The Shrine

MAYBE we'll see our shows back in September, but it'll likely take an actors strike to do so

http://www.mania.com/56915.html

Updated: when your shows will go dark:

http://www.mania.com/56916.html

This will probably turn out at least somewhat badly for the writers (as it did with strike from the 80's). The studio bosses have almost all the leverage.

Ishamael wrote:This will probably turn out at least somewhat badly for the writers (as it did with strike from the 80's). The studio bosses have almost all the leverage.

They do? Explain this one to me please......

Reality TV. The studios can get away with fucking around with new shows that don't use WGA writers, and still make money. Meanwhile, the writers have to deal with waiting tables, instead of actually writing stories.

Of course, don't knock the previous strike. It cost everybody about a billion dollars total, and they lost about 10% viewship (which is a huge cut). Even the execs felt a huge blow from it. I think if the execs aren't careful, this strike would cost more than just money. People may finally realize that TV is old media and move on.

SineSwiper wrote:Reality TV. The studios can get away with fucking around with new shows that don't use WGA writers, and still make money. Meanwhile, the writers have to deal with waiting tables, instead of actually writing stories.

Of course, don't knock the previous strike. It cost everybody about a billion dollars total, and they lost about 10% viewship (which is a huge cut). Even the execs felt a huge blow from it. I think if the execs aren't careful, this strike would cost more than just money. People may finally realize that TV is old media and move on.

Reality TV isn't gonna make up for the lost of shows like 24, Dexter, Heroes, Tonight Show, etc. THey can fill in for a bit but not for too long.

And if the actors go on strike in the next couple of months (I thought March was their time?) even all those movies scripts in the can will mean nothing but Jack and shit and Jack is also on strike....

Zeus wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Reality TV. The studios can get away with fucking around with new shows that don't use WGA writers, and still make money. Meanwhile, the writers have to deal with waiting tables, instead of actually writing stories.

Of course, don't knock the previous strike. It cost everybody about a billion dollars total, and they lost about 10% viewship (which is a huge cut). Even the execs felt a huge blow from it. I think if the execs aren't careful, this strike would cost more than just money. People may finally realize that TV is old media and move on.

Reality TV isn't gonna make up for the lost of shows like 24, Dexter, Heroes, Tonight Show, etc. THey can fill in for a bit but not for too long.

And if the actors go on strike in the next couple of months (I thought March was their time?) even all those movies scripts in the can will mean nothing but Jack and shit and Jack is also on strike....

Sine has it right. Reality TV is HUGE now and it's popularity is a direct result of the previous strike. It'll become even more popular once networks run out of new shows.

And yes networks might lose money with the strike. But that doesn't mean network bosses don't have all the leverage. They're worth millions if not billions. Thus they are in a MUCH better position to weather financial hardship than your average TV writer who doesn't get paid crap in comparison. This is why in the last strike, the writers got such a crappy deal and basically had to concede what the network bosses wanted them to do all along.

Hence the attitude with this strike. They remember the last strike and it still left them with a bad taste in their mouth. Now, if they don't get what they want, then their power as a union is practically useless. They might as well disband the whole concept if they don't win this thing.

SineSwiper wrote:Hence the attitude with this strike. They remember the last strike and it still left them with a bad taste in their mouth. Now, if they don't get what they want, then their power as a union is practically useless. They might as well disband the whole concept if they don't win this thing.

This is very similar to the hockey lockout from a couple of years ago. The owners there ended up losing a SHITLOAD of money but they held out (through some foresight by Bettman to have it so he only needed the support of 8 of 30 owners so they didn't cannibalize themselves like they did in 1995) 'cause of the idea that they figured it's better in the long term. If the players hadn't caved, they would have probably beaten them once about half of the following season was lost.

It's the similar idea with the studio moguls. They figure if they gave up even a shitload of money now they'll be better off in the future as long as they keep a stranglehold on the risiduals since so much of the future of the industry is in that direction. As long as the writers hold out long enough, they'll win 'cause it'll get to a point where each studio will have lost a billion dollars. There is a breaking point of how much the moguls are willing to lose now to save future funds.

And if you get any of the other unions striking (I think the actors are thinking about it around March) and they can't shoot anything at all, that'll only help the writers. Right now they can still shoot stuff if it's written. Imagine they can't even shoot the 3 years worth of movie scripts they have in the can? Then you'll see the studios cave faster than an accordian.

Zeus wrote: If the players hadn't caved, they would have probably beaten them once about half of the following season was lost.

In strikes, the owners have all the money. It works like this:

1) Owner's saving account = $1,600,000,000
2) Player's savings account = $300,000 (assuming it's not blown on crap...and realistically most non-superstar accounts are probably less)

The owners can financially hold out MUCH longer than the players and the players have no other source of income. For the owners, hockey is just one of many businesses in which they're involved, so they've still got income flowing in addition to vastly more money saved.

Zeus wrote: It's the similar idea with the studio moguls.

It's almost exactly the same, except now imagine most of the "players" (the writers here) have negative balances. Writers do not have money to NOT work.

Zeus wrote: As long as the writers hold out long enough, they'll win 'cause it'll get to a point where each studio will have lost a billion dollars.
There is a breaking point of how much the moguls are willing to lose now to save future funds.

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that the moguls will be financially broken before the writers. This is not the case.

Moguls have lots of money saved up for financial bad times. And they still earn 80% - 90% for what they were going to earn anyway by showing reruns and alternative viewing like reality shows on TV. Also, they've got income from other media properties. So not only do moguls have vastly more money saved, they've still got income, albeit reduced income.

Reduced profit is still better than zero income, anyway you slice it. Most writers have nothing saved and they are earning no money and have no skills to earn money somewhere else.

Zeus wrote: And if you get any of the other unions striking (I think the actors are thinking about it around March) and they can't shoot anything at all, that'll only help the writers.

And this is the writer's only weapon. Solidarity with the other unions. Really, they are powerless without this. And they may still be powerless *with* it. Most actors are just as poor as the writers out here.

People need to stop thinking that your "typical" writer is Akiva Goldsmith and your "typical" actor is Tom Cruise. Stroll on into one of the restaurants around here and you'll meet your real "typical" actor.

Zeus wrote:Imagine they can't even shoot the 3 years worth of movie scripts they have in the can? Then you'll see the studios cave faster than an accordian.

It'll never get to this point because writers have families to feed/clothe and not much money to begin with. They need the money WAY more than the studio moguls. And the moguls know this.

It is a writers union, no?

