have been very clear in saying that my objection is NOT to the model, but rather to the (ab)use of the special privileges granted to the union.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> I'm sorry that you misconstrued the point I was making. I am definitely NOT in the television industry. I have a creative job -- that's all. My *point* is that *other* people have jobs just as <insert descriptor here> as screen writers. That's the entirety of my point in regard to this specific statement you're following up on.


If you say so. I think that point could easily have been made without any comments on your personal job, and should have been if you weren't implying that it had bearing on your thought processes.



bicker said:


> I think you're confusing me with another poster: I have been very clear in saying that my objection is NOT to the model, but rather to the (ab)use of the special privileges granted to the union.


I'm not confusing you with anyone else, it's just not a seperable issue. The privileges are granted as a result of the business model they work within. The strike is over the financial model they've structured _with the studios_ to deal with the business realities. Whether they're abusing their legitimately granted organizing and bargaining rights (or privileges if you prefer) is a decision for labour courts (clever parenthetical snipes not withstanding).

So, now that we've established that, I'll ask the question again. What other disciplines are as creative as writers and have a more sensible business and financial structure in your opinion?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> If you say so. I think that point could easily have been made without any comments on your personal job, and should have been if you weren't implying that it had bearing on your thought processes.


I agree completely.



mrmike said:


> I'm not confusing you with anyone else, it's just not a seperable issue.


We'll have to agree to disagree about that. It is surely a separable issue. The writers can negotiate without striking. They can find other employers if they feel that they can get better treatment elsewhere, just like lots of other good creative and innovative folks.



mrmike said:


> Whether they're abusing their legitimately granted organizing and bargaining rights (or prvileges if you prefer)


It isn't a preference. It's the truth. There is no right to strike in the United States. It is specifically a regulated privilege, available only to federally-certified entities.



mrmike said:


> is a decision for labour courts


And for voters. I'm a voter -- how about you?



mrmike said:


> So, now that we've established that, I'll ask the question again. What other disciplines are as creative as writers and have a more sensible business and financial structure in your opinion?


I'm not going to answer a question that I believe the answering of, itself, belies the point I'm making.  Reword the question _without _the part about the "sensible business and financial structure" comment, which I believe stems solely from your inability to look at this as two separate issues.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

you know, we should really stop replying to this thread. It was a rhetorical question anyway.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

visionary said:


> Well Flat, if the show making money years later because of the WRITERS work entitles them to pay again, what about the makup artists, the set designers and now days ESPECIALLY the special effects team???? All that applies to them just as much and is a reason to stop this kind of system now.


if the make up artists went on strike there would still be shows being made. If the electricians union went on strike then most likely a way would be found to keep making shows. To me it boilsdown to who is repsonsible that the end product is making money. Writers are obviously in that group that makes a show what it is or isnt. Saturday Night Live, anyone?

Ask this another way. Should Vonnegut not be compensated in some form for Slaughterhouse 5 as a Movie?

PS - Special effects is coming into its won category. Some Movies would just not be the same without the special effects team.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

c'mon, you know Vonnegut can't be compensated at all... (and it was a movie adaptation in 1972)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> you know, we should really stop replying to this thread. It was a rhetorical question anyway.


LOL!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree about that. It is surely a separable issue. The writers can negotiate without striking. They can find other employers if they feel that they can get better treatment elsewhere, just like lots of other good creative and innovative folks.


The studios have a lock on a lot of the creative distribution channel and contracts also lock in a lot of the creative pool. It is not so easy as just going somewhere else to create if the writer for Desperate Housewives is not pleased with his compensation. If just the writers for Desperate Housewives were making demands and threatening to quit, then most likely the studios would let them walk rather than make a dangerous precedent of shelling out some of the money they are making on Internet download sales. Thus collective bargaining makes it workable to deal with such issues.

Free markets are more than just one man, one vote. Reasonable sharing of profits for the work or risk involved to produce something should be the result of free markets. The idea that a studio can keep all the profit and maybe let the top few percent share in some sweetheart deals is just not the kind of capitalism this country needs


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

I think the 60&#37; to 14% support for the writers is greater than it would have been a decade ago. Great post by ZeoTivo on the dramatic increase in the concentration of wealth. Most striking fact: the top 1% had 13% of the wealth in the 70's and reached 38% in 1998. Most people are now at least dimly aware that the whole game is pretty well rigged to continue moving in that direction. If we had eliminated poverty and the average real income was steadily increasing it might be that big an issue(although a world economy totally controlled by a few hundred thousand people should raise some eyebrows). 
It's at least encouraging that the public, by 4-1, hopes the down-to-earth greed of the writers wins out over the endless greed at the top.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

flatcurve said:


> c'mon, you know Vonnegut can't be compensated at all... (and it was a movie adaptation in 1972)


I jsut picked the first kind of universal example. feel free to update it


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The studio*s* have a lock on a lot of the creative distribution channel


The fact that you have an 's' at the end of the word 'studios' belies that assertion. There is more than one studio. We should do everything possible to ensure that they operate independently, serving as alternative employment venues for their employees. Now, if you say that none of them provide (or would provide) a significantly better arrangement than the others, that is no different from the situation most other people in the United States face.



ZeoTiVo said:


> and contracts also lock in a lot of the creative pool.


I don't see that as an obstacle to anything in this regard, specifically. 



ZeoTiVo said:


> It is not so easy as just going somewhere else to create if the writer for Desperate Housewives is not pleased with his compensation.


See above. Finding a new job is often difficult.



ZeoTiVo said:


> If just the writers for Desperate Housewives were making demands and threatening to quit...


You're already starting off with employees colluding... they should each negotiate separately.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Reasonable sharing of profits for the work or risk involved to produce something should be the result of free markets.


