Screen Writers Strike. Does it affect you?

[alpha_dk]

KruzeS said:

alpha_dk said:
The argument that the Union shouldn't have the right to impose the strike on the Union Members is inherently a red herring.

In any sort of Majority-controlled institution, there *will* be people that disagree with the rule of the majority. To say that those individuals should not have to follow the will of the majority is to destroy the institution. You saying that writers should be allowed to write if they don't agree is the same as saying Unions shouldn't exist - it is a valid argument, but you can't have both Unions and people who are in the union that don't follow its directives. The two are mutually exclusive.

I'm saying two things: a union is not a governament and membership shouldn't be forced upon anyone in any conceivable way; if membership is enforced (like being a member of the bar association), then that association shouldn't be given certain powers (like the one to force a strike on its members); and if it isn't, then that union should be aware of all of its members, and what kind of sacrifices it asks of them for the greater good, otherwise it will end up loosing quite a few.

 

alpha_dk said:
Or, to put it another way:
I don't believe that I should be forced to wear a seatbelt. I think laws that relate to my safety and my safety alone are ill-conceived and anti-freedom.

Unfortunately, the society I live in disagrees, and thinks that seatbelt laws are a Good Thing(tm).

I am perfectly free to continue not wearing a seatbelt, just as writers are perfectly free to continue writing... in both cases, we will have to live with the consequences of getting caught breaking the rules of the institution we are a part of.

I don't know where you live, but if you lived in Europe as I do, I'd tell you the reason for you to be compelled to wear a seating belt (under penalty of a fine, it's not like it's a crime) is very simple: I don't want to have to pay for the unnecessary damage that not using a seating belt will cause on you in the event of an accident. Since I foot the bill for your health care in my system, I want you to play safe.

If writers were allowed to continue writing, suffering only the consequence of no longer being protected by their union, I'd be fine with it. When a union basically makes it impossible for outcasts to get any work or recognition, I'm not fine with them treating dissenting members like this. It's that simple, really.

alpha_dk said:
Note: I am very much anti-institution. I do not believe that people have a moral obligation to follow the laws of a society that they do not agree with. At the same time, I DO believe that it should be a rational choice with full knowledge of and accounting for any consequences of partaking in the action.

I'm not even anti-institution. But I am very much anti- these all powerful institutions, that bring nothing of value to society. That applies to both the networks and these very cartel alike guilds - I honestly see no difference.

 Membership is not forced upon anyone; they assumedly knew upon deciding to become a scriptwriter that they would be joining the Guild, and all that entails.  Much like with any job, before taking it, you are told certain things are required and agree to this as part of the job.  I wouldn't expect a job in the CIA without a thourough background check, for example.  There are just things that are required to fill certain positions (for example, the need to unionize against one of the most powerful industries in the country for example???).

 And I know the arguments for wearing a seat belt.  I do wear a seat belt every time I am in a car.  I do it because I have made a rational decision, though - not because the choice was forced on me.  At the same time, I am free to not wear a seat belt if I so desire - though, there are consequences to that action.  Much like the writers are free to break the picket lines... so long as they are cognizant that there are and will be consequences.  Much like everything in life, it is a game of balancing pros and cons.  The union is not *FORCING* anything.  They are simply providing consequences if you go against them.

 And you know, I do see a difference between the 'cartel'-like unions and the networks (although you might as well throw the movie industry in there too, they are just as guilty).  The unions are acting on behalf of the majority of their members, who contrary to some others' beliefs *are* just trying to make an honest living.

 Imagine you were a writer, and you were paid for DVDs and not Downloads.  All of a sudden your network decides not to sell it on DVD, and to only offer it online for download.  Where are you supposed to make this living, when they are in charge of distribution?  You can't offer it on DVD yourself, because they own the rights to it.

 See the Wikipedia page on Hollywood Accounting.  If you give these people a quarter, they will take a hundred... and ask for change.