Doesn't really help that there's 0 media coverage because all the networks are owned by the corporations

Zeus wrote:It is a writers union, no?

Yeees. Me no comprende.

Eric wrote:Doesn't really help that there's 0 media coverage because all the networks are owned by the corporations

There was tons of media coverage. At least initially. It'll get more coverage once it closes in on the time for the actors guild to make a decision.

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:It is a writers union, no?

Yeees. Me no comprende.

Just wondering why unions exist......

Zeus wrote:

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:It is a writers union, no?

Yeees. Me no comprende.

Just wondering why unions exist......

Once upon a time, they had real power. But that's been eroded over the years due to increased non-union competition. And it's happened in every industry - auto, airline, movies, etc. The power of unions is in solidarity. Everybody has to agree to not do something to get owners to listen. Once that goes, it's all over.

Actually, most auto companies have unions. Hollywood is hugely unionized. Where is this competition that you speak of? Bollywood? Who competes with the WGA or the SAG?

SineSwiper wrote:Actually, most auto companies have unions.

Most American companies do. Actually, they all do I'd bet. That's not the case for the Japanese who, not-coincidentally, are kicking the American's asses.

SineSwiper wrote:Hollywood is hugely unionized. Where is this competition that you speak of? Bollywood? Who competes with the WGA or the SAG?

Most cable shows don't use unionized labor. News shows don't use unionized labor. Reality shows don't use unionized labor. The list goes on and on. There's a ton of non-unionized competition for TV writers that wasn't there back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. Once upon a time, if writers decided to walk, then nothing happened. Not so much these days.

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Ishamael wrote: Yeees. Me no comprende.

Just wondering why unions exist......

Once upon a time, they had real power. But that's been eroded over the years due to increased non-union competition. And it's happened in every industry - auto, airline, movies, etc. The power of unions is in solidarity. Everybody has to agree to not do something to get owners to listen. Once that goes, it's all over.

For the most part, unions have two basic functions in North America:

1) provide a pension to it's members (essentially the sole reason defined benefit pensions even exist anymore)
2) provide support in the case of a work stoppage

The point I was trying to make was that the writers have a union, they have a strike fund. Sure, the moguls may have billions of dollars to their names, but after they've lost multiple billions each, they may start to say "fuck, let's just give them 5% each, we're still up BIG TIME on DVD sales". Remember, these moguls didn't exactly get rich by being patient and working together, you can bet one of them would just say "fuck it, I've lost too much, I'll at least negotiate something 'cause I"m losing too much".

Don't believe that's true? I'll use the hockey owners as an example again 'cause I had tons to read on that one. In 1995, the owners caved 'cause too many of them said "fuck it, I make tons of money, just give the players the salary". Back then, they needed 21 of 30 votes to pass shit at the Board meetings so they caved. Bettman changed that a few years later so that he only needed 8 of 30. He knew that there was no way they could show "solidarity" even though it would benefit all of them. These businessmen are just too fucking greedy. But at least 8 of them had small market teams so he knew he could get fake solidarity that way. The players caved after the full year was lost but if the owners actually needed a majority you could bet that they would have caved before the full season was lost.

All the writers have to do is wait it out and it sounds like they're ready for it. If they suddenly get support and the actors strike and you can't really make movies anymore or any TV other than stupid reality shows, you can bet they'll fold faster than an accordian at a barmitsfa. The SOLE reason they're together now is 'cause they think that they'll benefit in the long run by losing money now. They ain't gettin' hit TOO hard 'cause the shows still haven't ended (well, they're starting to) and there are tons of movie scripts in the can. But once that dries up they'll start to panic. Can't have Fifi sleep in a mere two story, 3000 sq ft heat "dog house" with only 6 rooms, can we? They gots a lifestyle and revenue stream they and many employees they have rely upon. The shit hasn't hit the fan yet for them (well, other than the talk shows) but it will if they can't actually make movies anymore. TV shows are all ending quick so they'll start to feel a bit of a pinch soon too. But take away their ace in the hole with the movie scripts they have stocked up and the panic starts to set in.

The writers just have to be patient and I'm willing to bet they have more brains than the hockey goons who make up the NHLPA. They know the score, it just depends whether or not they wilt under the pressure while they wait for the game clock to run out.

Zeus wrote:

Ishamael wrote: Once upon a time, they had real power. But that's been eroded over the years due to increased non-union competition. And it's happened in every industry - auto, airline, movies, etc. The power of unions is in solidarity. Everybody has to agree to not do something to get owners to listen. Once that goes, it's all over.

For the most part, unions have two basic functions in North America:

Unions have one function - to make as money as possible for its members.

Zeus wrote: 1) provide a pension to it's members (essentially the sole reason defined benefit pensions even exist anymore)
2) provide support in the case of a work stoppage

Pensions are a result of unions bargaining to get as much money as possible for its members (in this case, getting paid full salaries after retirement).

Work stoppages are means to get things like pensions, but it's not right to say union exist to perform work stoppages. A work stoppage is a tool, not an end goal.

Zeus wrote: The point I was trying to make was that the writers have a union, they have a strike fund.

Your entire argument rests around the idea that there is a massive strike fund that unions can draw from in dire need.
They do not. That's why the 1988 strike lasted 5 months and the writers got little to nothing.

Zeus wrote: Sure, the moguls may have billions of dollars to their names, but after they've lost multiple billions each, they may start to say "fuck, let's just give them 5% each, we're still up BIG TIME on DVD sales".

A strike is a game of chicken. In each strike for the past 30 years in every single industry, moguls have made out better than the strikers. Do moguls want a strike? No, for exactly the reasons you gave. Strikes are not good for business. But guess what - neither is caving into collective bargaining.

Moguls can take the pain longer than strikers because the strike fund for poorly paid writers doesn't in any way compare to their wealth.

Zeus wrote: Remember, these moguls didn't exactly get rich by being patient and working together...

What? I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

Zeus wrote: Don't believe that's true? I'll use the hockey owners as an example again 'cause I had tons to read on that one. In 1995, the owners caved 'cause too many of them said "fuck it, I make tons of money, just give the players the salary".

The NHL is kind of a bad example. It's less popular than NASCAR and the league bleeds money. The NHL is screwed no matter what (unless they do some massive compression to make up for over-expansion and drastically cut player salaries).

And why do you say the owners caved? They got what they wanted all along - a salary cap and tighter control over player's salaries. The players union are the ones who caved.

Zeus wrote: These businessmen are just too fucking greedy. But at least 8 of them had small market teams so he knew he could get fake solidarity that way.