Who says? I'm not personally going to defend or advocate such a concept; rather, my point is that I don't see it reflective of the reality, at all. Again, look at who we're electing as our leaders. Look at how people are investing their money.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I jsut picked the first kind of universal example. feel free to update it


No, I know... and the point you made is still valid. I think another good comparison is the TiVo vs. EchoStar patent lawsuit. Should TiVo be able to enforce their patent on devices that EchoStar paid to develop, manufacture, market and distribute? Apparently the courts think so. A screenplay is like a patent. You should be able to reap some of the benefits of having made the effort to create it.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> Unionizing of professional talent (doctors, lawyers, engineers etc) has been always been illegal. Yet the best talent seems to do pretty well. Lesser talent seems to be removed from the talent pool. IE they find another line of work where they are suited.


Really? What law is that? Someone should really tell these people:

http://www.uapd.com/wiki/uapd/why_you_need_a_union?wikiPageId=189345


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

bicker said:


> The fact that you have an 's' at the end of the word 'studios' belies that assertion. There is more than one studio. We should do everything possible to ensure that they operate independently, serving as alternative employment venues for their employees. Now, if you say that none of them provide (or would provide) a significantly better arrangement than the others, that is no different from the situation most other people in the United States face.


unfortunately that's not how they work at all. even though the days of vertical integration are "over", it's still business as usual in Hollywood. Even an independent film maker who bank rolls his own production has to deal with one of the deeply entrenched entities in Hollywood at some point. Unless you're satisfied with limited to non-existent distribution and exposure, there's no way around it. It's disgusting, but it's how it has been going down since the 20s.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The fact that you have an 's' at the end of the word 'studios' belies that assertion. There is more than one studio. We should do everything possible to ensure that they operate independently,


of course the irony in that statement is that the WGA is so strong because of how effectively the studio*s* colluded togetehr to keep the talent "in line"


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> of course the irony in that statement is that the WGA is so strong because of how effectively the studio*s* colluded togetehr to keep the talent "in line"


exactly. this is something i think the average person isn't aware of.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

I fail to see how this is a moral issue. This is simply two sides engaged in arms length negotiations. I don't buy that unions should be illegal just because they use the power of collective bargaining to increase their wages. This power simply offsets the monopsony (no, that is not a type-o.) power of the employer. So what's the problem? Let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> The fact that you have an 's' at the end of the word 'studios' belies that assertion. There is more than one studio. We should do everything possible to ensure that they operate independently, serving as alternative employment venues for their employees.


There may be an 's', but, past studio collusion aside, since 1982, the production houses have also collectively bargained, negotiating as a single entity under the banner of the AMPTP. (As the AMPTP site currently states "Different Companies... One Common Goal.) That is why the most interesting development of the last month was the WGA's offer to negotiate with production houses outside of the AMPTP. I cannot blame any production house for refusing the offer and killing their leverage, but they certainly are not operating independently, nor has there any effort to make them do so in those 25 years.

Ideally, you might dissolve both sides, and have individual writers negotiating contracts with studios enjoined from working together, but, given the long history both of studio shenanigans and of union politics, there does not seem to be an easy way to get there from here.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Ideally, you might dissolve both sides


Indeed. That's what should happen. Past problems are irrelevant: Both sides have enough smarts these days to protect their own interests.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

PPC1 said:


> This is simply two sides engaged in arms length negotiations. I don't buy that unions should be illegal just because they use the power of collective bargaining to increase their wages.


No matter how anti-union I am, I agree that unions should not be illegal.

However, closed shops should definitely be illegal.
Harassing people who cross picket lines should definitely be illegal. It probably already is, but the laws should be enforced.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

I think closed shops are illegal. I remember being able to opt out of the union at the grocery store I worked at in high school because of some technicality like that. I did too (imagine that, bicker!) because the union simply collected dues and hadn't actually done anything for the workers in years, when there were still a lot of standing grievances.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

They're definitely not. My mom is a teacher in Jersey and although she can opt-out of the local union, she has no choice about joining the state union and giving them money from each paycheck.

I believe that writing for Hollywood is also a closed shop. Anyone with direct knowledge?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Indeed. That's what should happen. Past problems are irrelevant: Both sides have enough smarts these days to protect their own interests.


past problems are not irrelevant. past Union problems in Detroit would not be a good basis but I have yet to hear that the studios have cleaned up all their transgressions. Indeed, the inability of writers to collect some of the money ALREADY part of the studios revenue stream* ACROSS THE BOARD speaks to me that the old problems are completely relevant

* in other words no increase in cost to the customer is being asked for - just a fair slice of revenue already being collected by the studios


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

flatcurve said:


> I think closed shops are illegal. I remember being able to opt out of the union at the grocery store I worked at in high school because of some technicality like that. I did too (imagine that, bicker!) because the union simply collected dues and hadn't actually done anything for the workers in years, when there were still a lot of standing grievances.


Depends on the state. If the state has exercised their right under the "right to work" provision of the Taft-Hartley Act to outlaw union and agency shops, then such shops are illegal in that state. Relevant to this discussion,California and New York are NOT right-to-work states. "Closed" and "union" shops are similar, but there are some technical differences between them. An "agency" shop requires payment of the equivalent of union dues but not union membership.

What does this thread have to do with TiVo?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Aren't the writers just commissioned salespeople just in a slightly different way.

Why don't people rail against salespeople at retail stores making commissions, when they should just be paid hourly. If a store is supposed to sell $100,000 in December and sells $150,000 why shouldn't everybody share in the profits, rather than making the same money they would if the store sold $50,000?

