Community >> View Post
Post By
Omar Karindu

In Reply To

Subj: Re: How isn't it?
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:11:51 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: How isn't it?
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 01:55:26 am EST

Previous Post

> Indeed. The most recent one I've heard about shows about 60% support the writers, 14% support the studios, with the rest not caring/undecided. This was as recent as last week. Plus, by polls, more than 84% are aware of the strike. This poll was taken a week into the strike. I'd imagine a lot more know about it by now.

The first poll you mentioned, which shows support, was conducted only in the LA area. So you have to disregard what that poll tells you.

The second poll, which showed awareness, is biased and improper for various reasons. The surveyor doesn't show any information about who he surveyed, only polled 1000 applicants, doesn't say how the applicants were surveyed (online, outside of a mall), etc. Basically, if you've taken a market research and statistics classes, you will see the errors.

Of course, I probably just read something wrong. I'm kinda suprised that this isn't more of an issue with people (since there aren't many polls concerning the matter)

> I initially supported the writers, but while I still think they deserve more than what they're getting, I'm growing more and more appalled by the tactics of the WGA, particularly its leaders. There are reports that as far back as a year before the strike, the leaders of the WGA were unwilling to accept any offer, regardless of what it was. There are reports of the WGA mistrepresenting the facts.

I've always hated the writer's strike, being a free market guy myself. To me, I have nothing to gain from their strike, I can only lose television episodes. From a business standpoint, I don't understand the reasoning behind the actions of the WGA.

And interesting link is : where the AMPTP discuss the financial side of the strike.

> I've always hated the writer's strike, being a free market guy myself.

OK, I've often heard variants of this sentiment regarding lots of unions, and I'm lost -- how exactly are unions not part of a free market? They aren't governments, they're simply a particular kind of labor structure in which an employer contractually agrees to hire only members of a particular organization in exchange for the perceived benefits in trained talent and good PR; workers sign up for unions and pay dues because they're paying for advocacy and negotiation. It's no different than hiring a contract lawyer to protect you in negotiations.

And as ;long as you don't contract witha union to create a closed shop -- i.e., as long as you don't voluntarily enter into that contractual agreement -- you don't have to hire union workers. If unions use PR tactics in response to that to harm your business's reputation...well, your competitors also use advertising and viral marketing to put you down and boost themselves.

I'm just not seeing how a free market philosophy can claim that certain kinds of voluntary associations (corporations) are good and others (unions) are bad. In a free market, aren't voluntary association and exclusivity of contract both lynchpins of the system, and available to all individuals?

Posted with Apple Safari 3.0.4 on MacOS X
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software