SAG-AFTRA vote to go on strike

No, this is binary. This is an issue where you are either with the workers on strike or you're with the rich assholes trying to exploit them, and there is no middle ground. The vast majority of writers and actors have been very clear in saying that they have authorized this strike because they simply cannot continue to support themselves under the present circumstances -- this is existential for the writers and actors.

And if the studios succeed in breaking the strike, they will come after IATSE and the other unions, too. So making sure the WGA and SAG win this strike is in the best interests of the crews.

And this has been explained to you. Workers' power comes through solidarity; bosses' power comes through divide-and-conquer. Ergo, the best way to undermine the workers is to sow division.

Then he's not doing enough.

John Oliver is literally touring the country doing live stand-up to support his crew. Maybe Bill Maher ought to do that.

C'mon, man. You understand the idea of short-term interests vs. long-term interests, don't you?

It's pretty simple: It might be in their best short-term interests to go back to work, but in the long term, it's against their best interests. Why? Because if they undermine worker solidarity and the strikes break, then the studios will come after them next. When IATSE's contract expires, the studios will do the same thing to IATSE that they're trying to do to WGA/SAG right now, and without solidarity from other workers, they'll win. IATSE and other crew unions will be decimated, and their compensation will become exploitative.

Going back to work now is robbing future self to pay your current bills. You can't pay your bills or feed your kids if your bosses can get away with paying you not enough. Undermining a strike helps the bosses to pay you as little as they can.

You're asking a very broad question that can only ever be answered according to the specifics of each person's unique situation.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again: they should do whatever they have to do to survive, as long as it doesn't undermine the strikes. You can't build your house on a foundation of betraying your fellow workers.

* * *

Meanwhile, for all your talk of the suffering crews -- can you demonstrate any evidence that a majority of the crews don't support the strikes?

 

Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?

They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there
You'll either be a Union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair

Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?

My daddy was a miner
And I'm a miner's son
He'll be with you, fellow workers
Until this battle's won

Tell me
Which side are you on?

Oh, workers, can you stand it?
Tell me how you can?
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?

Which side are you on?

Come, all of you good workers
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how the good old Union
Has come in here to dwell!

Tell me,
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?

 

The studios going after the crews is a real possibility, I agree. But that is still a hypothetical. The reality is none of those crews are working and earning pay to take care of their families.

A show has maybe 15 or 20 actors and writers combined. Everyone else makes up probably around 250-300 workers, easily. You're basically telling the majority of people need to suffer because the few have to strike... which is exactly what the studios are doing to everyone else. (The very few make most of the money, the rest get scraps.)

The only difference between the studios and the unions is that the studios are more upfront and dickish about their intentions and goals.


Regarding the non-members being beholden to union rules explanations, I understood that it is to make sure they get more members to keep more power to the union. That is still all about control.

I understand short and long term investments, thank you very much. And while the 'short term vs. long term' argument has merit, a lot of those workers won't HAVE a long term future if they can't start paying their mortgages/rent or food for their kids. It's been almost FIVE MONTHS. That's a LOT of backed up bills, especially in a state as expensive as California. There has to be a point where supporting other peoples' unions will be a secondary consideration when faced with a foreclosure on your home or eviction from an apartment.

And you are still dodging the question. It's not so broad that it can't be answered for a lot of people. So, again...

What do YOU propose the other workers do if they've reached a point now of not being able to maintain their homes or take care of their families after MONTHS of standing by and supporting the WGA and SAG?


And leaning back to that response of 'they should do whatever they have to do to survive, as long as it doesn't undermine the strikes' is not an answer. That's being selfish to expect a MUCH larger group of workers to go broke for your smaller group. In that regard, the WGA and SAG are no better than the studios with that kind of thinking.

(And by the way, the studios are assholes for letting it get to this point. The reason I haven't said it as often is because since so, so many more people here have already said it, me adding that is just redundant at this point. But as far as I can recall, I've been the only one talking about all the other large groups of people who are out of work due to this.

And as someone who got laid off at a previous job because routes were cut and had no job for 6 months while newly married, I'm going to be FAR more sympathetic to people who are out of work through no fault of their own. Much more sympathetic than to those who actually CAUSED THEM to be out of work, whether those reasons are justified or not or noble or not. And yes, BOTH sides are the cause of all those other people being out of work... the studios for letting it get to this point, and the strikers for keeping this going.)