If you sell a screenplay, and it's a gigantic international hit that sells millions of DVD's, and airs all over pay tv, and regular TV, why shouldn't you make more than if you sell a screenplay that bombs, and nobody in the world wants to play it?

Isn't this what everybody complains about in sports. So and so baseball player made $15 million last year, and he only hit 8 HR's and batted .231.

Besides the fact that this is the deal that has been around for decades, and is what the studios want.

The writers are being paid like commissioned salespeople. We don't pay salespeople a normal salary with their commission, we pay them less, and then they can make more by doing well.

If you told those salespeople that we're going to pay you $8 + commission instead of $12, and then years later tell them they're going to cut out the commission, you think they'd be ok with that?

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Fassade said:


> There may be an 's', but, past studio collusion aside, since 1982, the production houses have also collectively bargained, negotiating as a single entity under the banner of the AMPTP. (As the AMPTP site currently states "Different Companies... One Common Goal.)


Exactly right. What is the AMPTP if not a group of individuals negotiating as one. Exactly what i've heard multiple times in these threads as being wrong when the WGA does it.

-smak-


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> It is surely a separable issue. The writers can negotiate without striking. They can find other employers if they feel that they can get better treatment elsewhere, just like lots of other good creative and innovative folks.


You don't think people should be able to strike? They evolved their labour constructs in an environment where that was a possible and indeed likely outcome of negotiation. You would have them weaken their bargaining position for no obtained value. I don't see how that makes any sense from any perspective.



bicker said:


> I'm not going to answer a question that I believe the answering of, itself, belies the point I'm making.  Reword the question _without _the part about the "sensible business and financial structure" comment, which I believe stems solely from your inability to look at this as two separate issues.


I think you're trying to eat our cake and have it too. You can't take legitimately organized labour structures and the economic and business models which gave rise to them and divide them from the accepted and recognized techniques of those structures. Even the most pie-in-the-sky invisible hand sorts of economists don't shave the barber that closely.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> They're definitely not. My mom is a teacher in Jersey and although she can opt-out of the local union, she has no choice about joining the state union and giving them money from each paycheck.


Yes, and then she would pay about 85% of her union dues but not have a vote.

That's how teachers unions get around the illegality of a closed shop.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> What does this thread have to do with TiVo?


TiVo is used to record television, written by writers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smak said:


> Aren't the writers just commissioned salespeople just in a slightly different way. Why don't people rail against salespeople at retail stores making commissions, when they should just be paid hourly.


As I've pointed out many times, I'm totally in favor of the residuals system. It is only the right to collude as a union I want revoked. Each writer should be a free agent, just like the commissioned salespeople you mentioned.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smak said:


> Exactly right. What is the AMPTP if not a group of individuals negotiating as one. Exactly what i've heard multiple times in these threads as being wrong when the WGA does it.


As already pointed out, AMPTP does so only because the WGA exists. If there was no union, the AMPTP members wouldn't even be allowed to talk about these kinds of things with each other. Get rid of the union, and your AMPTP problem goes away.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mrmike said:


> You don't think people should be able to strike?


I don't think people should be able to strike for anything other than safe working conditions, eliminating child labor where appropriate, and for ensuring full-time workers make enough to be safely above the poverty line. Beyond that, I find strikes to be government-sanctioned extortion, and believe that the government should eliminate such (ab)use of such privileges. And my feelings about this aren't absolute: They are a reflection of what I believe would achieve fairness in our economy as it is today -- I don't believe unions deserve special privileges that allow them to exact concessions from employers that the rest of us don't get. Unions should put their workers on an even playing field with other workers, not to put them above other workers.



mrmike said:


> I don't see how that makes any sense from any perspective.


I didn't say that it should be *their* choice.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> Unions should put their workers on an even playing field with other workers, not to put them above other workers.


 They do create an even playing field. You (collectively) may not wish to, but the members of your profession are quite free to unionize if they so elect, whatever your profession happens to be.

There is absolutely wrong with people working together to protect their own interests. There is nothing illegal about not working. If one person in a work place decides not to work, they will simply get fired. Unions give their members power because an employer cannot fire everyone who has decided not to work.

It is not that the government sanctions strikes. There is no legal involvement (in the private sector).

It is that the numbers of people involved "sanction" them.

The concept is as old as the Guilds of the Middle Ages.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dtremain said:


> They do create an even playing field.


I disagree completely. A union distorts the playing field.



dtremain said:


> There is absolutely wrong with people working together to protect their own interests.


I believe collusion, working together to the detriment of a third party, is and should remain illegal. Indeed, that is why unions must be certified; otherwise, their collusion would be illegal.



dtremain said:


> If one person in a work place decides not to work, they will simply get fired. Unions give their members power because an employer cannot fire everyone who has decided not to work.


You've just proved my point.



dtremain said:


> It is not that the government sanctions strikes. There is no legal involvement (in the private sector).


You don't know what you're talking about. Unions cannot legally exist without government sanction. More specifically, every single union must individually secure government sanction in order to operate legally.



dtremain said:


> It is that the numbers of people involved "sanction" them.


That is not the case.



dtremain said:


> The concept is as old as the Guilds of the Middle Ages.


So is bubonic plague.


----------



## trojanrabbit (Mar 10, 2001)

Hopefully the strike never ends. The entire "entertainment" industry needs to collapse from its own bloated weight and sense of self-importance.

Yeah it would probably collapse the economy, so what?

There's some snark here, but not much.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

trojanrabbit said:


> Hopefully the strike never ends. The entire "entertainment" industry needs to collapse from its own bloated weight and sense of self-importance.
> 
> Yeah it would probably collapse the economy, so what?
> 
> There's some snark here, but not much.


Sooner or later something always triggers a collapse. Why not Hollywood this time?


