nai06 said:

---

I just don't know why you seem to hate that people are acting in their own self interest.

---

First of all, they are not acting in their self interest. They think they are, but they are wrong. If they get their way, they will do to their own industry what unions have done to the rest of American manufacturing.

Secondly, going on strike is practically extortion. It's almost like arguing that muggers and thieves are "acting in their self interest" too. Nothing to praise about that.

And they are demonizing the wrong thing. It's not studios at fault that they can't earn a living wage anymore, it's government policies (that they overwhelmingly support).

I don't know everyone's personal reasons for why they feel how they feel about this strike, but I can try to articulate mine. First, I do not like unions. I think more times than not, they protect those who preform their job poorly, whether due to laziness, incompetence, or some combination of the two, at the expense of those who do a good job. What was originally created as a way to protect employees from poor and dangerous labor practices has become obsolete with labor laws. Instead, it is now used to bargain for pay and benefits when the market should determine what you are worth. If you are the tops at what you do, your pay and benefits will reflect that. If you suck at it, your pay and benefits will reflect that. What unions end up getting you is an average of what would be earned between those who are great and those who suck. Therefore, those who aren't good are overcompensated, those who are great are undercompensated. Then they complain to their employer that they aren't being fairly compensated, which is true, but fail to see that it is their own fault and that the employer should not be required to pay top dollar for subpar work which the unions then try to negotiate for. Then they strike and people whose lives are negatively affected and try to do something to keep their family afloat are ridiculed and publicly shamed.

In this specific situation, I honestly do not notice a differences between now and before they went on strike. This tells me that their product isn't all that important to me but they still want more, even though we are in difficult financial times (and the cause of that is more politics-board related but let's be honest and say the vast majority of those on strike support the reason for these difficult financial times) knowing full and well that the cost of what they are demanding will be passed on to me and other consumers who are already stretched thin.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

I don't know everyone's personal reasons for why they feel how they feel about this strike, but I can try to articulate mine. First, I do not like unions. I think more times than not, they protect those who preform their job poorly, whether due to laziness, incompetence, or some combination of the two, at the expense of those who do a good job. What was originally created as a way to protect employees from poor and dangerous labor practices has become obsolete with labor laws. Instead, it is now used to bargain for pain and benefits when the market should determine what you are worth. If you are the tops at what you do, your pay and benefits will reflect that. If you suck at it, your pay and benefits will reflect that. What unions end up getting you is an average of what would be earned between those who are great and those who suck. Therefore, those who aren't good are overcompensated, those who are great are undercompensated. Then they complain to their employer that they aren't being fairly compensated, which is true, but fail to see that it is their own fault and that the employer should not be required to pay top dollar for subpar work which the unions then try to negotiate for. Then they strike and people whose lives are negatively affected and try to do something to keep their family afloat are ridiculed and publicly shamed.

In this specific situation, I honestly do not notice a differences between now and before they went on strike. This tells me that their product isn't all that important to me but they still want more, even though we are in difficult financial times (and the cause of that is more politics-board related but let's be honest and say the vast majority of those on strike support the reason for these difficult financial times) knowing full and well that the cost of what they are demanding will be passed on to me and other consumers who are already stretched thin.

---

Blue parachute of praise for you. Good post.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

I don't know everyone's personal reasons for why they feel how they feel about this strike, but I can try to articulate mine. First, I do not like unions. I think more times than not, they protect those who preform their job poorly, whether due to laziness, incompetence, or some combination of the two, at the expense of those who do a good job. What was originally created as a way to protect employees from poor and dangerous labor practices has become obsolete with labor laws. Instead, it is now used to bargain for pay and benefits when the market should determine what you are worth. If you are the tops at what you do, your pay and benefits will reflect that. If you suck at it, your pay and benefits will reflect that. What unions end up getting you is an average of what would be earned between those who are great and those who suck. Therefore, those who aren't good are overcompensated, those who are great are undercompensated. Then they complain to their employer that they aren't being fairly compensated, which is true, but fail to see that it is their own fault and that the employer should not be required to pay top dollar for subpar work which the unions then try to negotiate for. Then they strike and people whose lives are negatively affected and try to do something to keep their family afloat are ridiculed and publicly shamed.

In this specific situation, I honestly do not notice a differences between now and before they went on strike. This tells me that their product isn't all that important to me but they still want more, even though we are in difficult financial times (and the cause of that is more politics-board related but let's be honest and say the vast majority of those on strike support the reason for these difficult financial times) knowing full and well that the cost of what they are demanding will be passed on to me and other consumers who are already stretched thin.

---

My guess is that the majority of Americans agree 100% with this.

