[lbo-talk] Writers' strike

bitch at pulpculture.org bitch at pulpculture.org
Mon Jan 14 17:43:44 PST 2008


so, th enext time you teach a course at the community college, you learn that you must turn in your syll, your notes, your lectures, exams, and they will tape you giving lectures.

after that they say, sayanora fucker, we'll be using your stuff to teach the course online. You get 2000 clams for the course, if you're lucky.

At 02:53 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote:
>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
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list