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> You don't know what you're talking about. Unions cannot legally exist without government sanction. More specifically, every single union must individually secure government sanction in order to operate legally.


Nonsense. Taft-Hartley doesn't require this at all. It does require that strikes be preceded by a 60-day notice. They almost never are, and, therefore, almost all strikes are so-called "wildcat" strikes.

It is, as I said, the numbers of people striking, in that case, that keep the emplopyers from enacting charges against them and firing them. Employers cannot afford to replace all of their workers at once.

It is interesting that you cannot see working together for self-protection as anything but collusion. Collusion is when your principle purpose is to hurt the other side. That would be wrong.

A union is a coming together to protect the interests of the members of the union. That is no more wrong than a nation coming together. Are nations examples of collusion and, in your view, morally wrong?

I've worked on both sides of this issue. I'll bet you have not.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dtremain said:


> Nonsense. Taft-Hartley doesn't require this at all.


I quote the NLRA:

"Provided, That when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of section 9(c)(1) [section 159(c)(1) of this title] or the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organization, direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate *and shall certify the results thereof*... The duties imposed upon employers, employees, and labor organizations by paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) [paragraphs (2) to (4) of this subsection] *shall become inapplicable upon an intervening certification of the Board* ..." I could go on and on. There is no doubt that, in the United States, a union operates solely at the discretion of the government.



dtremain said:


> It is interesting that you cannot see working together for self-protection as anything but collusion. Collusion is when your principle purpose is to hurt the other side.


There is no doubt in my mind that a strike is intended to hurt the other side. It is interesting that you "cannot see" that.



dtremain said:


> That is no more wrong than a nation coming together. Are nations examples of collusion and, in your view, morally wrong?


Unions, yes. Nations, no. If you have to ask why, then we really have no common basis on which to have a discussion.



dtremain said:


> I've worked on both sides of this issue. I'll bet you have not.


Your problem is that you think there are *only *two sides of this issue.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> I quote the NLRA:


Which is completely overwritten by the Taft-Harley Act.

Thanks for your time.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Ridiculous. The Taft-Hartley Act *amended* the NLRA, and none of those amendments said anything about taking away the government's power to certify unions. The NLRA stands.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> I quote the NLRA:
> 
> "Provided, That when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of section 9(c)(1) [section 159(c)(1) of this title] or the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organization, direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate *and shall certify the results thereof*... The duties imposed upon employers, employees, and labor organizations by paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) [paragraphs (2) to (4) of this subsection] *shall become inapplicable upon an intervening certification of the Board* ..."


This refers only to the measures that need to be taken to "picket."

It's always interesting to take things out of context and try to make them support what you are saying, especially when you have little substantive defense.

Similarly to your totally irrelevant reference to the bubonic plague.

Try to stay logical and relevant and see if you can make a case that way. If not, then perhaps you should consider other points of view.

Just maybe.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> The Taft-Hartley Act *amended* the NLRA


True.

My bad.

See above.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Just because my points undermine your argument doesn't make them insubstantial. Face it: The government grants certifications to unions. It is not a right, but a privilege.

Follow your own advice: Try to stay logical and relevant. And try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> Unions, yes. Nations, no. If you have to ask why, then we really have no common basis on which to have a discussion.


I do have to ask why.

1) They are both human constructs.
2) They are both established to provide structure and protection to those of whom they are composed.
3) They both, sometimes, find themselves in conflict with other parties, by whom they feel threatened or with whom they have conflict.
4) Generally speaking, they both are able to resolve such conflicts through discussion and compromise, although sometimes it is long and arduous.
5) Unlike nations, unions rarely take a violent position against their opponents. Unlike nations, it would be illegal for them to do so. It would also be very wrong.
6) Employers have often taken violent action aginst unions, however.
7) They both have elected representation in terms of administrators and legislators.
8) Unions don't throw people in jail for disagreeing with the legislation or administration. They attempt to negotiate resolutions. (Okay, that's a big difference).
9) They both have people who think that they are bad systems and should be replaced by dictatorial situations where a handful of bosses make all the rules.
10) In both cases, the members of the union or citizens of the nation contribute (through taxes or dues) to maintain the structure, and (in the case of unions and Democratic Republics like the US) are considered entitled to restructure or dissolve the structure if they see fit.

Maybe you could tell me what you see as the major differences?


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

bicker said:


> Just because my points undermine your argument doesn't make them insubstantial. Face it: The government grants certifications to unions. It is not a right, but a privilege.


However, the government did not give the networks and studios the right to "collude" as you put it when they formed the AMPTP. The AMPTP is the only business organization of its kind. For example, if Ford, General Motors, and the other automobile manufacturers decided to organize the way the AMPTP has and then force the United Auto Workers to negotiate a contract with that entity instead of the individual companies, as they have always previously done, then the government would bring action legal against the automobile manufacturers, probably in the form of a RICO case.

I don't understand how you can think that the WGA organizing/striking is collusion and the AMPTP is not.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> Just because my points undermine your argument doesn't make them insubstantial. Face it: The government grants certifications to unions. It is not a right, but a privilege.
> 
> Follow your own advice: Try to stay logical and relevant. And try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum.


I've evidently missed your "points"? Outside of calling unions bad, what have they been?

I'm sorry if I have offended you. It is your argument, not you, that I have found to be illogical and irrelevant (bubonic plague).

I mean no personal offense.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dtremain said:


> I do have to ask why.


As I mentioned before, then we have nothing further to discuss about that issue. As I said before, this means we have no common ground on which to have a meaningful discussion about that.



dtremain said:


> It is your argument, not you, that I have found to be illogical and irrelevant (bubonic plague).