Why is it the businessmen are too greedy and not the players? Most of these teams are hemorrhaging money. Income and popularity-wise, hockey is irrelevant as a "major" sport. They can't afford to pay people $20 million dollar salaries. There isn't the equivalent of Jack Nicholson paying $100,000 for floor seats in hockey.

Zeus wrote:The players caved after the full year was lost but if the owners actually needed a majority you could bet that they would have caved before the full season was lost.

So now you say the players caved? This is of course correct, but just earlier you said the owners caved (which was incorrect).

Zeus wrote: All the writers have to do is wait it out and it sounds like they're ready for it.

They are not ready for anything. Like I said, that strike fund you mentioned is a joke compared to the owner's bank accounts. And the fact is, most writers weren't earning jack anyway.

Zeus wrote: If they suddenly get support and the actors strike and you can't really make movies anymore or any TV other than stupid reality shows, you can bet they'll fold faster than an accordian at a barmitsfa.

Again, works well on paper, but not in reality (for the reasons given). I present every single strike of the past 30 years in every industry in America as evidence.

this thread contains too many words and not enough pictures.

bovine wrote:this thread contains too many words and not enough pictures.

I too would appreciate more boobies.

Ish, too irritating to quote that properly, so here's the response:

1) I work in a union environment as does a friend of mine. Unions do negotiate the best deals for their members but their real function is to provide a good pension (most of their members are blue collar workers don't forget) and protection, of which a strike fund is a big part of 'cause not going to work is their real bargaining chip. Otherwise they'd have nothing.

2) They do have a strike fund. It's not just the writers living off of their own savings. They knew this was coming, you think they didn't build a war chest for it? If the NHLPA had one you don't think they do? It's one of the main reasons they exist....

3) I agree completely that the moguls can take it longer. My argument is that they won't 'cause in the end, they're businessmen. It would be bad business to after a certain point, particularly if they can't have a full production going anymore. The writers ain't stupid from the sounds of it, there doesn't seem to be a ton of dissent like with the hockey players. They seem to know if they wait it out they'll win.

4) The whole "don't get rich by working together" thing was referring to natural business competition. Even though they might be working together now, it's not like they're bed buddies normally. By nature businesses are selfish and will act that way unless they stopped. That was the hockey reference I was referring to in the 8 votes of 30 required for the Board of Governers to keep the lockout going.

5) The hockey owners caved in 1995 not in 2003. The entire argument is that the whole 8 of 30 thing was the reason they didn't cave not their resolve. The players caved BIG TIME in 2003.

6) Why are businessmen greedy and not players? Well, the player doesn't get anything someone ain't offering. Is it greedy to take what someone is giving you? If there was no one giving them that salary they wouldn't take it. It's called competition. In perfect competition (which is impossible) there's zero profit. In real life competition, there is incentive for the moguls to give the writers and actors and others a very big piece of the pie 'cause there's still money to be made. 10% of $200 million is still a pretty good damned profit. It's when they work together to stifle competition that it don't happen. That's what's happening here, they're working together - officially or not - to stifle real competition to increase their profits 'cause they know it's better for all of them in the end to do so. (/ basic economic lesson). So, in the end the moguls are being greedy by taking more than they should.

Before you go out saying "but Zoos, you just said that they don't work together!", what I meant by that is the incentive to not work together increases dramatically when there's that much more money being lost, in reality or opportunity. They only work together on a very light 'cause it benefits all of them but the SECOND they have incentive to not work together, they won't. That's just a matter of time.

7) Things are changing, the workers are realizing they have the real power. Look at the salaries the actors are making, they have the real power in the movie industry, the popular ones anyways. In the end, a business is nothing without its workers performing at a high level 'cause a business IS its workers. I really think that these writers have the best opportunity to stand up against "big business" than we've seen in a long time, the past 30 years ain't now. If they could strike for 5 months in 1995 they could probably go longer now. And if the actors or another union who's vital to the production of a show/movie strikes, the shit will really hit the fan...

Now, if only we could get the general public to show their politicians that they really have the power.....well, they'd have to believe it first

Zeus wrote:Ish, too irritating to quote that properly, so here's the response:

1) I work in a union environment as does a friend of mine. Unions do negotiate the best deals for their members but their real function is to provide a good pension (most of their members are blue collar workers don't forget) and protection, of which a strike fund is a big part of 'cause not going to work is their real bargaining chip. Otherwise they'd have nothing.

2) They do have a strike fund. It's not just the writers living off of their own savings. They knew this was coming, you think they didn't build a war chest for it? If the NHLPA had one you don't think they do? It's one of the main reasons they exist....

I've stated my opinions on these two, but I'll repeat it - there's zero evidence that strike funds have been effective at helping workers over the past several decades. (Also you imply I said they didn't have a strike fund. I said no such thing. I said it was tiny and ineffective.)

Zeus wrote: 3) I agree completely that the moguls can take it longer. My argument is that they won't 'cause in the end, they're businessmen. It would be bad business to after a certain point, particularly if they can't have a full production going anymore. The writers ain't stupid from the sounds of it, there doesn't seem to be a ton of dissent like with the hockey players. They seem to know if they wait it out they'll win.

Again, every strike of the past several decades proves this as false, including the hockey and writer strikes.

No writers aren't stupid. But writers are good at writing not business. That's why the moguls are millionaires/billionaires and not the writers.

Zeus wrote: 4) The whole "don't get rich by working together" thing was referring to natural business competition. Even though they might be working together now, it's not like they're bed buddies normally. By nature businesses are selfish and will act that way unless they stopped. That was the hockey reference I was referring to in the 8 votes of 30 required for the Board of Governers to keep the lockout going.

Yes business are selfish by nature. But the inherently selfish nature of business owners has in no way helped a single striker of the past 30 years.

Zeus wrote: 5) The hockey owners caved in 1995 not in 2003. The entire argument is that the whole 8 of 30 thing was the reason they didn't cave not their resolve.

The owners caved in 1995? How? The owners got the salary caps and tighter salary controls they wanted in the first place. The players did NOT want this. So how is it the owners caved? You've yet to explain this in any of your posts (or if you have, I'm missing it).

Zeus wrote: 6) Why are businessmen greedy and not players? Well, the player doesn't get anything someone ain't offering. Is it greedy to take what someone is giving you? If there was no one giving them that salary they wouldn't take it. It's called competition. In perfect competition (which is impossible) there's zero profit. In real life competition, there is incentive for the moguls to give the writers and actors and others a very big piece of the pie 'cause there's still money to be made. 10% of $200 million is still a pretty good damned profit. It's when they work together to stifle competition that it don't happen. That's what's happening here, they're working together - officially or not - to stifle real competition to increase their profits 'cause they know it's better for all of them in the end to do so. (/ basic economic lesson). So, in the end the moguls are being greedy by taking more than they should.

