1. Television viewing is declining. Writers want to get a piece of the Internet, DVD, mobile phone action. Makes perfect sense. But it doesn't make sense to adopt a strategy that will drive even more viewers away from network and cable television, which is still the primary venue for television.
2. Writers are not exactly starving - it's not as if they would slip into poverty if they didn't go on strike. The economic circumstances are not dire enough to warrant a strike.
3. I think, in general, that writers are an elite enough group that they don't need a union. The worker being taken advantage of by the greedy capitalist just doesn't ring true or apply to the television writer.
So, I hope the WGA does not strike - and, if they do, that they come to their senses quickly.
Full disclosure: I make more income from being a professor than being a writer, but I'd never go on strike as a professor, either.
2 comments:
I agree with points 1 and 2, but not 3. Why shouldn't the writers have a union. My wife is a tv writer and through the WGA we get health and retirement benefits, just as teachers and other white collar professionals do from their unions or professional organizations.
I happen to think that in many cases union writers should just be allowed to negotiate their own rates, but the union has been very instrumental in protecting writers. Also, writers who are involved in projects that typically have residual payments to other creative types (directors/talent/producers) need a way of standardizing that or they will be left out.
Ok, I'll amend my #3: I'm ok with writers having a union, as long as it's a not a closed shop (meaning, anyone who writes for television should not be compelled to join it).
That way, the union is free to negotiate on behalf of its members, but individual writers are free to negotiate on the behalf of themselves.
Post a Comment