Sci, I'm done talking to you on this. We clearly are not going to see eye to eye, and we'll just keep going in circles, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

Almost as hypothetical as your alleged lack of crew support for the strikes.

You're forgetting all of the extras and writing support staff -- all of whom support the strikes because they recognize that if WGA/SAG fall, they're gonna get fucked over too.

Nope. I'm telling the majority of workers that the only way to get a fair deal is through solidarity, which you keep trying to undermine.

This is a lie, pure and simple.

The entire point of the strikes is that they're to protect the vast majority of SAG/WGA members who are not wealthy.

Once again, workers' only power comes from unity. If you break the unity, then you allow the bosses to divide-and-conquer. That's it. That's the binary: "Either we all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately."

To try to twist that into a claim that the union is all about "control" is absurd on its face.

Then stop encouraging workers to act against their best interests.

You keep claiming that these guys don't support the strike. Prove it.

Here's a clue: IATSE came within about an inch of their own strike about a year and a half ago.

No, I'm not. My answer is very clear: Do whatever you have to do as long as it doesn't undermine the strikes.

IATSE membership is roughly 170,000. SAG-AFTRA has roughly 160,000. The WGA has roughly 11,500 members.

Sorry, but we're talking roughly equal numbers.

The studios are the ones prolonging the strike. The studios are the ones being selfish.

Stop trying to divide worker against worker and aim your ire at the studios, because the only people you help are the studios.

I've been unemployed through no fault of my own, too. The best way to prevent people from falling into that situation in the long-term is for everyone to have a union and for workers to support their fellow unions.

Absolutely false.

If you're part of a union, and the bosses say to your union, "Contract's over. We'll only pay you guys $7.50/hour from now on, and also you should let us use A.I. to screw you over," and you go on strike? The bosses are the cause, not the union.

If a guy punches you at the bar and you defend yourself, the guy is the cause of the fight, not you defending yourself.

 

The International President of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (aka, IATSE), Matthew D. Loeb, issued this statement in May:

"I want to extend IATSE’s continued support to the Writers Guild of America West (WGAW) and the Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) in your collective fight to win a fair contract from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). I’m proud to have walked the picket line with you at Fox in what proved to be a powerful display of resilience and unity between our unions.

Every story on screen begins with a writers’ vision, and it is these stories that our members bring to life. Our symbiotic relationship underscores the importance of collaboration, not just in the creation of films, television shows, and other media, but also in leveraging solidarity to build towards a future where every worker in the entertainment industry is treated and compensated with the respect and dignity we deserve.

A fair contract for WGA members is better for every IATSE member. Your key contract demands, from increased minimum pay, better so-called 'new-media' streaming conditions, staffing minimums, and restrictions on the use of AI to undermine compensation and creative rights—are shared issues across our industry.

To the writers, know this—we stand with you. The AMPTP’s failure to meet your reasonable demands or exhibit fairness is driving the Hollywood guilds and unions together with unprecedented solidarity. We will continue to show our shared commitment to a fair and just entertainment industry."

In solidarity,
Matthew D. Loeb
IATSE, International President

* * *

So much for the crews not supporting the strike.

 

IATSE Local 44 WGA Strike FAQ:

Now that the writers are on strike, do I still go to work?

If you have a work call, then yes, you should go to work.

What are my options if I encounter a WGA picket line at my worksite?

If you encounter a physical picket line at your worksite, you have a legally-protected right not to cross the
picket line. If you encounter a picket line and choose not to cross it, you should immediately contact your
supervisor and let them know that you encountered a WGA picket line and are choosing to honor the picket
line.

Your right not to cross a picket line applies regardless of where you encounter the picket line, whether a
studio lot, a facility, or an off-site location.

However, if there is no picket line at your worksite, you must go to work.

What happens if I choose not to cross a picket line?

Again, contact your supervisor immediately. You may not be terminated, disciplined, or retaliated against if
you choose not to cross a picket line. However, you may not get paid and the production may replace you
with another person.

Local 44 is discouraging members from accepting work calls to replace other Local 44 members who have
exercised their right not to cross a picket line. You have the right to ask if you are being called to replace
another member who refused to cross a picket line.

<SNIP>

Can I collect Unemployment Insurance if my production shuts down as a result of the strike?

Yes.