Yep. This is where I stand as well. There is enough content out there to keep me busy for 10 years based on my viewing patterns. With young kids, busy job, sports, hobbies, etc. I just don't have much time anyway to watch tv and movies.

The comments from Maher make me think that the strikers have less solidarity than we were lead to believe a few pages ago... Also, I wonder if seeing some shows coming back, even without writers, will give the studios a bit more confidence.

Certainly neither Maher nor Barrymore have money problems. This has got to be due to pressure from their staff.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

I don't know everyone's personal reasons for why they feel how they feel about this strike, but I can try to articulate mine. First, I do not like unions. I think more times than not, they protect those who preform their job poorly, whether due to laziness, incompetence, or some combination of the two, at the expense of those who do a good job. What was originally created as a way to protect employees from poor and dangerous labor practices has become obsolete with labor laws. Instead, it is now used to bargain for pay and benefits when the market should determine what you are worth. If you are the tops at what you do, your pay and benefits will reflect that. If you suck at it, your pay and benefits will reflect that.

I'm sorry, but I will never understand the mindset that thinks because some people will be lazy or take advantage of the system, it's not worth addressing the broader, more pressing issue that all studios will f/ck over the creatives they employ, and therefore certain protections and minimums must be established. I'm the only one here who actually works with these studios and they are objectively petty, relentless vampires who absolutely need to be held accountable in ways that labor laws and "the market" can't. They take full advantage of writers/actors (and even me, the producer) in countless sh*tty ways, to the point where it often takes agents/managers hounding them for basic payments to their clients that often take months to be delivered, if some of those payments ever come at all.

In general, what you're arguing makes sense. But it's such reductive, black-and-white thinking that isn't really applicable to such a gray, complex situation such as this.

What unions end up getting you is an average of what would be earned between those who are great and those who suck. Therefore, those who aren't good are overcompensated, those who are great are undercompensated. Then they complain to their employer that they aren't being fairly compensated, which is true, but fail to see that it is their own fault and that the employer should not be required to pay top dollar for subpar work which the unions then try to negotiate for. Then they strike and people whose lives are negatively affected and try to do something to keep their family afloat are ridiculed and publicly shamed.

Again, another generalization that tells me you've hardly read a thing about these specific unions or strikes. Because no one is requiring that writers and actors be paid "top dollar" for anything. What these guilds are negotiating/setting are the absolute bare minimums for certain work. That's it. And none of those minimums are anywhere remotely in the ballpark of making anyone rich, or putting writers or actors in a position where they can afford to sit back, kick up their feet, and do nothing while the checks roll in. That's just not how any of this works, and there is no reality in this business where that's a thing, outside of a lucky few.

In this specific situation, I honestly do not notice a differences between now and before they went on strike. This tells me that their product isn't all that important to me but they still want more, even though we are in difficult financial times (and the cause of that is more politics-board related but let's be honest and say the vast majority of those on strike support the reason for these difficult financial times) knowing full and well that the cost of what they are demanding will be passed on to me and other consumers who are already stretched thin.

People like aTmAg keep lecturing us that strikes aren't won via polls or public sentiment (which… no sh*t). But then a number of you keep using your lack of interest, or the fact that the strikes aren't affecting you personally, as evidence that the strikes aren't having the desired impact toward their cause. When, as has been stated countless times in this thread, Average Joe movie/TV watcher wasn't ever going to be affected until the fall. Traditionally, the second half of September is when the scripted broadcast series return for the fall (which carries over into the spring) season. And granted, those series mostly only concern the older demographic who still watches scripted broadcast fare, but most of them, who haven't been paying attention to the strikes all summer, are about to be in for a rude awakening when they discover that Blue Bloods, Chicago Fire, Fire Country, Ghosts, NCIS, Young Sheldon, etc, aren't coming back this year. And if the strikes aren't settled by October 1st, they're likely not coming back for the spring either. Which is also when everyone else will really start to feel the lack of cable/streaming/prestige series, and then next summer is when sh*t will really hit the fan, and there are hardly any big summer movies.

Frankly, though, none of this is really for you, or Average Joe movie/TV watcher. No one was ever really counting on public sentiment as a crucial decider. That most of the public seems to be on the side of the writers/actors is certainly a bonus, but the main focus of the guilds with these strikes has always been to cause as much financial pain to the studios as possible, with stock prices and quarterly earnings reports firmly in their crosshairs. All the guilds want you to do, as an extra little f/ck you to the studios, is to cancel your streaming subscriptions once there's a noticeable lack of new content. And even though a number of you say you're set for years in terms of content to catch up on, which I don't doubt, the vast majority of subscriptions are driven by new content, which will really start to run dry in the coming weeks/months.