A pointless assertion was made ("The concept is as old as the Guilds of the Middle Ages"), so I made a similarly pointless assertion in response.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

derekcbart said:


> However, the government did not give the networks and studios the right to "collude" as you put it when they formed the AMPTP.


I believe they did. Do some research on it. The entertainment industry has a special (legal) consideration associated with it.



derekcbart said:


> I don't understand how you can think that the WGA organizing/striking is collusion and the AMPTP is not.


I didn't say it wasn't. I'm not in favor of the AMPTP. *What the heck gave you the impression that I was?*


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bicker said:


> Just because my points undermine your argument doesn't make them insubstantial.


Please forgive me if I think that an argument that workers are only entitled to demand a salary "above the poverty line" is insubstantial.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You're forgiven, but forgiven for *misrepresenting what I wrote*. You see, that is insulting, even though you don't realize that you're doing it. I never said what you assert in the message above.

If you don't realize how you distorted what I wrote, then again, we have no common ground on which to base a discussion. Let me put it clearly for you: I don't put up with any distortion of what I've said. It is intellectual dishonesty and I will call you out on it every time.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

bicker said:


> I believe they did. Do some research on it. The entertainment industry has a special (legal) consideration associated with it.


Neither Wikipedia nor the AMPTP websites give any information on how the organization was founded and how the government was involved. They only state that the AMPTP was founded in 1982.



bicker said:


> I didn't say it wasn't. I'm not in favor of the AMPTP. *What the heck gave you the impression that I was?*


Every single post you have made on this thread has been pro-AMPTP and anti-WGA. Well, except for the snarky ones.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Not one single post I have made as been pro-AMPTP. It might make it easier for you to argue against me if I had, but I actually haven't.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

bicker said:


> Not one single post I have made as been pro-AMPTP. It might make it easier for you to argue against me if I had, but I actually haven't.


I'm sorry if I was incorrect, but I guess your incomprehensible (to me) anti-WGA position colored my impression that you pro-AMPTP since I don't remember seeing anything written by you as being anti-AMPTP.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Wikipedia actually has a really good description of the WGA Strike against the AMPTP that cites sources for many of the topics that have been referenced on this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

derekcbart said:


> I'm sorry if I was incorrect, but I guess your incomprehensible (to me) anti-WGA position colored my impression that you pro-AMPTP since I don't remember seeing anything written by you as being anti-AMPTP.


So the world is all black-and-white to you? If you're not pro-WGA and anti-AMPTP, you must therefore be pro-AMPTP? Sorry, friend, but the world is more complex than that.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> As already pointed out, AMPTP does so only because the WGA exists. If there was no union, the AMPTP members wouldn't even be allowed to talk about these kinds of things with each other. Get rid of the union, and your AMPTP problem goes away.


I am totally fine with the theory of dissolving colluding parties; I just do not think it that simple to implement in practice here.

While the AMPTP problem goes away, the underlying problem sticks around without further changes to the industry and law. The member companies of the AMPTP may not have been allowed to talk, but they colluded unofficially for decades prior to its formation (or those of the unions); that is part of the behavior that spurred unionization in the first place, because no other legal redress worked. If you simply dissolve all sides without somehow verifying a change in that behavior, as well as whatever other studio practices led the government to find there was significantly "unequal bargaining positions" in the first place, there will be an immediate motivation to reunionize.

Facing that motivation, if you do not also provide some faster acting/less blunt tool (does not even have to be governmental) than the NLRB to redress grievances or curb collusion/excess on either side, you are likely to end up right back where you started in a few years. I grant that the Bush or next administration NLRB might find differently than it did under Eisenhower (TV/Radio, 1954) or Roosevelt (movies, 1942). In fact, I think the AMPTP is banking on it, after waiting out the union and it and getting it decertified for its tactical errors. Still, that fight will be expensive, even if they are able to curb or block ongoing reunionization efforts later.

Again, I actually agree with the spirit behind this proposal. I just think as a practical matter it is unlikely to succeed without also making the above changes, changes that seem unlikely to occur in the timeframe of this dispute.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> The member companies of the AMPTP may not have been allowed to talk, but they colluded unofficially for decades prior to its formation


Just like the CEOs of my company and its competitors often chat with each other, at conferences and such. As long as it is legal, they should talk. If what they do with their talking is illegal, such as if they're colluding to accomplish an anti-competitive result, then they should be prosecuted. Again, the point is that no industry should have special treatment.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

No argument here -- my only point is that prosecuting such behavior was so slow that it was a contributing factor to drive unionization, and, if you simply dissolve all the unions/associations without creating another release valve, it will likely be again. Combined with the general lack of trust among the parties, means that simply dissolving the unions and associations (WGA/AMPTP/SAG/DGA) will not be very simple in practice.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Just like the CEOs of my company and its competitors often chat with each other, at conferences and such. As long as it is legal, they should talk. If what they do with their talking is illegal, such as if they're colluding to accomplish an anti-competitive result, then they should be prosecuted. Again, the point is that no industry should have special treatment.


seems to me that we can either monitor all communications executives have OR we can allow them to collude above board in the light of day while also allowing the other side to collude above board in the light of day.

My question is 
What is the difference between one person dealing individually with different studios and vice versa or all the writers dealing with all the studios?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

One of the two approaches provides special, unwarranted advantages to the writers.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> One of the two approaches provides special, unwarranted advantages to the writers.


so the studios can talk with each other and say - hold the line on residuals (face it, that will happen unless they are monitored 24/7) but the writers have to individually deal with not getting residuals? how is that not an unfair advantage?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dtremain said:


> Please forgive me if I think that an argument that workers are only entitled to demand a salary "above the poverty line" is insubstantial.


