Right is right. Even if they do make loads of money. I feel sorry for people who affix their beliefs on what's right and what's wrong based in any way with how much money someone makes.

Put it this way. Say you make Snowglobes for a modest price, and a ditributor agrees to sell your snowglobes at Target and give you a portion of the price that sells.

So you agree and your making some nice money... then you notice that they're taking larger orders, yet your not getting paid anymore. You go to them and you find out that they're selling your snowglobes at Wal-mart too... and furthermore they arn't going to pay you for it... and expect you to make snowglobes for Walmart for free.

Does this sound fair to you in any way? Would you keep working in conditions like this?

The stupid thing about strikes and the like is, if someone else is willing to do the same work for less, then you're not as valuable as you think you are. If not, then you'll be paid what you're worth without the stupid unified posturing. The only people a union helps are those too stupid to help themselves.

@DKII

The problem with that logic is that it assumes that the bare minimum you're willing to work for is what you're worth.

Which is besides the fact that strikes happen when a large percentage of people in an industry have the same issue with the way they're treated - and if they're so replaceable, why do the companies care?

the good part is that this actually doesnt effect video game writers as game companies actually pay well.

How about this one for you?

 Company "A" make $50 million in profit a year and gives it's employees a 4% raise each year.  Due to a change in the market Company "A" suddenly sees profits of $100 million.  The employees of Company "A" decied to strike unless they get an additional 4% raise on top of the original 4% raise because the company is making twice as much money now.  Although it would be nice if the company gave them bonuses, it doesn't mean the workers are in the right to strike.

Just because the networks make more money then the writters is the reason they are right to strike is a poor excuse.  The reason that the networks make the extra profits is because they take the finacial risks.  If show "A" fail's and cost the network money, the writter for show "A" still gets paid for his script and royalties on any DVD sales.  Even if the producer continues to loss money on the show, the script writter does not share in the fiscal loss.

There may be other reasons that the writters are correct in striking, but please do not continue to use the difference in profits as a reason because it is a very poor one.

First of all, I want to say I wasn't trying to say you were suplanting his opinion as your own. Sorry if that was the impression I gave. I was just making it clear that just because he was a writer doesn't mean he is instantly correct.

As for my view of capatilism you are actually falling into a logical fallacy many fall into. This idea that they aren't getting their "fair share" is very silly. Exactly what constitutes their fair share? The point is this, learning to write is not a terribly difficult thing and many people who started off horrible at it have become some of the best writers in the history of the world. So I have to say I feel there is a overemphasis on how important a writer is to a show. For a given show you could of course say we might not have "this" show if they weren't writing but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have a show just as good. So I have to reject this idea that they aren't getting their fair share.

Now if you want to look at the other portions of the industry and say that actors are overpaid? Sure I agree. But if you look at the studio and say they are taking more than their share I think you are going to have to convince me. Because I see a group of people who are the ones truly risking money on these propositions.

At the end of the day you could writers, actors, producers, etc... they are all easy to find. The one thing you have to have that you cannot just replace with something else is the money to make these productions and the people who are risking that money are the ones who should be making the most money from the endeavor.

That is captalism, not this community sense of what is and isn't a "fair share" business. In the end I think actors have become way overpaid and I think writers want their share of that overpaid status, fair or not. And my opinion is that you don't fix one thing by breaking anohter. Thats how I see it anyways.

edit: Just to make my point about the writers versus the money.

What do you think you could do first if you devotes your time to it? Raise a $40 million budget to make a movie or write a script worthy of a $40 million budget with part of that budget going to your team of professional writers that will help you write the script?

edit2: writing teams are usually at most 3 people, I don't want to give the impression of 10 or 20 people or anything they are usually fairly small. 

Ok now we are getting somewhere. To the meat of my problem with this strike if you will.Their strike isn't my main problem really. That is their right, they can do it, I don't agree but that is fine. The problem I truly have here is that they are forcing others to not work in their stead by controlling the industry. 

If someone goes in and writes they will be barred from the guild and the guild is willing to use all of its influence to make sure they're not a writer anymore. That is the big problem here imo. Everything else they are doing I can live with because it is their right to protest etc...I don't know the proper legal term for it but to me this is mafia type strong arm tactics.

So yes I think they would be replaced if they weren't part of a group that was capable of forcing industry requirements to work. 

Just ask a NYC construction worker about the rules his union has and what he is and isn't allowed to do because the union is protecting their jobs by deciding who can and can't do what jobs etc...its a real mess. 

PS - I could care less about the lack of TV, sure I watch but I have far better things to do and this will just motivate me to get other (more important) things done.

How can you be so sure the majority agrees with the strike? And even if they do, why should the union be allowed to ban for life everyone that is willing to break strike? Specially in an industry where you basically have to be a member if you want any work and some level of recognition? And that's the answer to your question: they're not replaceable because the guild has stated quite clearly that they'll ban for life anyone that breaks strike.

I have no issue with unions and strikes, really. But I do have issues with a union penalizing its own members for not following its lead - specially when being a member is all but mandatory. Why should a union be allowed to mandate on me how better to defend my rights!?

Not in the slightest. I hold the hollywood "elite" in about as high regard as I do pedophiles. Why? Most of the Hollywood entertainers -- even the elite -- either never went to college or dropped out. They spend their lives pretending to be someone else and somehow feel qualified to tell me how I should feel or behave in some political manner and then become indignant when I exercise my right to disagree. There are so many hollywood "elite" -- sean penn, susan sarandon, rosie odonnel, sally field, ben affleck, and so on -- that do not have the political experience (or job experience) to qualify for deciding what is right for america. When someone tries to offer a competing view with this gang, they get downright UGLY.

See the Dixie Chicks for the finest example. They hate Bush. Fine. They are free to say so. I love freedom of speech and fully support their right to say they don't like bush. HOWEVER, their primary audience are conservative southerners. And those conservative southerners didn't like it and revolted. Just as the Chicks were right to dislike bush, the "common folk" were well within their right to throw away CDs, stop playing their music or listening to it, call them traitors, cowards, etc. That's freedom of speech, baby. It works both ways. The problem I had was the big "Fuck You" they offered to all the backlash that ensued. Their righteous indignation that somehow others could and would vehemently disagree with their views is what really turned me off. That attitude prevails so much in hollywood in so many actors that I can't even watch films any more. I used to love Sean Penn's work until he went politico. Now I can't watch because all I see is his political vitriol when I see him on TV. That goes for Affleck, Sarandon, Moore, and so on.

Bottom line is I don't want my entertainment mixed with politics. They don't belong together. Dolly Pardon (I'm not a fan) is probably the finest example of what an entertainer should be doing. In just about every interview, when someone takes it down a political road, she steers right back and says that she isn't here to tell people how to think -- she is here to entertain. To this day, I don't think anyone really knows for sure if she is a democrat or republican. Her typical response: "I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I guess that'd make me a 'hipocrat.'

So, in summary, Hollywood can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. I hope the strike goes on for a year and the industry goes bankrupt. Hey, a boy can dream, can't he?

"In the 2007 negotiations over the MBA, an impasse was reached, and the WGA membership voted to give its board authorization to call a strike, which it did on Friday, November 2 with the strike beginning the subsequent Monday, November 5, 2007."

They voted.