Why I Don’t Support the Writer’s Strike
I’ve been avoiding talking about the writer’s strike for a couple of reasons. The first one being that I don’t support strikes, nor do I support unions. The second one is that I believe that people should take responsibility for their own lives. If you think you’re getting a raw deal at your job, then change jobs. Change careers if you want. But don’t stand around with a sign on a picket line, which is the adult equivalent of a child holding his breath until he gets what he wants.
Anne Wayman from the Golden Pencil posted a link to a piece on the Writer’s Resource Center giving three reasons to support the strike.
So I’m giving my reasons why I don’t support the strike.
The rules are set by the corporations - If I went to work at Marvel Comics as a writer or artist, I know going in that the company is pretty much going to own whatever it is I create. If I create the next Superman - and Marvel makes millions of dollars in TV, toys, movies and comic books - chances are I’m still going to be compensated based on our original agreement with Marvel coming out on top. And Marvel certainly isn’t going to give me the rights to the character that’s earning them that much scratch. I know this going in. If I don’t want to play by those rules, I can choose not to.
It’s their game so don’t whine about it when you come out on the bottom of a deal.
Personal responsibility - I admit that I lean pretty far to the conservative side of the political spectrum. My father is a no-nonsense guy and an extremely hard worker. He always preached about controlling your own destiny instead of it controlling you. Make choices - both good and bad - and live with the consequences. And if you’re in a situation you don’t like, pull yourself up out of it and move on.
I realize we live in a society that doesn’t like to hear that. We don’t want to work hard for what we want. We think we’re entitled to everything and when we don’t get it, we whine. We think the companies we work for owe us all. Well, I got news for y’all, it ain’t like that.
For those that think they’re getting screwed by the corporations - which they probably are - go off on your own. Start your own company. Make your own future instead of crying about your present.
The marketplace has changed drastically over the past decade. There are more opportunities than ever for creative people to get noticed, make money AND keep the rights to their material than ever before.
Instead of trying to change someone else’s rules, why not just go and make up your own?
Posted
on
Friday, January 18th, 2008 at 9:03 am under
[…] Wrangler, is opposed to the writer’s strike and spells out his thinking in a post called: Why I Don’t Support the Writer’s Strike Goddess I appreciate clear writing, and Mike makes his position abundantly […]
January 18th, 2008 at 9:42 amI have to agree with you I don’t support the strike. I agree with personal responsibility this is something I tried to instill in my mentees last year. They were shocked that I, a black woman, was actually in business for myself without getting a handout. It opened up a great discussion which I talked about personally responsibility.
They were naturally curious about how I made it. Sadly many of them believed they wouldn’t make it because of their color. It was beaten into their heads the only way they could make it was by getting a handout. Thankfully I have many friends that came from where they were that made it despite the “odds”. It showed them they could be anything they wanted to be with knowledge, training, and support. It was a struggle to get them to think differently about themselves. The mind is very powerful.
I do believe if more people took the initiative and did something on their own then corporations that were treating their customers unfairly might think twice before they did it.
The last company I worked for was a non profit organization. I lasted ten months before I handed in my resignation papers. I didn’t like some of their tactics, and I wasn’t about to hang around and subject myself to that nonsense.
I had a plan B, and I used it. My boss was shocked and “just knew” I would return. That never happened. Guess what? They still haven’t hired anyone for that position. I wasn’t the only one unhappy in my position at the company; however, I was the only one that was ready to take risks and move one.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:23 amAmen to that. You took the words right out of my mouth.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:23 amI should have written…
January 18th, 2008 at 10:25 amI was the only one that was ready to take risks and move on.
I usually wouldn’t reply to a post such as this because we have so little common ground between us, that a discussion would probably not be possible. But because you state your view so clearly it is also easy to see the alternatives that you leave out.
“The first one being that I don’t support strikes, nor do I support unions. The second one is that I believe that people should take responsibility for their own lives.”
You state this right out without giving reasons. You also seem to connect “personal responsibility” and being anti-union. Later you say that corporations set the rules. So let me ask you the following questions.
1) What is a corporation but a state-sanctioned and protected union of investors? Why do you support the kind of union of investors and owners that is a corporation but not a union of employees? The business institution we call a corporation was not created whole cloth and was not always with us, but was created through heavy state intervention and rules created by lawyers to enable such institutions. Why should you support laws and state-intervention to enable corporations but not unions? My suspicion is that the business institution we call a corporation is simply dominant in our country and as John Dewey said, it is simply the political air we breath.
2) If people cooperate with each other to get things done, do you consider this something that is counter to “personal responsibility”? Why shouldn’t employees cooperate to bargain with their employee? Why shouldn’t employees try to improve the work situation that they are in? Why is cooperating with others to improve your situation or the situation of your industry somehow an abnegation of personal responsibility? I don’t really understand how they contradict.