Who's to say how much they "should" take? You? Me? Lox? If players think they can get more somewhere else, they should go there.

Everyone is "greedy" and what you "deserve" is whatever you are able to negotiate for yourself.

Zeus wrote: Before you go out saying "but Zoos, you just said that they don't work together!", what I meant by that is the incentive to not work together increases dramatically when there's that much more money being lost, in reality or opportunity. They only work together on a very light 'cause it benefits all of them but the SECOND they have incentive to not work together, they won't. That's just a matter of time.

So you're saying they work together only when it benefits them? Is that supposed to be a revelation? :)Of course they do!

Hockey players and writers are doing the same thing btw - they compete with each other for jobs and salaries, but work together if they think doing so will increase their salaries.

Zeus wrote: 7) Things are changing, the workers are realizing they have the real power. Look at the salaries the actors are making, they have the real power in the movie industry, the popular ones anyways.

The popular actors are not the ones who want to strike. Will Smith is perfectly happy with his $20 million+ per movie fee.

And no, actors do not have the "real" power. Actors get paid a fraction of a movie's profits. The rest ends up in the pockets of the people financing the movie (i.e. the moguls).

Zeus wrote: In the end, a business is nothing without its workers performing at a high level 'cause a business IS its workers. I really think that these writers have the best opportunity to stand up against "big business" than we've seen in a long time, the past 30 years ain't now. If they could strike for 5 months in 1995 they could probably go longer now.

So what is so different about this moment in time that gives writers advantages that no other striking force has had in several year?

Even now, the effectiveness of the strikers is reduced. All the late night shows have decided to go back on air in January without the writers. Why? Because there's tons of other people affected by writers quiting than just the writers - there's a huge infrastructure around every set in Hollywood and when writers quit, these people starve. The writer's strike pathetic strike fund doesn't protect these people and they don't have a union. Moguls know this btw.

Yes the business is the workers, I understand your point there. But one resource is more easily replaceable than the other - writers/actors/etc are a dime a dozen out here. Money isn't so easy to come by.

Zeus wrote: Now, if only we could get the general public to show their politicians that they really have the power.....well, they'd have to believe it first

Moguls control the government too BTW, but that's a different post.

Ishamael wrote:In each strike for the past 30 years in every single industry, moguls have made out better than the strikers.

...

Again, works well on paper, but not in reality (for the reasons given). I present every single strike of the past 30 years in every industry in America as evidence.

This is a rather bold claim. Considering that you have been repeating it enough in this thread, I demand evidence for this claim.

Otherwise, your entire argument and your "evidence" is baseless.

SineSwiper wrote:

Ishamael wrote:In each strike for the past 30 years in every single industry, moguls have made out better than the strikers.

...

Again, works well on paper, but not in reality (for the reasons given). I present every single strike of the past 30 years in every industry in America as evidence.

This is a rather bold claim. Considering that you have been repeating it enough in this thread, I demand evidence for this claim.

Otherwise, your entire argument and your "evidence" is baseless.

It's only "bold" if you haven't been paying attention to any of the major strikes. If you can present one counter example, I'm all ears.

But as examples of strikes where the strikers lost, I present you the aforementioned NHL strikes (04 & '94), the NBA strikes, the writer's strike of '88, the airline strikes, the auto worker's strikes, etc.

Ish, in 1995 the hockey owners got nothing after their lockout other than a toothless luxury tax. It was hardly any better than the baseball one is now. Why the hell do you think they changed the rules (only 8 of 30 owners thing) and locked out the players again the SECOND they could (after the CBA expired)? And they would have caved again in 2003 had those new rules not been in place. They're businessmen and for over half of them, it was worth it to just play the season without a cap but this time, they couldn't, Bettman made sure of that.

I do agree that the writer's fund ain't too hot, but if it's enough to survive on and they've been prepping for this battle for a while, I think they have enough smarts to wait them out, especially with other strikes luming (sp?) on the horizon. They're not dumb jocks, they know that if they suffer for 6-9 months they'll get SHITLOADS more over the next 5 to 10 years. Look what they're fighting for, that's gonna be the real bread and butter for them from now on, not the script fees.

The whole "should" is referring to a competitive market. They're attempting to eliminate that competition by working together, hence the strike. If your government did what it was supposed to do and ensured real competition (these cartels, official or not, are supposed to be illegal, hence the existence of the NLRB), there would be no strike since the moguls would fight each other for the talent. It's not an even playing field because there are too few people running the business making it much easier to work together (if you get Murdoch and Time Warner working together, you've got what, 85% of the market right there?). This is illegal, Ish, the gov't just ain't doin' nothing about it. That's what the WGA is trying to do with the link in the beginning of this thread, expose them and force the gov't to stop them.

Again, the point is that the writers (or hockey players) do compete with each other but the moguls are eliminating the competition amongst themselves, so it's not an even playing field. Hence the strike.

Actors do have the real power. For each $20M salary (you're forgetting about the residuals most of them get) that has a $200M box office you get a Monkey Bone or Pluto Nash. Most of the actors will take a guaranteed paycheck to eliminate their risk. Then you get the ones like Jack Nicholson in Batman or Hanks in Forrest Gump or Cameron for Titanic or Lucas for Star Wars who tie their salaries to the box office and get fucking rich. They get a far bigger cut that way, often taking in more than 10% or gross revenue. Taking away the fact that the theatres get a percentage, distribution costs, lawyers, writers, 10,000 producers....the actors often end up with the biggest piece of the pie, many times even more so than the studios.

Late night talk shows are different, they're not the TV shows or movies. The hosts can write their own stuff (they're all technically writers on the show and have tons of experience doing that) but who's gonna write what doesn't happen in the next episode of Lost or why we shouldn't care about Claire anymore in Heroes or waste a napkin on the Transformers 2 script? They legally can't have just anyone write it, they have to be a member of the WGA. Scabs is the one thing that'll ensure the NLRB gets involved.

And what I'm saying is that usually, strikers give in 'cause it gets hard for them. When you're talking about blue collar workers (the vast majority of the strikers) they ain't gonna take it for too long so the companies just wait it out. This is a bit different, these are white collar workers and they've been preparing for this for a while now. They're in for the long haul.