The average TV writer makes around $65k per year, plus a few thousand extra for each (weekly) episode they write. The least-paid writer earns around $50k annually, mainly because he isn't that good a writer. So he probably has another part-time job, just like most actors / stand-up comics/ etc. that aren't very good. Their type of job allows them to hold more than one job at once, since it's not a standard 9 to 5 job.

But some of these writers make $500k/year. Some of them are executive producers as well, so we're talking seven figures. When people think workers are on strike, they generally think of a blue-collar $12/hr job. Not a white-collar $35/hr + big bonuses kind of job.

I understand why they are striking. They want a bigger share of the pie, just like everyone else. And they don't want to be left out during this latest media transition. But it's tough to feel real sorry for them. Especially when their strike caused other people not directly involved to lose their jobs.

The last strike lasted 21 weeks, so we have a ways to go. Until then, enjoy all the new reality shows and game shows.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so the studios can talk with each other


Who said that? *Who?*

I know it is easier to argue against random things, but if you're going to reply to my messages, at least have the decency to argue against what I actually write.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

I'd love to actually debate about the concepts behind this strike, but arguing that what is legal on one side is OK but what is legal on the other side is not is rather pointless. One can easily make such assertions, but unless one provides actual evidence or support for the standpoint one might as well be playing "No, it isn't" with a 3 year old. Ta.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That sounds like if the debate doesn't take place on your terms, you aren't interested in participating. Well accept that everyone feels the same way. (Isn't that pretty much the way both sides in the strike feel, as well? Amazing how e-world parallels real life.) I just worry about presenting my own perspective, rather than worrying about forcing anyone else to defend their perspective.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

I'm interested in debate and discussion, not in tossing off unsupported assertions or watching other people do so. I also am not fond of pissing into the wind, and I'm feeling a bit damp in this thread. Ta again.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

How many Ta's can we get from you?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Who said that? *Who?*
> 
> I know it is easier to argue against random things, but if you're going to reply to my messages, at least have the decency to argue against what I actually write.


I think his argument was simply that studios would return to colluding behind the scenes, as they have done before, whereas writers would not be able to. Well, perhaps they could, but it would be exponentially more difficult for the writers than the studios, due to the sheer number of people involved. Until the law or industry institutes a more effective way to deter collusion, that asymmetry confers an advantage to the studios, unless both sides operate in the open.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> I think his argument was simply that studios would return to colluding behind the scenes, as they have done before, whereas writers would not be able to.


It is an argument he would be having with himself, though. It didn't contradict anything in the message he quoted.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> It is an argument he would be having with himself, though. It didn't contradict anything in the message he quoted.


you were saying that if the writers can collude it gives them an unfair advantage against the studios.

I pointed out the reality of the situation you have been ignoring the entire thread. The studio*s* have an easy time colluding, be it legal and in the light of day or in the back room. History has borne this simple fact out and indeed the WGA was created because th Government found that the studios were way too powerful and had an easy time of colluding together.

If you want to continue to ignore historical reality then have fun with that since both the writers and the studios are collectively bargaining as the reality and it is working as intended since the writers are able to call the studios on just keeping ALL the revenue from internet sales for themselves.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> The average TV writer makes around $65k per year, plus a few thousand extra for each (weekly) episode they write. The least-paid writer earns around $50k annually, mainly because he isn't that good a writer. So he probably has another part-time job, just like most actors / stand-up comics/ etc. that aren't very good. Their type of job allows them to hold more than one job at once, since it's not a standard 9 to 5 job.
> 
> But some of these writers make $500k/year. Some of them are executive producers as well, so we're talking seven figures. When people think workers are on strike, they generally think of a blue-collar $12/hr job. Not a white-collar $35/hr + big bonuses kind of job.
> 
> ...


I'm sure most of them are well-paid. I was responding to a more general statement about the role of unions by another poster.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

dtremain said:


> I'm sure most of them are well-paid. I was responding to a more general statement about the role of unions by another poster.


Does anybody really care abut the roles of unions in this case? Seems to me that a few people are angry because they can't watch new TV shows.

I don't think it would matter if the writers made $20k a year or $200k a year, people are missing their new TV shows.

The actual merits of the strike are secondary.

-smak-


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you were saying that if the writers can collude it gives them an unfair advantage against the studios.


*No* I wasn't!!!!!!!!! What is with people in this thread? Please read my friggen messages before replying to them. 

What I said was that such collusion gives writers an unwarranted advantage over other workers who aren't granted such special privileges.



ZeoTiVo said:


> If you want to continue to ignore....


What I want is to discuss my perspective, not entertain your distortions or that of anyone else.


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

bicker said:


> What I said was that such collusion gives writers an unwarranted advantage over other workers who aren't granted such special privileges.


...because of the profession they have chosen. While out of work writers go hungry or wait tables I get my check on schedule because of the profession I chose. Sometimes they win, sometimes we win. What's so wrong with this?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

derekcbart said:


> Neither Wikipedia nor the AMPTP websites give any information on how the organization was founded and how the government was involved. They only state that the AMPTP was founded in 1982.


The entertainment industry does have some special considerations under the NLRB, specifically so the Screen Actors Guild can avoid running afoul of closed shop laws. I could be wrong, but I do not think the WGA, DGA, or AMPTP have any similar special considerations.

The AMPTP is, however, recognized as a multi employer bargaining representative. These were illegal (but widely practiced) at one time, but have been permissible since Taft-Hartley. It seems reasonable to assume that is why the AMPTP was founded -- under such an organization, different companies can legally bargain collectively without it being branded as collusion.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

smak said:


> The actual merits of the strike are secondary.


I guess it's a matter of opinion. I like TiVo because there are only a few shows that I really enjoy and it allows me to never miss them. I don't watch that much TV.