---

I understand some of your frustrations with certain posters and legit passions for this issue but you do yourself no favors with posts like these either. Just a neutral observation.

This union is different, guys. You fools just don't see that this is the good kind that is only here to fight evil.

TCTTS said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

I understand some of your frustrations with certain posters and legit passions for this issue but you do yourself no favors with posts like these either. Just a neutral observation.

---

I could not care less about doing myself any favors in the eyes of what those "certain people"/trolls think. No matter what I say, they've already made up theirs minds as to who's right, who's an idiot, and who's a spoiled prima-donna, despite the reality of the situation. It's all nothing more than culture war bullsh*t and virtue signaling.

---

Yes. You ooze open-mindedness all over this thread. Forgive these simpleton trolls who are not worthy or as intelligent.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

I understand some of your frustrations with certain posters and legit passions for this issue but you do yourself no favors with posts like these either. Just a neutral observation.

---

I could not care less about doing myself any favors in the eyes of what those "certain people"/trolls think. No matter what I say, they've already made up theirs minds as to who's right, who's an idiot, and who's a spoiled prima-donna, despite the reality of the situation. It's all nothing more than culture war bullsh*t and virtue signaling.

---

Yes. You ooze open-mindedness all over this thread. Forgive these simpleton trolls who are not worthy or as intelligent.

---

As has been mentioned numerous times, this is a thread that has notoriously attracted the worst of the worst in terms of those whose only purpose here, on an entertainment message board, is to stir the pot, start sh*t, gleefully mock, virtue signal, etc. This thread is full of people who rarely post anywhere else on this board, other than in the occasional politically themed entertainment thread, who have absolutely no intent on having a genuine conversation about any of this. And even among those who aren't trolling, and are seemingly expressing their opinions in a rational manner, for a number of them, you look up their posting history and it's mostly biased/politically obsessed, while their remarks come with just enough vast generalizations and snide comments about laziness or entitlement or whatever.

And *I'm* the only one being close-minded here? For meeting their own biases and vitriol with my own?

Give me a break.

So many people here are just as bad as I supposedly am. Hell, aTmAg has been calling people simpletons, in so many words, and bashing their intelligence, yet you haven't said a word to him about his posting habits because, for the most part, I'm sure you agree with him.

I'll never understand the motivation of the people that come to a discussion board and choose to lecture and insult rather than discuss.

C@LAg said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

I understand some of your frustrations with certain posters and legit passions for this issue but you do yourself no favors with posts like these either. Just a neutral observation.

---

hear hear.

everyone is allowed to voice their opinions even if it pisses off the forum hall monitor. god knows he repeats himself a lot in a given thread; it is hypocritical to complain when others do it.

he ALSO has the option to just not respond..

---

I assume you're talking about atm here.

TCTTS said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

I understand some of your frustrations with certain posters and legit passions for this issue but you do yourself no favors with posts like these either. Just a neutral observation.

---

I could not care less about doing myself any favors in the eyes of what those "certain people"/trolls think. No matter what I say, they've already made up theirs minds as to who's right, who's an idiot, and who's a spoiled prima-donna, despite the reality of the situation. It's all nothing more than culture war bullsh*t and virtue signaling.

---

Your response to jello wasn't proportionate. Opining isn't trolling. You can disagree and that is perfectly fine, but you need to understand a lot of people simply don't care because they have dozens of other things they have to deal with in their own lives.

If you were bantering back and forth with atm I wouldn't have said anything. Contrary to belief, I actually enjoy your contributions to this forum. I think it's pretty cool to have a semi insider passing along info on all things entertainment. Most of your posts are awesome. You don't need to get down in the dirt too.

Dude you need to step away from this thread. Happy Friday.

Proportionate.

He gave his opinion, didn't mention you at all, and then you blew up with some extremely condescending comments toward him. The fact you are now complaining about condescension is one of the most laughable displays of lack of self-awareness I've seen on TA. Friggin hilarious.

"Extremely condescending."

Again, please show me where. Quote the words I used in my response to jello that you think fit that label outside of "reductive" and "black-and-white," which I still believe are accurate descriptions of the generalizations he was making.

Especially after so many other people in this thread are being objectively condensing as well, some of them far more than me (aTmAg), yet you're not calling them out in any form or fashion, simply because you agree with them and disagree with me. Hence the usual double standard.

Starting off a rant against a post that was not even directed at you off with "it's clear you've hardly read a thing" isn't condescending? I need to point that out for you?

Someone else clearly isn't.

Why is it that one person is involved in like 95% of all arguments that happen on this board?

aTmAg?