Zeus wrote:Ish, in 1995 the hockey owners got nothing after their lockout other than a toothless luxury tax.

OK, now at least I understand why you keep saying the owners caved in 1995. But you are wrong. A rookie salary cap was imposed as well as drastic restriction on income players could earn in the future.

Zeus wrote: It was hardly any better than the baseball one is now. Why the hell do you think they changed the rules (only 8 of 30 owners thing) and locked out the players again the SECOND they could (after the CBA expired)? And they would have caved again in 2003 had those new rules not been in place. They're businessmen and for over half of them, it was worth it to just play the season without a cap but this time, they couldn't, Bettman made sure of that.

And if Lox hadn't thrown away his key, I wouldn't be stuck in his stupid basement either.

Don't you find it amazing how the owners happened to "change the rules" so they got more money/power? People in power tend to do that. This is not the random unfair event from the sky you make it out to be. I'm sorry, but I cannot get outraged if the owners jiggled the rules so they could earn extra money. It's not like the Moses walked off Sinai with the original rules made in stone or anything.

Zeus wrote: I do agree that the writer's fund ain't too hot, but if it's enough to survive on and they've been prepping for this battle for a while, I think they have enough smarts to wait them out, especially with other strikes luming (sp?) on the horizon. They're not dumb jocks, they know that if they suffer for 6-9 months they'll get SHITLOADS more over the next 5 to 10 years. Look what they're fighting for, that's gonna be the real bread and butter for them from now on, not the script fees.

You might be right. We'll see.

Zeus wrote: The whole "should" is referring to a competitive market. They're attempting to eliminate that competition by working together, hence the strike. If your government did what it was supposed to do and ensured real competition (these cartels, official or not, are supposed to be illegal, hence the existence of the NLRB), there would be no strike since the moguls would fight each other for the talent. It's not an even playing field because there are too few people running the business making it much easier to work together (if you get Murdoch and Time Warner working together, you've got what, 85% of the market right there?). This is illegal, Ish, the gov't just ain't doin' nothing about it.

Well monopolies/cartles are not illegal per se. Using your monopoly power to "constrain trade" is illegal. It's a very fuzzy concept and IMO it's a bullshit law. Economists like Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman agree with my opinion.

That said, the actions of the NHL owners and movie moguls *might* be illegal under the current system, but thus far the U.S. government seems to disagree.

Zeus wrote: That's what the WGA is trying to do with the link in the beginning of this thread, expose them and force the gov't to stop them.

If this were to happen, this would be bad for consumers. We'd get a worse product if forced to accept artificial controls mandated by the government. We can start a new thread on economic theory if you want.

Zeus wrote: Again, the point is that the writers (or hockey players) do compete with each other but the moguls are eliminating the competition amongst themselves, so it's not an even playing field. Hence the strike.

Here's what I say to that. If you don't like the way things are run, too bad. Take your services somewhere you think you'd be "fairly" compensated. Play hockey overseas, get your law degree, or make movies in Brazil. It's not the government's job to tell people how to run their businesses (assuming people aren't being maimed, killed, raped, etc).

Zeus wrote: Actors do have the real power. For each $20M salary (you're forgetting about the residuals most of them get) that has a $200M box office you get a Monkey Bone or Pluto Nash. Most of the actors will take a guaranteed paycheck to eliminate their risk. Then you get the ones like Jack Nicholson in Batman or Hanks in Forrest Gump or Cameron for Titanic or Lucas for Star Wars who tie their salaries to the box office and get fucking rich. They get a far bigger cut that way, often taking in more than 10% or gross revenue. Taking away the fact that the theatres get a percentage, distribution costs, lawyers, writers, 10,000 producers....the actors often end up with the biggest piece of the pie, many times even more so than the studios.

Salary-wise, you describe about 0.00001% of the actors out there, NONE of whom support strikes. Yes these guys have a great deal of power, but Jack Nicholson and Forrest Gump don't run hollywood. Why? Because as rich as they are, they don't have the money to fund $150 million films and risk losing money on them. Some actors help fund a small part of a partnership, but they do not "run things" because they have partners, some with even more stake, who also have a say. So when you put the (relatively) small amount of money that *some* wealthy actors have in a few partnerships, their influence does not rise to the level "all the real power".

And even then, they don't care about "regular" actors (i.e. 99.9999%) because economically speaking, they have nothing in common. Certainly Tom Cruise will take any extra money the Actor's Guild manages to negotiate,but the Actor's Guild isn't striking for the Tom Cruises.
With his salary at $20 million/film + royalties (as you mentioned) he's not going on strike so that some nobody can get dental coverage while playing an extra on Rambo 27. In fact, due to his partnership agreements in financing films, it's more likely that actors at Cruise's salary are among the mogul crowd.

Zeus wrote: Late night talk shows are different, they're not the TV shows or movies. The hosts can write their own stuff (they're all technically writers on the show and have tons of experience doing that) but who's gonna write what doesn't happen in the next episode of Lost or why we shouldn't care about Claire anymore in Heroes or waste a napkin on the Transformers 2 script?

I'm not saying talk shows are different. I'm merely saying that another piece of leverage has been wiped away.

Zeus wrote: They legally can't have just anyone write it, they have to be a member of the WGA. Scabs is the one thing that'll ensure the NLRB gets involved.

Wrong. There's nothing stopping studios from hiring scabs. The NHL could have hired scab hockey players during the hockey strike. So why didn't they? No one is going to pay to see second-rate hockey players. A better strategy is to starve out the first rate hockey players and force them to concede to your demands. (Of course these days, no one is paying to see first rate hockey players either...but I digress).

(Plus if what you said were true, the the late night hosts, all WGA members, would somehow be barred by the NLRB.)

Zeus wrote: And what I'm saying is that usually, strikers give in 'cause it gets hard for them. When you're talking about blue collar workers (the vast majority of the strikers) they ain't gonna take it for too long so the companies just wait it out. This is a bit different, these are white collar workers and they've been preparing for this for a while now. They're in for the long haul.

Blue collar/white collar has nothing to do with anything. Their salaries are peanuts compared to what industry runners are making and that's the real reason they will fold in the same manner as they did 20 years ago.

Ishamael wrote:It's only "bold" if you haven't been paying attention to any of the major strikes. :) If you can present one counter example, I'm all ears.

But as examples of strikes where the strikers lost, I present you the aforementioned NHL strikes (04 & '94), the NBA strikes, the writer's strike of '88, the airline strikes, the auto worker's strikes, etc.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on you, since you're the one who made the claim. Where's the links? Where's the proof? Zeus has already proving at least one occasion where a strike worked, so your claim has already been disproven.