I would consider the livelihoods of the people who work in the industry to be a higher priority than my having something to watch.

But, like I said, that is a subjective opinion.


----------



## brewman (Jun 29, 2003)

Fortunately, sports programming can get by without writers and is usually live.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JaneiR36 said:


> What's so wrong with this?


Because such collusion gives writers an unwarranted advantage over other workers who aren't granted such special privileges.


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

bicker said:


> Because such collusion gives writers an unwarranted advantage over other workers who aren't granted such special privileges.


Your argument is circular. You could have those privileges today if you chose, but are probably not willing to take the risks involved.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No my argument is simply a matter of subjective determination of needfulness, and subjective projection of what is in the public interest.


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

Any member of the public who wanted those privileges could choose to be a writer.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

JaneiR36 said:


> Any member of the public who wanted those privileges could choose to be a writer.


Or to organize a union. That's the point.

The constitution guarantees right of assembly. That means that one is not forced to stand alone.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

First of all, no, not every group can organize a union and thereby dominate their industry so significantly that they can bring all production in their industry to a halt with a strike. Second, it is not in the public interest to allow unions to have such power. 

Regardless, I'm confident that the pro-business perspective that predominates in this country, despite your wishes to the contrary, will ensure that such destructiveness won't spread. As unions have lost power over the last thirty years, they'll continue to lose power, and this won't be an issue thirty years from now.

Interesting discussion, but since we're just going around in circles now, I don't see much use in pursuing it further.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dtremain said:


> Or to organize a union. That's the point.
> 
> The constitution guarantees right of assembly. That means that one is not forced to stand alone.


1. You are grossly misinterpreting the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT guarantee the right to collude or form a union. There are other laws that ban and allow that (respectively) and give specific federal guidelines that must be followed.

2. An employer can fire you because of your political beliefs or what you do on your off-time. The Constitution just guarantees that you won't be thrown in jail as well. (At least, that's the latest interpretation of it, as Bicker has pointed out).

3. So explain Wal-Mart to me, then. How can it be so successful and popular even though it actively suppresses the formation of unions? Seems like the workers there are forced to "stand alone", yet they don't quit.

4. Some unions have been just as corrupt as the industries they supposedly fight against.

This reminds of a true story. In another (European) country, engineers (EE, ME, CE, etc.) are unionized. A company wasn't doing well, needed to lay off people, and wanted to target people who were grossly overpaid. All of these people happened to be with the company a while, and consequently were old. The union stepped in and said that was discrimination and unfair. The company could not survive a strike of any kind. So the union agreed to lay off MORE people than originally planned in order to make it "more fair". Yes, that's right, the UNION was laying off more workers than originally planned. So naturally, all the other employees immediately quit the union and kept their jobs, and as a bonus they didn't pay union dues anymore. The company laid off almost all of the grossly overpaid workers as planned, plus anyone who was still with the union per the agreement (almost everyone had dropped out of the union at that point, the company had a hard time complying with the agreement). The union in that company ceased to exist, partly because they were dumb, but mainly because they never had any real power anyway.

I think once the networks have a temporary solution firmly in place (i.e. more reality shows, game shows, etc.) people won't complain for a few months. The late night and daytime talk shows are already coming back. The networks have other money coming in and also have a large bankroll, and can wait out the strike. The same cannot be said for most of the writers.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

They'll both be losers as fewer and fewer people watch network TV. Of course the owners probably don't care as much since they'll just have cheaper shows with fewer viewers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think once the networks have a temporary solution firmly in place (i.e. more reality shows, game shows, etc.) people won't complain for a few months.


Though the real solution is to buy content from areas unaffected by the strike. The Canadian union is threatening to strike if currently-in-production Canadian shows are sold into the US market, but that doesn't stop (1) the studios from calling that bluff, and (2) selling last season's Canadian shows into the US market. UK shows already appear on BBC America, but I'm sure the broadcast networks have enough money to break that lock, though I think Americans could even be _more_ receptive to Aussie or Kiwi accents than to British accents.

There is content out there; it does require a little flexibility on the part of viewers, and that might be asking a lot. However, it is worth a shot.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Cudahy said:


> They'll both be losers as fewer and fewer people watch network TV.


That was probably going to happen, anyway, even if there wasn't a strike, just because there are so many more and better entertainment options now than before.



Cudahy said:


> Of course the owners probably don't care as much since they'll just have cheaper shows with fewer viewers.


True: Specific qualities of programming are viewer concerns; the networks are concerned about giving viewers what they're willing to watch -- really, what they're willing to sit through the commercials for.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Cudahy said:


> They'll both be losers as fewer and fewer people watch network TV. Of course the owners probably don't care as much since they'll just have cheaper shows with fewer viewers.


The networks, at least, have seen viewership trending down since the mid 1980s. It is interesting to note that the biggest drop tracks the 1988 strike, followed by a partial rebound, but there has been an overall downturn in network viewership independent of any dispute. The chart here is only for network prime time viewership; overall household watching has remained much flatter, perhaps with cable channels and unmeasured time-shifted viewing picking up much of the difference. (Not sure if VHS/DVD watching is included.)

If the networks can fill the slots with cheaper programming and lose less in revenue than they save in costs, they will. Their only long-term risk is that the strike will accelerate the downward trend or hurt their efforts to stop the bleeding. Presumably, they currently think that risk is minimal, or at least acceptable, compared to the WGA's proposals.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/b...dc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Hi there.

This is big news that just happened. David Letterman's Company, Worldwide Pants, just negotiated a deal with the WGA to have The Late Show and The Late, Late Show go back on the air WITH their writers. The other late night shows are going back on the air without their writers. This means that the other shows are not going to have scripted moments, like monologues, while David Letterman and Craig Ferguson will. CBS is reportedly furious at Letterman for doing this, but Worldwide Pants owns the shows, CBS only has the rights to broadcast them.

