Writers guild on strike, see this movie to understand why

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Something tells me you might be an employer, Sean?

[gibsonlp]

phlemmy: Come on, you know what I meant, they chose to be writers. However - the shift in the industry requires them to ask for changes to be made on their contracts.

And just FYI: The strike action was taken due to the fact the studios were NOT willing to negotiate.

[phlemmy]

Something tells me you might be an employer, Sean?

No way, man. Too much trouble. I'm a lackey!

[phlemmy]

phlemmy: Come on, you know what I meant, they chose to be writers. However - the shift in the industry requires them to ask for changes to be made on their contracts.

And just FYI: The strike action was taken due to the fact the studios were NOT willing to negotiate.

If you are working for a studio that is not willing to negotiate, there are 2 choices:
1. Accept it as it is and keep working, or
2. Find another job.

[gibsonlp]

What's the difference (for the industry) if the writers are on strike or they quit?
Besides - if I am not mistaken - most of them are self employed and they can't really quit anything, the only thing they can do is to stop sending their work to the studios (which is what they are currently doing).

[phlemmy]

because if the strike ends, they still have a job. if they are self-employed, hopefully the studios start looking elsewhere.

[winston]

because if the strike ends, they still have a job. if they are self-employed, hopefully the studios start looking elsewhere.

You are bang on with this observation Sean. They did attempt to go with their B and C list of writers for their premium programming. Those writers apparently failed miserably to meet the required standard. Their B and C list of writers you ask? They are the less skilled writers who write programming like the daily soaps that depending on your view grace or infest day time television.

Re-runs make no difference to me. I watch very little television. As a person that has been involved in the creative arts all my life I have empathy for these writers who work slavishly to meet deadlines. If they are good at their job their reward is more work and a half decent living. Lets cut these guys some slack their job is a tough one.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

This is a pretty fascinating issue...not you typical "gimme more money" strike. Check out this article--it gives a pretty good picture of the issue and the implications and possible outcomes. I'll be very interested to see where this all ends up.

http://www.sltrib.com/themix/ci_7536062

[gibsonlp]

Great article, thanks!

[phlemmy]

If you're fighting for your "future", going on strike is the wrong way to go about it.

Remember the checker/bagger strike in California a few years ago? Remember what happened when they came off strike? They lost more benefits then they were asking for. They screwed themselves!

None of those writers are irreplaceable. No bagger/checker is irreplaceable. No cable splicer is irreplaceable. No auto worker is irreplaceable. If these people don't want to work, fine. The employer will find someone who will and should be actively looking the moment someone walks out of their job. If they feel that they should be getting something more, then they should work with their employer towards that goal. Too bad Reagan's not around to fire them all like he did the air traffic controllers in the 80s. That was awesome.

Then again, I really feel sorry for you guys having to watch repeats of Letterman and Desperate Housewives.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

So, let's just be clear on everything and save a lot of typing:

Employers are always right...but when they're not, too bad.
The only way to resolve a dispute with your employer is to quit your job.
All unions are despicable, and we never had a need for them, ever, at any time in history.
Anyone can write, but no one should----it's a foolish job.
Writers are reluctantly allowed a small share of their original copyright, but further use of their work is fair game for anyone else. Just not them.

I think that about covers it. Oh, except for one more thing: When people band together as a group, they're not being good Americans.

Next case!

[phlemmy]

So, let's just be clear on everything and save a lot of typing:

1..Employers are always right...but when they're not, too bad.
2. The only way to resolve a dispute with your employer is to quit your job.
3. All unions are despicable, and we never had a need for them, ever, at any time in history.
4. Anyone can write, but no one should----it's a foolish job.
5. Writers are reluctantly allowed a small share of their original copyright, but further use of their work is fair game for anyone else. Just not them.

I think that about covers it. Oh, except for one more thing: When people band together as a group, they're not being good Americans.

Next case!

1. Right or wrong, the employer should have the power to hire and fire for ANY reason whatsoever.
2. Who said that? Negotiate for what you want. If you aren't satisfied, suck it up or find other employment.
3. All unions are dispicable. There is no need for them in today's American society. 60+ years ago they did what they were supposed to do...help the uneducated negotiate better wages. Now, as Americans, we all have the same FREE public education (which i am also against). Had unions been disbanded the costs of many things that we hold so dear would not be as high as they are now. Unions, in general, support the lazy. That's not to say that all union members are lazy because they're not. My brother is a union member but any time they strike, he crosses the line to WORK.
4. Huh? Those aren't my words or sentiments. If you drew that conclusion from anything I wrote, I suggest hitting the public education for another round!
5. Everyone is entitled to what their contracts allow. If something more is desired, negotiate for it. I know that the uses of media is ever changing. They should renegotiate contracts, not strike. More damage is done during a strike than during a peaceful negotiation. Reluctantly allowed? What does that mean?

By the way, I am a copyright protection proponent/activist/nazi/whatever. I am just not a union lackey.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Phlemmy, I figure you probably enjoy the back-and-forth, and that's why I threw in...but just so you know, I don't harbor any ill will here. Just funnin' with you. Most of the time I am laughing and very much enjoying your posts and input...so hope you take the ribbing in a friendly way. Yes, I pretty much believe the opposite, though.

Unions wield power, and they are rife with corruption. I can't stand the mentality, half the time. But "negotiation" without a union would be a bad joke. I do not believe history bears out the assertion that unions were started as an educational exercise that has since been replaced by public education. They were born of bloody battles to ensure a halfway decent living for the workingman, not just for dimwits who didn't know how to negotiate...there WAS no negotiation...things were as you seem to encourage: employers had the power to do whatever they pleased, and what pleased them was to pay diddly squat and keep the workers at work from dawn till dusk every day, and if you didn't like it you could go starve. When you speak of negotiations rather than striking, I think you skip the point that negotiations have been rejected. Next step in your book is to give up or quit---but if this were your lifeblood, maybe you'd see the advantage of a strike. If you're a copyright nazi, then why are you against writers fighting for their right to copy? Seems like once unions are mentioned, the hatred kicks in and all bets are off. All I see is that writers already have a minimal piece of the pie that is about to become obsolete...they're standing their ground until actual negotiations can happen. Other than a strike, how would you go about doing that? Keep in mind, negotiations have been flat out denied.

[phlemmy]

Dude, no ill will on my end. I have tons of radical views and if I based my interaction with people based on my beliefs, I'd be flying solo quite often!

No where did I say that they shouldn't fight for what they want. I just don't believe in striking to do it. In the long run if this gets settled, I bet they will lose more than they gain. The unions will reap the benefits more than anyone.

If negotiations have failed...then they suck it up or go elsewhere.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

So...let's follow your gameplan:

Never strike, but fight for what you want.
The only way to fight is to negotiate. (Not sure what else you'd have in mind...unless you're a PETA kind of guy.)
Employer says no thanks, we won't negotiate...that isn't in our interest.
Game over.

End result, the writers should all simply quit or accept diminishing returns. Tough luck, kiddo, see you at the Micky D's take-out window. They are denied copyright in the digital world---soon to be the only world, marketplace-wise. Meanwhile, the employer does get digital copyright...they did not write the copy, but they hold all the cards, so they get it all.

I don't see how a strike hurts the writers any more than not striking...however, I do see the possibility of a strike breaking this impasse and getting them a piece of their own copyright.