SineSwiper wrote:

Ishamael wrote:It's only "bold" if you haven't been paying attention to any of the major strikes. If you can present one counter example, I'm all ears.

But as examples of strikes where the strikers lost, I present you the aforementioned NHL strikes (04 & '94), the NBA strikes, the writer's strike of '88, the airline strikes, the auto worker's strikes, etc.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on you, since you're the one who made the claim. Where's the links? Where's the proof? Zeus has already proving at least one occasion where a strike worked, so your claim has already been disproven.

Actually Zeus was wrong and I'm the only one who's provided links corroborating my side (to show Zeus was wrong). So I'm still waiting for one counter example. You guys are so confident, you'd think it would be easy!

And I love how you call it a "bold" claim. Here are some of my other "bold" claims: The sky is blue! Santa Claus is not real! 2 + 2 = 4!

You've already gotten a summary of the NHL strike in my previous post to Zeus. Here are some others (dude, you are LAZY! Do I have to do everything?)
NBA Strike history Result: salary caps and tighter restrictions on pay.

Alec Baldwin of all people breaks down 1988 strike. He said the writers got screwed in 1988.

I could go on and on. Here's a helpful Wikipedia list of strikes.. Just find one from the last 30 years where I'm wrong, and I'll concede I'm wrong on that one.

Here's a hint: Your best bet will be to look at strikes by government workers. Since they aren't operating in an open economy the rules are very different.

Ish, the owners wanted a cap after the 1995 strike. Why the hell do you think they locked them out 8 years later? Because they got exactly what they wanted the first time? That CBA the owners thought they "won" turned out to do absolutely nothing they wanted it to do. Rookies were getting crazy incentive bonuses (and their "cap" for the first three years was something like $3M per year so not exactly restrictive) and you had players signing crazy contracts, like Jagr's $11M per year deal. The only proof you need is this:

1) Bettman changed the rules so he only needed 8 of 30 owners to agree to keep a lockout going. I tried looking for it but we're talking about 10 year old stories now and I ain't that good at searching
2) The owners locked out the players 8 years after they supposedly "got what they wanted", which anyone who knows hockey knows they didn't. The simple fact that they locked them out means they didn't get what they want. That's your biggest piece of evidence you need. A quote from that CBC article you linked:

"The players didn't acquiesce to the owners' demand for an overall salary cap or a luxury tax. After months of fruitless negotiations, the NHL, to the chagrin of hardline owners, took the tax off the table and a deal fell into place."

So you're right, I was wrong, they didn't even get the tax, although I could have sworn there was a luxury tax on contracts that put you over a certain amount. The big "win" for them was free agency at 31. But that didn't stop guys like Iginla or Thorton from signing big contracts. They teams knew if they didn't keep them they would become Group 2 free agents, so they essentially got their money anyways.

The owners may have, at the time, considered it a win as did many people at that time, but it turned out to be nothing, hence the lockout in 2003. Even your own link says they keep rehashing the same issues over and over again. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER SOLVED THE FIRST TIME OR THREE.

Your link has done nothing but prove me right on this issue. If you don't wanna see that, there's nothing else I can say.

BTW, are you telling me that the soft cap in basketball is severely restricting pay? Yeah, we never see $20M contracts there anymore.......*sarcasm alert*

The rest of the arguments are based off of subjective opinion and we've had our opinions well documented, no need to keep going there. But the 1995 NHL strike? You're dead wrong on that one.

Zeus wrote:Ish, the owners wanted a cap after the 1995 strike.

The owners got a salary cap (for rookies) and tighter control over free agency salaries. Why do you keep saying the owners somehow caved?

Maybe we just have two different views on what it means to "cave".

Zeus wrote: 2) The owners locked out the players 8 years after they supposedly "got what they wanted", which anyone who knows hockey knows they didn't.

NO, the owners got even MORE of what they wanted. Some might say they smelled blood and got greedier. The owners took money AWAY from veteran players. They ripped up their old contracts and gave them a 24 percent pay CUT.

But in a way I guess you could view that and conclude they didn't get what they wanted in 1994/1995 (i.e., owners were unsuccessful in ripping up 1994 veteran contracts and forcing them to sign new ones, so they waited until 2004). So if that's your view, I'll concede *that* to you.

Zeus wrote: The simple fact that they locked them out means they didn't get what they want. That's your biggest piece of evidence you need. A quote from that CBC article you linked:
That's your biggest piece of evidence you need. A quote from that CBC article you linked:
"The players didn't acquiesce to the owners' demand for an overall salary cap or a luxury tax. After months of fruitless negotiations, the NHL, to the chagrin of hardline owners, took the tax off the table and a deal fell into place."

"overall salary" cap...only they DID get an overall salary cap in the form of reduced free agency earning potential and and actual rookie salary cap. The free agency restrictions is virtually the SAME THING as a salary cap. The owners wanted to pay veterans LESS. This can be accomplished via n overall salary cap OR they can put draconian restrictions on what veterans can earn. It's the same thing, but since it's not called an "overall salary cap" and they initially asked for an "overall salary cap", I guess they "caved", even though they got something else that does the same thing.

But yes, it's not called an "overall salary cap", so I'll concede this to you.

Zeus wrote: The owners may have, at the time, considered it a win as did many people at that time, but it turned out to be nothing, hence the lockout in 2003. Even your own link says they keep rehashing the same issues over and over again. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER SOLVED THE FIRST TIME OR THREE.

Your link has done nothing but prove me right on this issue. If you don't wanna see that, there's nothing else I can say.

WHAT?!!!!

My link proves you RIGHT? You're telling me that after restricting *veteran* players salaries (i.e. politically correct "salary cap") AND restricting what new people earn, it's the owners who caved?! That was your conclusion from reading this? You may be joking, but maybe that Canadian humor isn't coming across well on the keyboard.

If you ARE saying that with a straight face, then we just have different definitions of "caving".

OK, now that I've conceded your view of things, do you still somehow walk away concluding that the "success" of the NHLPA is good support of the future success of the WGA strike? And maybe that's what you do think! If so, it's cool. We just have radically different definitions of what it means to "win" in a strike situation.