Hopefully, this is just the first of many such deals to happen. BTW, Worldwide Pants appears to have agreed to the same WGA positions regarding New Media that the AMPTP said were to onerous when they walked away from negotiations.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

I could see this backfiring on a few different fronts.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

derekcbart said:


> CBS is reportedly furious at Letterman for doing this, but Worldwide Pants owns the shows, CBS only has the rights to broadcast them.
> 
> Hopefully, this is just the first of many such deals to happen. BTW, Worldwide Pants appears to have agreed to the same WGA positions regarding New Media that the AMPTP said were to onerous when they walked away from negotiations.


I wonder if CBS could refuse to air them.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

dswallow said:


> I wonder if CBS could refuse to air them.


They wouldn't do that. They want him back on the air, but it makes CBS look like they are agreeing with the WGA to some people.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

derekcbart said:


> They wouldn't do that. They want him back on the air, but it makes CBS look like they are agreeing with the WGA to some people.


Not only that, the WGA making side deals doesn't look all that good, if in the end the collective deal doesn't match up, or if it exceeds the side deal some people are going to feel screwed.

Not to mention, the writer's for those shows going back to work while everybody else is still striking, isn't very supportive of the other union members.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Langree said:


> Not only that, the WGA making side deals doesn't look all that good, if in the end the collective deal doesn't match up, or if it exceeds the side deal some people are going to feel screwed.
> 
> Not to mention, the writer's for those shows going back to work while everybody else is still striking, isn't very supportive of the other union members.


Here is the official letter from the WGA leadership to the WGA members that addresses the concerns you just wrote:

December 28, 2007

To Our Fellow Members,

We are writing to let you know that have reached a contract with David Letterman's Worldwide Pants production company that puts his show and The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson back on the air with Guild writers. This agreement is a positive step forward in our effort to reach an industry-wide contract. While we know that these deals put only a small number of writers back to work, three strategic imperatives have led us to conclude that this deal, and similar potential deals, are beneficial to our overall negotiating efforts.

First, the AMPTP has not yet been a productive avenue for an agreement. As a result, we are seeking deals with individual signatories. The Worldwide Pants deal is the first. We hope it will encourage other companies, especially large employers, to seek and reach agreements with us. Companies who have a WGA deal and Guild writers will have a clear advantage. Companies that do not will increasingly find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Indeed, such a disadvantage could cost competing networks tens of millions in refunds to advertisers.

Second, this is a full and binding agreement. Worldwide Pants is agreeing to the full MBA, including the new media proposals we have been unable to make progress on at the big bargaining table. This demonstrates the integrity and affordability of our proposals. There are no shortcuts in this deal. Worldwide Pants has accepted the very same proposals that the Guild was prepared to present to the media conglomerates when they walked out of negotiations on December 7.

Finally, while our preference is an industry-wide deal, we will take partial steps if those will lead to the complete deal. We regret that all of us cannot yet return to work. We especially regret that other late night writers cannot return to work along with the Worldwide Pants employees. But the conclusion of your leadership is that getting some writers back to work under the Guilds proposed terms speeds up the return to work of all writers.

Side-by-side with this agreement, and any others that we reach, are our ongoing strike strategies. In the case of late-night shows, our strike pressure will be intense and essential in directing political and SAG-member guests to Letterman and Ferguson rather than to struck talk shows. At this time, picket lines at venues such as NBC (both Burbank and Rockefeller Center), The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and the Golden Globes are essential. Outreach to advertisers and investors will intensify in the days ahead and writers will continue to develop new media content itself to advance our position.

We must continue to push on all fronts to remind the conglomerates each and every day that we are committed to a fair deal for writers and the industry.

Best,

Patric M. Verrone
President, WGAW

Michael Winship
President, WGAE


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

derekcbart said:


> Second, this is a full and binding agreement. Worldwide Pants is agreeing to the full MBA, including the new media proposals we have been unable to make progress on at the big bargaining table. *This demonstrates the integrity and affordability of our proposals.* There are no shortcuts in this deal. Worldwide Pants has accepted the very same proposals that the Guild was prepared to present to the media conglomerates when they walked out of negotiations on December 7.


This part isn't necessarily correct, how much web content do these to shows actually put out compared to many of the others?

All I'm saying is WWP may not have as much to lose as some other shows, so it's easier for them to say ok.

I hope it works out, it may all depend on how long the whole strike lasts.


----------



## derekcbart (Sep 2, 2005)

Langree said:


> This part isn't necessarily correct, how much web content do these to shows actually put out compared to many of the others?
> 
> All I'm saying is WWP may not have as much to lose as some other shows, so it's easier for them to say ok.
> 
> I hope it works out, it may all depend on how long the whole strike lasts.


At least clips, possibly entire shows, are available online. I think they are only streaming, and not purchased downloads, but I have been seeing clips of Letterman online for years.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> UK shows already appear on BBC America, but I'm sure the broadcast networks have enough money to break that lock, though I think Americans could even be _more_ receptive to Aussie or Kiwi accents than to British accents.


That's what closed captioning is for. BBC America actually has a funny blurb before each of its shows to suggest turning it on. My wife has been here for 15 years, but can't understand any British accents. I can understand them, except once in a while they use a funny slang word and I have to do the 8-second rewind.

Turns out there is a lot of snogging on Torchwood.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

bicker said:


> Because such collusion gives writers an unwarranted advantage over other workers who aren't granted such special privileges.


Are you saying that the workers in one industry have a tool (i.e., striking/colluding) to use in their bargaining with their employer that the workers in another industry don't have to use against their employer?


----------