3) You state “the rules are set by corporations.” And then you speak of the copyright rules. But one reason why writers need a union is because corporations have hired vast amount of lawyers and twisted the arms of judges to change the rules in their favor.
Still, it is not quite true to say that these rules were set by corporations. The rules for copyright were set not by corporations but by Congress as enabled by the U.S. constitution. These rules of copyright are a state-granted monopoly for a limited amount of time (supposedly, but not if Disney keeps getting its way) giving the creator use and disposal of the creative work. There is nothing natural or inevitable about these rules and what is certain is that the founders of our country only envisioned patents and copyrights being owned by individual people and not by corporations. The idea that fictional people (corporations) could own fictional property (intellectual property) is a very recent phenomena in history. It is a recent phenomena that we allowed to happen because we have neglected the public domain and allowed corporations and states to run rough-shod over individual rights. The reason this phenomena came about in the first place was through acts of judicial activism, i.e. supreme court decisions argued by corporate lawyers in the late 19th C and early 20th C. This situation was only codified in law by congress in the 1970s througg lobbying by corporations to pass new copyright laws.
So again back to unions. If creators of songs, stories, movies, and comic books had as much bargaining power as corporations in the early part of the 20th century the situation would have been different. In other words, back then the best way to protect individual rights would have been through forming a union or some sort of cooperative organization to save individual control of copyright. Later in the century if individuals had as much political influence over congress as rent-seeking businesses, “for hire” ownership of copyright would never have come about.
Personally, I think that it is the epitome of personal responsibility to risk some of ones own personal comfort to form cooperate in collective organizations that make for better rules in this area.
Jerry Monaco
January 18th, 2008 at 11:28 amThanks for the comment Jerry. First, let me start out by stating that I don’t have the level of education regarding copyrights and their history that you do, so I really can’t address that issue.
One question you asked was: “Why is cooperating with others to improve your situation or the situation of your industry somehow an abnegation of personal responsibility?”
The answer is: It isn’t.
I’ll go back to my Marvel Comics example. Back in the 90s, when comics were hot, there were a few very talented creators who worked either for Marvel or DC. These creators became sick of the ‘work for hire’ business practices at the big corporations and - rather than forming a union, striking or picketing - they went off and formed their own company Image Comics.
Image’s business model was based on the notion that creators could publish under the Image umbrella, but still retain all rights to their characters and maintain independent studios.
That’s a good example of people cooperating to change the way business works. Image became so successful that Marvel and DC started treating their talent better because they didn’t want them going off on their own.
Instead of trying to hold a company hostage in order to get what they wanted, they went out and got what they wanted on their own. They changed the rules by making their own rules.
The world is changing in such a way that offers global opportunities for creators. I think we’re moving towards a time where creative types won’t need unions or corporations to find success. And I think that’s in everyone’s best interest.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pmJohn Monaco, if I may jump in here.
You ask:
“What is a corporation but a state-sanctioned and protected union of investors? Why do you support the kind of union of investors and owners that is a corporation but not a union of employees?”
John, let’s call the corporation as a governing body and functioning system, because that’s what it is.
If a system is to function to its highest potential or purpose, then every entity within that system must operate in SUPPORT of the main purpose, and not against it.
So if a corporation is already a union, then it stands to reason that each entity of that union should ideally operate in SUPPORT of the governing rules of said union.
Now, let’s say you have a union of workers operating within a union of a corporation. The union of workers is an entity that runs COUNTER to the objectives of the primary union or corporation.
This WEAKENS the union or primary governing body. It’s not unlike a cluster of cancer cells acting in direct opposition to the sole purpose of the HOST body that they’re living off.
It’s not so difficult to understand.
Unions within unions are counterproductive.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pmOh, I called you John and I meant Jerry. My bad.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pmDina,
One reason that what you say is wrong, is because _by law_ business organizations that are formed into the corporate form are only supposed to look out for the interests of the investors, i.e. the stockholders. Employees, the surrounding community, and the environment as whole may want to be considered stakeholders in the corporations but they are not.
Put it this way. Basically in the by-laws of every corporation it says that only the interests of the stockholders are to be considered. Workers are not part of a corporation they are merely a means to help the stock holders. An executives job is to externalize costs and internalize profits. If one of your costs is worker’s health or safety for example and if the corporation can get away with externalizing health and safety they will do so. What prevents this kind of exploitation are a number of factors, personal relations, custom, culture, safety laws, the labor market, the bargaining power of the employees, and in many cases, unions.