Ish, I was referring solely to the 1995 lock out saying because they lost that they locked out again in 2003. I think you were referring to a lot of concessions the players gave after they caved (there was no 24% pay cut in 1995). And they found that the free agency restrictions, which were supposed to be their big "win" didn't stop a lot of the 23 and 24 year olds (like Iginla and Thorton and Theodore...I could go on) from signing $7M+ deals the second they got past their rookie contracts. It didn't end up nearly as good as they thought. That was the entire point, for them NOT to pay the 23 and 24 year olds millions upon millions but it failed....miserably. Hence the lockout 8 years later. Like I said before, they THOUGHT they won but because they caved on the only issue that really mattered - salary cap or real luxury tax - they lost...big time. Everything else turned out to do NOTHING for them that they wanted (rooks could still get up to $3M per year with incentives) they lost, period

And to go back to the original theme of this post:

http://www.mania.com/56980.html

Zeus wrote:Ish, I was referring solely to the 1995 lock out saying because they lost that they locked out again in 2003. I think you were referring to a lot of concessions the players gave after they caved (there was no 24% pay cut in 1995).

I was referring to 2003 when making to paycut comment too! That's why I placed it after you said "The owners locked out the players 8 years after they supposedly "got what they wanted". 1995 + 8 years later = 2003.

Zeus wrote: And they found that the free agency restrictions, which were supposed to be their big "win" didn't stop a lot of the 23 and 24 year olds (like Iginla and Thorton and Theodore...I could go on) from signing $7M+ deals the second they got past their rookie contracts. It didn't end up nearly as good as they thought.

OK, I see. You say the owners "lost" because people were able to sign for multi-million dollar contracts. The point of salary caps and free agency restriction is not to send people to the soup kitchen! So do you think owners only win if they push salaries down to Burger King salad washer levels? Superstars are still going to be paid tons of money. There are similar rookie restriction in the NBA, but top rookies get paid 3+ million a year there too. But guess what? That's better than the 10+ million they had been paying rookies before the CBA. Hockey is doing the same thing.

And tighter free agency control doesn't mean that someone can't make a lot of money (relatively speaking) in the free agency market. It just means instead of paying someone $10 million per year, now he's "just" going to get $5 million.

Zeus wrote: That was the
entire point, for them NOT to pay the 23 and 24 year olds millions upon millions but it failed....miserably. Hence the lockout 8 years later.

To recap: star 23/24 year old players are ALWAYS going to be paid "millions upon millions". That is COMPLETELY the wrong way to judge who got the better deal in these negotiations.


If your measure off success for owners is to NOT have young players make "million upon million", I can see how you look at the players earning $5 million per year and think "they won". The guy signed a $5 million contract, so how do you call that a "loss" for players? But if that guy could have gotten $15 million under the old system, then the owners "win". See? The owners don't have to force the guy to work night shifts stocking grocery store shelves to get a good deal.


Again, the 2003 lockout (i.e. 8 years later) was to rip up old *veteran* contracts (we're not talking just 23 and 24 year olds here) and take money AWAY from them. Same issue (money), but with a different focus. Instead of focusing on young players (who they handled in 1994/1995), now they wanted to take money away from the old guard. And they did. Thus the 24 percent pay cut following 2003. That had little to do with 23/24 year old player contracts. We're talking about the Jagrs here.

Zeus wrote: And to go back to the original theme of this post:

http://www.mania.com/56980.html

Now I read somewhere the average writer's salary is $200K. Is that for real or is that propaganda? I suspect it's bullshit that's being thrown out there to pit the public against the writers. That sounds awfully high.

Ishamael wrote:Now I read somewhere the average writer's salary is $200K. Is that for real or is that propaganda? I suspect it's bullshit that's being thrown out there to pit the public against the writers. That sounds awfully high.

Not so bullshit if you consider that the dudes who write shows like Lost probably earn upwards of $1M, while a dude who writes for some Comedy Central show may only get $30k.

Black Lotus wrote:

Ishamael wrote:Now I read somewhere the average writer's salary is $200K. Is that for real or is that propaganda? I suspect it's bullshit that's being thrown out there to pit the public against the writers. That sounds awfully high.

Not so bullshit if you consider that the dudes who write shows like Lost probably earn upwards of $1M, while a dude who writes for some Comedy Central show may only get $30k.

Yeah, this is how I suspected that number comes up. Also, I'm curious to know if they're counting all writers and if not, which ones do they count (or don't count). There's some other good statistics that would give the true story too, but I doubt we'll get them.

Black Lotus wrote:

Ishamael wrote:Now I read somewhere the average writer's salary is $200K. Is that for real or is that propaganda? I suspect it's bullshit that's being thrown out there to pit the public against the writers. That sounds awfully high.

Not so bullshit if you consider that the dudes who write shows like Lost probably earn upwards of $1M, while a dude who writes for some Comedy Central show may only get $30k.

It's not the absolute amount of what they make but the percentage of the gross that they earn. If you earn $30k when the show makes $100k you're doin' awesome. But it seems like in a lot of these cases, they're getting $1M for a script for a movie that makes $100M+ then nothing more when it more than doubles that in DVD sales and rental and the other $5M (and expected to grow exponentially) for direct downloads. You're talking less than half a percent which is very, very low considering how important the script is to the end product.

Zeus wrote:

Black Lotus wrote:

Ishamael wrote:Now I read somewhere the average writer's salary is $200K. Is that for real or is that propaganda? I suspect it's bullshit that's being thrown out there to pit the public against the writers. That sounds awfully high.

Not so bullshit if you consider that the dudes who write shows like Lost probably earn upwards of $1M, while a dude who writes for some Comedy Central show may only get $30k.

It's not the absolute amount of what they make but the percentage of the gross that they earn. If you earn $30k when the show makes $100k you're doin' awesome. But it seems like in a lot of these cases, they're getting $1M for a script for a movie that makes $100M+ then nothing more when it more than doubles that in DVD sales and rental and the other $5M (and expected to grow exponentially) for direct downloads. You're talking less than half a percent which is very, very low considering how important the script is to the end product.

I don't understand why writers can't just negotiate their own rates on a project by project basis. Why do they need to lean on a union to make an industry "standard"? The top writers will always have work. I don't think the union provides any benefit for the writers of "Lost" for example.

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Black Lotus wrote: Not so bullshit if you consider that the dudes who write shows like Lost probably earn upwards of $1M, while a dude who writes for some Comedy Central show may only get $30k.

It's not the absolute amount of what they make but the percentage of the gross that they earn. If you earn $30k when the show makes $100k you're doin' awesome. But it seems like in a lot of these cases, they're getting $1M for a script for a movie that makes $100M+ then nothing more when it more than doubles that in DVD sales and rental and the other $5M (and expected to grow exponentially) for direct downloads. You're talking less than half a percent which is very, very low considering how important the script is to the end product.