<SNIP>

Helpful Links:
• A message from President Matthew Loeb: here
• Please see the Teamsters Local 399 FAQ embedded in this Hollywood Reporter Article
• For more details on the WGA negotiations click here
• If you would like to know the locations of WGA’s picket lines click here for a full list of locations and more
information. We are providing this list only as an informational tool.
• To any member who has already been laid off and is in the SoCal Gas network, please fill out this intake form from Labor Community Services LA to sign up for bill payment assistance of up to $500.
• Motion Picture Television Fund (MPTF) - WGA Strike FAQs: here
• Entertainment Community Fund – Social Services and Emergency Financial Assistance: here
• First Entertainment Credit Union – Hardship & Strike Assistance: here
• Entertainment Industry Assistance Organizations: here

* * *

IATSE has also earmarked $4 million to support members affected by the strikes.

It looks like the Entertainment Community Fund has been a major vehicle for supporting non-WGA/non-SAG workers during the strikes. Prominent WGA members have been making donations. Per the link above: And recognizing that WGA members aren’t the only industry workers affected, the WGA and several of its prominent members – including J.J. Abrams, Greg Berlanti, Adam McKay, Ryan Murphy, Shonda Rhimes, Mike Schur and John Wells – donated $1.7 million to the Fund back on May 10 to help out non-WGA members during the strike.

Seth MacFarlane recently donated $1 million to the Entertainment Community Fund. Steven Spielberg gave $1.5 million to the ECF and the SAG-AFTRA Foundation’s Emergency Financial Assistance Program. "Other notable donors to the Fund include The Katie McGrath & JJ Abrams Family Foundation, Stacey Abrams, Annette Bening, Tom Bergeron, Greg Berlanti, Rachel Bloom, Rosanne Cash in memory of Johnny Cash, Suzanne Collins & Cap Pryor, Minnie Driver, Vince Gilligan, Lynn Nottage, Michelle Pfeiffer & David E. Kelley, Daniel Radcliffe, Shonda Rhimes and Chandra Wilson."

In other words: The striking workers have themselves been helping non-WGA/non-SAG workers, and support for the strikes remains high among those who are not part of SAG and WGA.

 

I never said the other workers didn't support the strike. Where did I say that? How is questioning how they are surviving without any income the same as me saying they are not supporting the strike? That's some serious twisting of words there, dude.

(And I'm only responding back to you on this because I don't appreciate having what I say be twisted around to suit whatever narrative you want.)

 

Absolutely nothing about your argument makes sense unless you assume a priori that the non-SAG/non-WGA crew don't support the strike.

If they support the strike, then you shouldn't be criticizing it for their alleged sake or using them as a reason to undermine the strike.

 

It doesn't make sense that the workers are not working and not currently able to pay their bills because the strikes are on? Seriously?!

You truly are not making any sense. Clearly, I can't talk to you.

 

That's not the topic. The topic is what to do about that.

You keep making the argument that these guys being out of work means it's okay to undermine the strike. But these guys support the strike. They don't want to undermine it.

 

Actually, my topic has been about the workers who aren't WGA or SGA and their inability to pay their bills. It's been the entire topic of my posts for pages.

 

That is what I just said. That's what the words "these guys" referred to in post #330.

To reword: You keep making the argument that workers who aren't WGA or SAG being out of work means it's okay to undermine the strike. But the workers who aren't WGA or SAG broadly support the strike. They don't want to undermine it. Ergo, their being out of work is not a valid reason for Barrymore or Maher to restart production

 

And if you actually read what I had written, not once did I say those workers don't support the strike. My issue is those workers have had NO INCOME TO PAY THEIR BILLS DUE TO BEING OUT OF WORK THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

I have said this over and over, and you continually just ignore the entire issue.

Well, congratulations. You've now become the third ignore person. Done with you entirely.

 

I have literally posted about actions being taken to support those workers.

I have not ignored the problem. What I have done is reject the idea that their loss of income makes it okay for Maher and Barrymore to resume production.

 

I've settled down just fine since I used the 'ignore' button 2 hours ago (now that I know how to use it), which was as soon as I made my most recent post in this thread.

 

I wasn't aware that was considered trolling. Not my intention. My apologies.

I was addressing that I was settling down... basically saying to you, "Got it, boss." I don't typically delete out parts of quoted posts because I only use my phone for going online, and it takes a lot of time to do that using just one finger. Which is why I quoted your entire post instead of cutting it to the part I was addressing.

I thought it was fine to just quote entire posts to respond to one part of it.