Just in time for the writer's guild strike about compensation for online content...
Every Daily Show since Stewart started hosting
Printable View
Just in time for the writer's guild strike about compensation for online content...
Every Daily Show since Stewart started hosting
Goodbye productivity.
productivity is a myth
screw the writers guild, greedy *****es. i dont support people that dont care about their fans enough to possibly kill new shows, and current shows untill 2009 if the strike lasts longer then 3 months. They can goto hell.
Guild, Union, Mafia, Monopoly
Fewer and fewer differences these days.
There is enough bad writing in television that I personally don't mind if the good ones get some more money. There are a lot of factors that contribute to whether a show is good or bad, but poor writing will put it in the crapper just about every time.
Then when they've sorted out the writers they can work on getting better directors. Pretty much every show made specifically for the sci-fi channel for instance, demonstrates the need for both very eloquently in my opinion.
The auto unions think auto workers should get more money too. Has it helped the quality of the American automobile?
I grew up in a union, the coal miner's union, we spent more time out of work due to strikes than we did working. Unions need to go away, all they do is rob the hard working people of their dues...
Maybe some of those "other" writers will now get a chance to show what they've got.
the problem with this strike, anyone that wants to be part of the WGA and be eligible for the awards that make writers get the big paydays wont write, because the WGA has threatened to deny entrance to anyone that crosses the picket line.
im mad pissed because josh whedon was just about to start a new show. 24 isnt going to be on now. heros gets half a season, scrubs might not even get a season finale now.
The Post Office (the UK national one) just went on strike a few weeks ago.
Funny that, how it always seems to be the businesses that need to create a better impression of themselves due to years of poor management/service/public relations that decide that striking will be an effective way of getting people back on board.
And another - the UK has a series of privatized train services, for example I can use any of three to get to work, Southern, Southwest and Silverlink.
Silverlink is by far the worst, the dirtiest trains, trains always late, yet they're the ones that always go on strike.
If they do see the damage striking causes to the public's perception of themselves then they don't care.
As such, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that they won't be holding that franchise for much longer.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for people getting paid well, but striking for it? An archaic idea whose time has come and gone.
I couldn't agree more.
It's a monopoly on labor. Just like a company can have a monopoly on some other resource like oil or coal. And the effect on the economy and people at large is the same.
Child labor laws, unsafe work conditions, etc. are legit reasons to picket. Raising pay via threat is just strong-arming.
I've been quite happy with my union made dodge dakota.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The Auto workers union is a very interesting story if you ever choose to look into it.
It was basically the workers trying to wrestle some power away from the manufactures. Once the workers go some power then generational struggles began inside the union.
The union doesn't make the business decisions for the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The trouble with the auto makers has nothing to do with unions or workers' wages.
That is nothing more than a dishonest corporate talking point to try and cut worker wages and benefits.
The responsibility for their problems rest solely with poor management and investment decisions.
You are both certainly entitled to your opinions, but my experience is completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVPohovich
For the first few years in my job I chose not to join the union or pay dues even tho I still enjoyed the wages and benefits that the union contract provided.
After witnessing my first new contract negotiations I completely changed my tune.
Once I saw the union successfully fight off the company's attempt to terminate all my benefits, the benefits of all previous retirees, and cut my wages by $25k/yr, I immediately joined and have been extremely grateful to pay my $30/mo union dues.
If companies treated their employees fairly there would be no need for unions at all.
Unfortunately that's not the reality we live in.
I still like American trucks as well. But, the general consensus, demonstrated substantially by a consistent pattern of lay-offs, is that we are losing that industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
The most interesting point about it to me is that the beginning of the big players profit losses coincide exactly with the same point in time that our cost of labor shot way above that of Japanese auto-makers. It's not difficult to do the math from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
If only that were true, many auto-union workers would still have their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
It has everything to do with the cost of labor. That cost has been artificially inflated by union strong arming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
That's grand. CEO's get paid too much. All 13,000 of us need to get paid more. And it's the CEO's fault that profits aren't coming in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The French really have invaded. :D
Your story describes how you benefitted financially from being in a union. It says nothing toward whether or not that is a good thing for the company, consumer, industry or economy. If that's the case, why don't we just allow all people in all positions of every company to just decide for themselves what they should be paid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Sounds a lot like "we're going to burn your building down if you don't pay me what I want."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Sorry FlashLacky, can't agree with your angle at all. Here's the deal,
There are 3 ways to limp, in the mind, in the foot or in the pocket, now as a lucky individual, without a limp, in a civilised society it is our responsibility to help anyone who has a limp, why? first its the decent standpoint, and secondly, sould you develope a limp one day, hopefully someone will come to your aid. However, you have to have an environment where this is possible, and that's where the union has its place, when it acts for the mutual benefit of its members. In other threads you have talked about the need to be aware of the adgenda of big business, well the single guy aint going to able to do anything about it on his own, but together they stand at least a chance of getting heard.
A brief history of the Union.
http://www.uwstout.edu/cas/socsci/tyson/laborhis.htm
A brief addendum to that too brief history:
Jimmy Hoffa
Stoke Laurie, I respect your disagreement. But, in my view, I think your analogy expresses a good argument for charity, not unions.
First, your idea presupposes the idea of giving. Unions are taking via extortion. A more apt comparison would be for your guy with a limp to commit armed robbery at a 7-11.
Second, remember that what unions take for themselves has to come from someone else. Despite popular belief, that doesn't come out of the pockets of only the CEO's, the top 1% or balding villians with assistants named Smithers. The bulk of their payment comes out of the pockets of everyday citizens via stock holdings. People whose retirement income depends on shares in corporations. The cut into profit margins is further reflected in lower tax revenues which all citizens benefit from. When we lose a large industry to foreign competition because we can't compete with their cost of labor, we lose jobs. It is perhaps most ironic of all that union members themselves have suffered substantially for unions. Really, every mass lay-off that I can remember being reported in the news was involved with an industry known for having a strong union.
Clearly, if a union has helped you personally, you're not going to say that unions suck. At least give us that much credit.
But to a consumer using a union-backed, public-facing buisness on a daily basis, unions use consumers as leverage - which to the consumer is about as unattrative a tactic as is possible.
I disagree.
There are two parts of a union agreement. Labor and management.
Management is just as responsible for non delivery. They will cut off thier nose to spite there face. Management (as we've seen in the recent slew of recall items) Does not care about the consumer. They care about moving product with the highest profit margins possible, damn all who get in the way.
Corporate management is only held accountable for thier actions when a threat to thier livelyhood is at stake. The reasons why we have labor, consumer and securities laws is because corporations have no ethical boundries without them.