I don't understand why writers can't just negotiate their own rates on a project by project basis. Why do they need to lean on a union to make an industry "standard"? The top writers will always have work. I don't think the union provides any benefit for the writers of "Lost" for example.

Writers are very replaceable. Look how often there are rewrites or scripts scrapped completely. At the end of the day, I could write a script for 89% of the movies out there and I don't speak English no good. Look how many scripts can be written on a napkin nowadays. It's pretty sad. They need the union 'cause on their own they have no power.

Yeah, looks like the writers are starting to fold.....NOT

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111797 ... id=13&cs=1

Zeus wrote:Yeah, looks like the writers are starting to fold.....NOT

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111797 ... id=13&cs=1

Why do you have a side in this fight? Are you secretly a card carrying WGA member?

(BTW, that interim agreement doesn't mean what you think it does...)

Jon Stewart seems sort of anti-Writer's Strike, if his monologue tonight is any indication.

RentCavalier wrote:Jon Stewart seems sort of anti-Writer's Strike, if his monologue tonight is any indication.

What'd he say?

Probably not something like this, from one of the DS writers.

Ishamael wrote:

RentCavalier wrote:Jon Stewart seems sort of anti-Writer's Strike, if his monologue tonight is any indication.

What'd he say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0KmVCQyDCQ

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:Yeah, looks like the writers are starting to fold.....NOT

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111797 ... id=13&cs=1

Why do you have a side in this fight? Are you secretly a card carrying WGA member?

(BTW, that interim agreement doesn't mean what you think it does...)

I hate bigwigs who like to screw the people who make them money. Give them a fair share. It's small but they're the reason you make the big bucks. You take the risk so you get most of the reward but they deserve their share too

Zeus wrote:

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:Yeah, looks like the writers are starting to fold.....NOT

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111797 ... id=13&cs=1

Why do you have a side in this fight? Are you secretly a card carrying WGA member?

(BTW, that interim agreement doesn't mean what you think it does...)

I hate bigwigs who like to screw the people who make them money. Give them a fair share. It's small but they're the reason you make the big bucks. You take the risk so you get most of the reward but they deserve their share too

"Fair share"? Who defines that, you?

And why is someone being "screwed" for agreeing to a contract that they signed? The WGA was getting what was owed them by the terms of the 1988 CBA. If they can negotiate more money this time, good for them. But it's not like some big wig "screwed" them beforehand (especially when top ones apparently make 6+ figures).

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Ishamael wrote: Why do you have a side in this fight? Are you secretly a card carrying WGA member?

(BTW, that interim agreement doesn't mean what you think it does...)

I hate bigwigs who like to screw the people who make them money. Give them a fair share. It's small but they're the reason you make the big bucks. You take the risk so you get most of the reward but they deserve their share too

"Fair share"? Who defines that, you?

And why is someone being "screwed" for agreeing to a contract that they signed? The WGA was getting what was owed them by the terms of the 1988 CBA. If they can negotiate more money this time, good for them. But it's not like some big wig "screwed" them beforehand (especially when top ones apparently make 6+ figures).

Oligopoly.......no competition.......we've been through all this before. I'm not going to rehash it

Zeus wrote:

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote: I hate bigwigs who like to screw the people who make them money. Give them a fair share. It's small but they're the reason you make the big bucks. You take the risk so you get most of the reward but they deserve their share too

"Fair share"? Who defines that, you?

And why is someone being "screwed" for agreeing to a contract that they signed? The WGA was getting what was owed them by the terms of the 1988 CBA. If they can negotiate more money this time, good for them. But it's not like some big wig "screwed" them beforehand (especially when top ones apparently make 6+ figures).

Oligopoly.......no competition.......we've been through all this before. I'm not going to rehash it

What does the existence of an oligopoly (in your opinion) have to do with with the "fair share" paid to someone? And what does that have to do with WGA member's being allegedly "screwed" for being paid what they agreed to be paid in the contract they signed in 1988?

Maybe I'm forgetful, but I don't believe we've covered any of these topics here, so you wouldn't be repeating yourself.

Ishamael wrote: What does the existence of an oligopoly (in your opinion) have to do with with the "fair share" paid to someone? And what does that have to do with WGA member's being allegedly "screwed" for being paid what they agreed to be paid in the contract they signed in 1988?

Maybe I'm forgetful, but I don't believe we've covered any of these topics here, so you wouldn't be repeating yourself.

First of all, this isn't an opinion, it's economic theory that is tested and true. I think that needs to be something that's established, I'm applying theory not formulating an opinion here.

A monopoly or oligopoly creates a situation which decrease competition big time often even eliminating it. Not sure you can really call them a cartel but take a look at OPEC and you get the idea since it's not like any one nation can just increase oil production to give themselves a supply advantage which in turn decreases the price.

The moguls would more have an "unofficial" understanding. Even though it would benefit, say, Sony to pay the writers right now and have them back on board 'cause they have so many TV shows, they won't do it 'cause they don't want to set a precedent. That creates a situation of very imperfect competition since it makes perfect business sense to do it but they won't/can't. As a result, the writers (and others) don't get the money they would ("should") be making if there was perfect competition.

That's why I keep saying they're not getting as much as they "should", it's because the moguls have minimized the competition in the market (/basic economic lesson...again).

BTW, this is why the NLRB exists, to stop situations like this from occuring (and why the WGA has filed with them). Heck, this is why you have a government, to look out for the people. That's the whole "by the people for the people" thing that most voters seem to have forgotten about years ago.

I am mostly with the writers in this situation because I am a writer myself, even if I'm not being paid for it, I do hope to be at some later date, though I doubt I'll write TV shows.

It just seems strange that nobody is willing to compromise--and I think that Viacom's lawsuit on Youtube is basically just plain BS. Youtube has small, poor quality videos that are oftentimes screwed up by the idiots who put them there and about 50% of everything you see there is some kind of crappy video blog or music video.

But, I don't think I fully understand the situation enough to get fully involved--there's a lot to this problem and it all seems to go a little over my head.

Zeus wrote:The moguls would more have an "unofficial" understanding. Even though it would benefit, say, Sony to pay the writers right now and have them back on board 'cause they have so many TV shows, they won't do it 'cause they don't want to set a precedent. That creates a situation of very imperfect competition since it makes perfect business sense to do it but they won't/can't. As a result, the writers (and others) don't get the money they would ("should") be making if there was perfect competition.

This is what happens when a corporation operates like an instinctual animal. Granted, humans are predictable, but corporations are even more so.