A solid round up of some of the broader industry issues as the WGA contract moves towards potential endorsement by WGA East and West leadership Tuesday in preparation for a vote by the members.
A solid round up of some of the broader industry issues as the WGA contract moves towards potential endorsement by WGA East and West leadership Tuesday in preparation for a vote by the members.
“analysis”
This is the typical anti-union shlock that wants you to think of yourself as a consumer rather than a fellow worker. They even assert the tired cliche, “the strike might make your [X] more expensive!”, entirely without evidence, which is literally management’s line. They then proceed to quote several executives/business ghouls and their opinions without critically examining them. Not a single union voice was cited.
Every victory for worker solidarity benefits everyone else - everyone except the execs, of course.
I think this is a misread. Management is getting the blame in this article for making everyone worse off including themselves.
The unions aren’t being blamed at all in this for the strike. If anything their commitment is credited with bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
The article links back to earlier reports from May that AMPTP had a deliberate union-breaking strategy, and planned to refuse to negotiate or to come to the table before late October.
It’s not anti union to point out how management bad faith behaviour and refusal to negotiate is negative for an industry and the broader economy that surrounds it.
Strikes are a blunt and costly tool, but an essential tool. When they last for months as this one has, and one party has been refusing to negotiate on many terms for even months before the strike, everyone in the industry suffers. One of the key points in this article is that AMPTP has managed to lose the PR war of this strike, as they very much deserved.
CNN has been consistently reporting on how the AMPTP has been refusing to bargain, and it’s in this context that it’s weighing the costs of the strike. In comparison to the Hollywood-based media that are owned by the content conglomerates (e.g., Deadline) this is much more neutral reporting.
Anti-union shlock includes chiding management for not succeeding at various goals. An anti-union lawyer could’ve written this article, for how it reads.
I pointed out that the framing is inherently anti-union, emphasizing readers’ status as consumers rather than fellow workers. When strikes are framed entirely by their costs to you, it already sets up the union and workers to implicitly take blame. The last section is literally titled, “the consumer”. The last sentence is, “The real bottom line: We’re all almost certainly going to be asked to pay more for what we watch, wherever and however we watch it.”
Where is the heading, “the fellow worker”?
This is in every union buster’s handbook. It happens all the time. There are actual several framings of this vein throughout the article. Another is claiming that there will be less money to go around after the strike/TA, literally in one of those lopsided quotes from management and then uncritically repeated by the author two paragraphs later.
I’m not seeing anything in the article about bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
Links back to a previous article of someone from management anonymously saying they wanted to bleed the unions with a longer strike, yes. The only commentary made by the author is the claim that it didn’t work (obvious, since there’s a TA), that it ended up being bad PR. Also a good example of the light chiding a union-busting lawyer might give, lol. Though to be clear, it may not have backfired at all. Attempting to threaten and/or scare striking workers, to decrease their morale, is always in the playbook, and I’ve never seen management lose an opportunity to lie in order to achieve this. The union will usually use it as an example of how shit management is and try to rally against it even when it succeeded in scaring and demotivating a large chunk of the workers. I’ve seen it happen many times.
I don’t think the author is knowledgeable enough nor intentionally acting like a lawyer for studio execs, I think he’s just repeating framings handed down to him by those execs - framings that went through their lawyers. What he is guilty of is using, almost exclusively, their framings.
The article doesn’t say that.
Incorrect. Execs never suffer, they just see slightly less good numbers in a war chest. Striking workers face hardship, yes, but then when they win, which requires sticking out long strikes, they receive all the benefits. It’s only the “consumer” that “suffers” the aftermath. See how the framing has gotten to you!? The tropes come for all of us, which is why we have to practice recognizing and opposing them.
Yes, which reads like a friendly chiding of an ally’s loss. Really, I think the author is just lazy and either doesn’t know how to analyze the issue or avoided doing it, instead relying on lines from management.
CNN is corporate garbage that must be consumed with a very critical lens.