Re: The strike is on
Now this is getting into a whole other thing. I don't think that's a very good argument at all. If Joe Blow can't find other work, he should be grateful for ANY job he gets. It's how the market works; if there are more people than there are jobs, the jobs will pay less.
And besides that, if Joe Blow can't find a job that pays what he needs, he needs to look for a different type of job.
They do. A lot of writers (and actors, artists, etc) hold down more than one job because the only contracts available for their chosen field are so completely ****ty.
They take the job that pays **** because they can do the job they want to do - and to finance it, they take another job.
When an employer giving you a ****ty contract tries to make it even
more worthless, it's a problem.
You have to remember that the job contracts
expired and so they're trying to renegotiate a new contract that gives them a small increase on DVD sales, whereas the producers
want to eliminate their earnings.
Writers wan't to get more on royalties on DVD sales than they have been - and what they want is STILL a smaller percentage than what novelists get on books.
The executives want them to get NO residuals, a one-time fee and that's it.
Just as you're against strikers for trying to increase their wage through strike actions, the executives are trying to reduce their wage through litigation.
I didn't think it was because it was fair , Just they agreed it so they need to shut the **** up and just do it. No strikes.
And I understand that but it is a part of life. Is it unfair? Yes. I'm just 100% against the strike. They earned their money , They got more than enough for what they did.
Again I mention doctors and cops. Can a Doctor say "hey I cured that man's cancer , It's not come back now for 5 years I think I should get paid for every year he is alive and if he has kids then I want money for each year they are alive as I saved their father and with out him they wouldn't be borne. I'm not getting it , let's strike"
That's not entirely accurate.
It would be more accurate to have your same Doctor say, "Hey I cured cancer using the patented Moleification method. Every time someone cures cancer with it, I should get paid. If I don't, I'm going on strike."
But it would be even
more accurate to have the Doctor say, "Hey, I cured cancer using the
patented Moleification method that I invented 20 years ago. I've been earning a small residual every time someone uses that method and that's been a lot. Hey, I've not earned nearly as much as the hospital's owner, but I'm doing okay. However, it's now time to renegotiate my contract and I'd like a little more. Not a huge amount, not the same as policemen get for using the Bassiant restrainment method, but a little increase... what's this? My new contract is saying I don't get
any residuals because people now use
Randominum scalpels instead of the same stainless steel scalpels I used to patent the method 20 years ago?"
Really look at this situation. The doctor doesn't demand a wage increase then strikes because he doesn't get it. The doctor demands a wage increase then is told he's getting
less money because they
changed the name of a tool he uses.
The strike, according to what I've read, is about that - The writers do want more money - but what they want is still less than what novelists get for books; it's not an unreasonable amount at all, but they're striking because the executives are trying to pay them
less - NOT because the executives won't pay them
more.
come on. If you can strike from your job then it's not that important in the first place. I used doctors and cops an example because imagine say for 2 weeks you couldn't get arrested or cured/healed no matter what if they strike. Yeah never going to happen as it's too important.
Exactly.
I agree with you - I think striking is stupid. I don't think it's a particularly good form of getting what you want, especially since it got neutered. When strikes first happened, they were illegal, violent, and terrifying. Now that they're legal and all polite and such, I feel their effectiveness is less yet they're still as annoying.
That said - I also think murder is a despicable act. But I can understand someone coming home and cutting the head off a guy who's raping their six-year old daughter.
In principle - striking is a bad thing. But the world is never in such absolutes. Just as you can have justifiable homicide, there can be times where strikes can be justifiable. Yes, it's a shame that the situation has eroded to such a point where someone has to kill/strike, but sometimes it's the best course of action.
Also "MOLE'S WONDER PARK" would be the best movie ever
I think it would be. It would be PAN'S LABYRINTH + WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY.
I find that very hard to believe.
And, even if it's true, I would think VERY few people would agree with you.
The WGA strike went through on a 90% approval vote - which is completely unheard of. It's
never been that high. It's possible people are more sheep like than before (or greedy or what-have-you) or it could be that maybe this strike really needs to happen. I dunno.
What
is interesting is that 10% of the WGA didn't go for it. So that 10% - some agree with Mole and E; striking is bad no matter what you do and contracts shouldn't be renegotiated. Some writers, maybe finally getting their pet tv show produced see the strike as the possible death knell for their show and do not want their show to stop for any reason (maybe the actors are only available for a short window or something).
But 10% agree. And that is VERY few in the WGA. So I guess everyone is right!