6 ms·

Waiting until striking workers run out of money is absolutely gentille, when it comes to the history of strike-breaking.

by vkou 3y ago

gruez 3y ago
"absolutely gentille" and "strike-breaking" seems like weird ways to describe studios refusing to accept the union's offer, as if they're expected to accept whatever that the union offers.
- falcolas 3y ago
  The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table in the 70 days of the WGA's strike. Their entire plan is waiting them out so they'll accept a worse offer.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table in the 70 days of the WGA's strike. What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer? >Their entire plan is waiting them out so they'll accept a worse offer. It takes two to make a deal. By refusing to accept a deal, both sides' are hoping to inflict damage to the other side so they can get what they want. You might have your own opinions about which side has the more reasonable offer and is therefore in the "right", but both sides are essentially trying to do the same thing.
    - Arrath 3y ago
      > What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer? Uh, does this situation not fit the dictionary definition of negotiation? Such a gulf in demands/desires/position between the sides necessitates negotiation and compromise. The institution saying "lol fuck them, we'll starve 'em out" is monstrous in that context, imo.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >> What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer? >Uh, does such a situation not fit the dictionary definition of negotiation? There's nothing in the definition of "negotiation" that necessitates compromise. Moreover, negotiation isn't an end goal in and of itself. The point is to reach an agreement (ie. contract), and the very definition of a contract is that it's voluntary. That means walking away is an entirely valid response.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    They haven't come to the table because they know the writers will not accept the offer. What's the point in wasting time?
    - Arrath 3y ago
      Its such a shame that the laws of the universe only allow the studios to make that one offer they want to bring to the table.
      - gruez 3y ago
        The same could be said for the union. Why should either side be forced to make concessions?
        Arrath 3y ago
        Same argument could be made in the vein of why should one side be forced to accept the other's demands unilaterally? Thus the deadlock and the strike. After all, each side making concessions is how this usually works.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        Indeed, and if both sides want to wait each other out, it seems like that's what will happen, only that it will end much worse on one side, it seems.
falcolas 3y ago
Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break strikes doesn't make it good or even OK. Nor should it lessen the condemnation faced by these companies. EDIT: To be clear, I expect a company's executive team in the 21st century to act ethically and with even the smallest bit of compassion for their coworkers. I do not expect them to act like some entitled plantation owner in the late 19th century. And if that's me being naive, it's a naivety I'll gladly take to the grave.
- vkou 3y ago
  > Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break strikes doesn't make it good or even OK. I mean, I'm very pro-union rights, but I think in this case, it's pretty simple. If you don't work, you don't get paid. Both the studios and the unions are playing by the rules, here. It may not produce a fair outcome (because the distribution of power in society isn't fair), but it is at least a fair process. And the union should really have put aside more money to fund a longer strike.
  - superb_dev 3y ago
    It’s nowhere near a fair process! If it was a fair process, the substantial power difference wouldn’t be as great
- ninth_ant 3y ago
  This not some dirty tactic, it is specifically how all breakdowns in employer/union negotiations go. Union withdraws their labour until their demands are met, employer doesn't agree until their demands are met. As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial way before their side does. If you don't approve of this, you don't approve of unionization. Because this is how it works.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things. But then again, defenestration of a bunch of execs might just be the exact thing the world needs to put some fear back into these ghouls again.
kristofferR 3y ago
That is just a silly argument. Yeah, they aren't hiring private armies and shooting at the striking workers, but that doesn't mean it's gentille.
throwawaymobule 3y ago
Has anyone run the numbers on how long this might take? I know there's a lot of people in both striking unions who aren't super wealthy, but don't know what the spread is. I'm fully expecting more dogmatic/richer members to bankroll the strike to prevent it breaking. I'm guessing through loans or something.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Waiting until striking workers run out of money is absolutely gentille, when it comes to the history of strike-breaking.

by vkou 3y ago

Waiting until striking workers run out of money is absolutely gentille, when it comes to the history of strike-breaking.

gruez 3y ago

"absolutely gentille" and "strike-breaking" seems like weird ways to describe studios refusing to accept the union's offer, as if they're expected to accept whatever that the union offers.

falcolas 3y ago
The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table in the 70 days of the WGA's strike. Their entire plan is waiting them out so they'll accept a worse offer.
- gruez 3y ago
  >The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table in the 70 days of the WGA's strike. What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer? >Their entire plan is waiting them out so they'll accept a worse offer. It takes two to make a deal. By refusing to accept a deal, both sides' are hoping to inflict damage to the other side so they can get what they want. You might have your own opinions about which side has the more reasonable offer and is therefore in the "right", but both sides are essentially trying to do the same thing.
  - Arrath 3y ago
    > What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer? Uh, does this situation not fit the dictionary definition of negotiation? Such a gulf in demands/desires/position between the sides necessitates negotiation and compromise. The institution saying "lol fuck them, we'll starve 'em out" is monstrous in that context, imo.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >> What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when the other side's demands is so far from what you're willing to offer? >Uh, does such a situation not fit the dictionary definition of negotiation? There's nothing in the definition of "negotiation" that necessitates compromise. Moreover, negotiation isn't an end goal in and of itself. The point is to reach an agreement (ie. contract), and the very definition of a contract is that it's voluntary. That means walking away is an entirely valid response.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  They haven't come to the table because they know the writers will not accept the offer. What's the point in wasting time?
  - Arrath 3y ago
    Its such a shame that the laws of the universe only allow the studios to make that one offer they want to bring to the table.
    - gruez 3y ago
      The same could be said for the union. Why should either side be forced to make concessions?
      - Arrath 3y ago
        Same argument could be made in the vein of why should one side be forced to accept the other's demands unilaterally? Thus the deadlock and the strike. After all, each side making concessions is how this usually works.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        Indeed, and if both sides want to wait each other out, it seems like that's what will happen, only that it will end much worse on one side, it seems.

falcolas 3y ago

Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break strikes doesn't make it good or even OK. Nor should it lessen the condemnation faced by these companies. EDIT: To be clear, I expect a company's executive team in the 21st century to act ethically and with even the smallest bit of compassion for their coworkers. I do not expect them to act like some entitled plantation owner in the late 19th century. And if that's me being naive, it's a naivety I'll gladly take to the grave.

vkou 3y ago
> Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break strikes doesn't make it good or even OK. I mean, I'm very pro-union rights, but I think in this case, it's pretty simple. If you don't work, you don't get paid. Both the studios and the unions are playing by the rules, here. It may not produce a fair outcome (because the distribution of power in society isn't fair), but it is at least a fair process. And the union should really have put aside more money to fund a longer strike.
- superb_dev 3y ago
  It’s nowhere near a fair process! If it was a fair process, the substantial power difference wouldn’t be as great
ninth_ant 3y ago
This not some dirty tactic, it is specifically how all breakdowns in employer/union negotiations go. Union withdraws their labour until their demands are met, employer doesn't agree until their demands are met. As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial way before their side does. If you don't approve of this, you don't approve of unionization. Because this is how it works.
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things. But then again, defenestration of a bunch of execs might just be the exact thing the world needs to put some fear back into these ghouls again.

kristofferR 3y ago

That is just a silly argument. Yeah, they aren't hiring private armies and shooting at the striking workers, but that doesn't mean it's gentille.

throwawaymobule 3y ago

Has anyone run the numbers on how long this might take? I know there's a lot of people in both striking unions who aren't super wealthy, but don't know what the spread is. I'm fully expecting more dogmatic/richer members to bankroll the strike to prevent it breaking. I'm guessing through loans or something.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]