[lbo-talk] Writers' strike

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jan 14 11:53:46 PST 2008


Jerry Monaco wrote:
>> I'm only mildly less excited by the writers strike as I would be to see
>> shareholders fighting for larger dividends.
>>
>> John Thornton
>>
>
> If a group of textile workers got paid piece rate or percentages,
> would you say the same thing if they asked for more per piece? What
> is your exact reason for saying the above?
>

If textile workers who were paid a piece-rate asked for an increase per piece I would bee 100% behind them. Does that answer this question succinctly enough? My reason for writing the above is that the writers aren't ALSO asking for a piece-rate increase to the best of my knowledge. If they are asking for this I support them in that proposition only. I do know they are asking for a larger share of the IP income stream. Since I oppose copyright how can I not also be expected to be something less than enthusiastic when some group demands a greater share of something I oppose? That is why I chose the analogy above.


> Do you know that even though residuals in new media is the main issue
> in this strike there are also other issues -- for instance solidarity
> with other unions and organizing the unorganized. Do these other
> issues "excite" you a little?
>

The main issue is the one I spoke of and I one I will continue to speak of. I remain unexcited by an attempt to grab a larger share of the unjust IP income stream.


> Yes, the current "intellectual property" regime is basically state
> sanctioned monopoly that has little connection with the origninal
> purpose of copyright. In this sense it is unjust, but no strike
> anywhere is going to in itself change basic inequities in a system.
>

Says Jerry, but not says John.


> Because the WGA is in fight for a better deal for the people who
> actually work and create you should be excited by this strike, or at
> least interested in the issues of the strike. Because corporations are
> on a campaign to monopolize creative work for themselves; because they
> believe that their "intellectual property" is theirs alone, and any
> encroachment is a trespass that needs to be fought; and because
> coroporate monopolization and expanstion of IP is the pattern for all
> industries involved in producing "intellectual" "property", this
> strike should at least be interesting to you.
>

You mean the union can't fight to change copyright law they can only fight to grab a larger share? You think pretty poorly of them. I think they have it in them to do the right thing and I am ambivalent on this issue because they are labor fighting for something unjust rather than capital fighting for something unjust in which case I would be actively opposed rather than ambivalent.


> The WGA is not a radical union out to change the basis of the IP
> regime. In the past 70 years the writers' union leadership has at
> times been radical, at times reactionary, and at times (as it is
> today) a union in the forefront of the union movement. I came to the
> left and one of the first things I learned when I was 12 or 13 is that
> you support unions on strike and you don't cross picket lines. If
> workers jobs are threatened you are for them and are interested in
> them. If a union is trying to organize the unorganized your reaction
> was enthusiasm and not a comparison with stockholders of a
> corporation. If a union put in its contract demands elimination of
> the "No Strike" clause we cheered as if it were a radical step. (In
> fact in all the interim agreements made so far, part of the contract
> is words to the effect that "workers covered by this contract will not
> be disciplined for honoring the picket lines of fellow workers".) All
> of this should get your blood running just a little.
>

It doesn't do anything for my blood but then I'm a cold heated bastard. You seem to equate my ambivalence to hostility. They chose to strike over something I oppose so nothing you could write will stir me to fall in love with this strike. I won't oppose it but you can't make it like it since I disagree with the unions goals on this issue. I'm unhappy the union chose this issue to make a fight out of. It tells me they've lost sight of something important.


> I would think those of us on the left would be even a little excited
> by the fact that a very small union is fighting some of the richest
> and most powerful corporations in the world.and doing a pretty good
> job of it Or excited even by the fact that we have seen pro-strike,
> pro-union propaganda produced with wit and charm. (If the TWU could
> get some of the current strikers to produce similar propaganda the
> transit strike a couple years ago would certainly have been better
> fought.)
>
> I don't mean to go overboard with my enthusiasm, but there are a few
> things significant in this strike and I have tried to express them.
>
> To put it mildly, anyone who supports a stronger and better union
> movement should be enthusiastic about many aspects of thias strike.
>
> (I am just assuming John, that most of the people on this list support
> a stronger and better union movement. For the detailed issues of this
> strike all I can do is refer you to the weblog "United Hollywood".
> For a larger perspective on the strike unfortunately I have not come
> across leftists who have written about it. This has been
> disappointing. But I have written myself on the issues and in other
> posts have referred to some other writers who have written on the
> issues.)
>
> Jerry Monaco

If a stronger and better union movement is actually contingent upon capturing larger shares of all future IP income streams just come kill me tonight since I'll take that as a sign that the unions have lost sight of everything they should stand for and that I am willing to fight for.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list