Having worked in enough factories and construction sites in my life I know that factories and construction sites without unions have been disgustingly unsafe and the ones with unions have been at least a bit safer. I have seen the same phenomena in Brazil, El Salvador and other coumtries I have worked in.
Jerry
No need to apologize for getting my name wrong. John is a stronger name than Jerry anyway.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pmAnd thanks for replying Word Wrangler. This is actually the most civil discussion I have ever seen with people who are pro and anti union and I thank you for that.
I have spent a lot of time considering copyright issues and have read much into the history.
I remember the story you told about Image Comics from the time. I am not a comic book fan but my girlfriend is and I have known a few people in the biz. The image comics example is much like the original idea of United Arts in Hollywood (Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks and Griffin). If I remember correctly some of the people at Image were inspired by this history, but perhaps you will know more about this than I do. The idea at UA was that all creative workers would get a piece of the movie.
But in most cases I don’t see how union solidarity and cooperative business models are contradictory. I am all in favor of the kinds of cooperative business models you are talking about. I think they are a good idea. But I also know that there are few comic book writers, (Brian Vaughan, for example) who believe that comic book creators could well do with some collective labor action as well.
I once worked for a small magazine and I know that the hardest part is not getting good articles but distribution. This was the problem that UA always had. It is true that the means of distribution is changing, but as it changes bigger companies still try to maintain control. That is the world we live in.
In the end I have had had too much family experience in a once industrial town (now gone to rust) to not believe that the only reason people were tenuously middle class was because they fought in unions for wage increases, health care and pensions.
Thanks again for your reply.
Jerry
January 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pmSounds like you and I both have similar growing up experiences. I grew up in Wheeling, WV. I’ve been surrounded by coal mines and steel mills all my life.
Unions were once sorely needed, that’s true. But as much as some companies abuse their workers, unions sometimes abuse their companies.
I have first hand experience with the ugly side of unions. Their intimidation tactics, their rhetoric and their un-appreciation for how good they have it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I’m tired of people striking because the company is raising their health insurance rates, or whatever. My health insurance rates went up. My dad’s health insurance rates went up. Deal with it. You can’t always get what you want - especially by walking off the job. A job that pays much more than what a non-college grad is worth in the marketplace.
Now I’m not saying that all union workers are stupid or not educated - certainly many mill workers went in straight out of high school, but try working at Taco Bell for $60 an hour and full benefits.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm“And thanks for replying Word Wrangler. This is actually the most civil discussion I have ever seen with people who are pro and anti union and I thank you for that”.
No sweat Jerry. I’m all for a spirited, civil debate. You make some good points that made me think - I like that.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pm[…] Sieber over at Word Wrangler has written a rebuttle of sorts to my support of the WGA Strike. His points appear to be that corporations make the rules, […]
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:50 amI think you mak some good points wrangler, especially in your last reply, but I still don’t see how your reasoning justifies a blanket condemnation of unions and strikes. After all, you acknowledge that unions were instrumental in improving seriously inhumane work conditions. I agree that strikes are sometimes called for silly reasons, but I will not use the fact that unions CAM be corrupt to dismiss all unions anymore than I will use Enron or other egregious examples of corporate corruption to say all corporations are corrupt. The fact is, all organizations are corruptible, including corporations, unions, PTA’s and pretty much any other time human beings gather in groups.
That being said, I will say that I support the WGA strike, not because I think it’s obvious that the Corps know that the internet is a potential cash cow with low cost and high profit, and they want to shut the writers out of that profit (I don’t think they are being malicious, I think they are afraid the decline they are seeing in the music business will be seen in the TV and Movie business, and they are hedging).
Writers are not exactly unskilled labor. They have specific skills and the strike is simply a reminder that they are essential to the business.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pmThanks Mjolniir for the comment. Online distribution of content is still up in the air right now. I don’t know the numbers, but I wonder how many people are watching new TV shows online and how much money there is to be made via online distribution of that kind of content.
Many old, as well as some newer, shows can be viewed for free.
I see more of a problem in the future for DVD sales as more people download movies or simply pay-per-play on their computer.
I also wonder what kind of profit margins these corporations might be looking at for online distribution. Remember that people are used to getting stuff online for free. And I don’t care what kind of DRM you have, people are still going to be trading content amongst themselves at a greater rate than before digital technology entered the party.
The point is, I’m not convinced yet that the Internet is going to be a great source of revenue for these companies.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmTV writers who don’t like how they’re being treated should… go start their own television networks?
I don’t think you’ve thought this opinion all the way through.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:58 amActually, I DID think my opinion all the way through. And yes, TV writers who don’t like how they’re being treated should all go start their own networks. Yes, I think that’s exactly what I said up there. Great comment BJ, thanks for stopping by.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:13 am