FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


I'm on strike





rightclickscott
Me and my fellow scribes aren't writing until we get payed. And just because I never got payed for my writing anymore, it doesn't mean that no one can start paying me. Start emptying out those pockets.
chemical-music
Hahaha good for you because i am ok with how am i
Aless
What is the point of this post?
AftershockVibe
I think it's a reference to (one of?) the writer's guild(s) which is on strike in the US at the moment. i.e. The people that write the screenplays for companies like Paramount. Unsurprisingly, they want more money although I have no idea whether this is justified since I haven't really looked into the story.

The joke is that rightclickscott is "on strike" too, despite the fact that he's an unpaid non-professional Wink

Sorry if this has sucked some of the fun out of this thread but it's going to stop a lot of people hearing the comment go *WOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHH* over their heads Wink
vineeth
Ok, don't write anymore but you could share your thoughts with us, right? We have no means of voice communication here at frihost! So, start typing again... No other way, talk at least about the strike Smile
rightclickscott
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071102-writers-guild-to-strike-over-internet-residuals.html

I never said I'd stop typing, I'm just not going to write. That's right, my pen isn't hitting another piece of paper, nor will any of my original ideas be expressed through any story telling medium until I get my fair amount of residuals from dvd sales. I do have a DVD of a movie I've written out right now. It's called Tell-Tale Heart, a short film with 30 minutes of extra features and behind the scenes photos. There are only two copies, one I own, and one owned by a raving movie fanatic. So far, I have not seen a single dime of DVD sales! Especially because I gave it to him free of charge. Still, my previous short stories will still be featured on my blog, and once the strike is over, I may or may not post more of them. Pay me, and I'll write to your hearts content!
dimg
i'd love to be working for a union that is striking, what could be better than sitting outside holding a sign and getting paied for it. Its sort of like a vacation, unless of cource your just barely scraping by, if thats the case striking would be a downer
scotty
dimg wrote:
i'd love to be working for a union that is striking, what could be better than sitting outside holding a sign and getting paied for it. Its sort of like a vacation, unless of cource your just barely scraping by, if thats the case striking would be a downer

In Australia some brilliant dude made a law to allow employers to dock workers' wages if they strike and fair enough. Unions aren't good for business.
Chris24
dimg wrote:
i'd love to be working for a union that is striking, what could be better than sitting outside holding a sign and getting paied for it. Its sort of like a vacation, unless of cource your just barely scraping by, if thats the case striking would be a downer


The money most make while on strike is a serious pay cut from what they are used to making. I have gone on strike 2 times in my life and trust me when I tell you it is not fun. Especially if you are out in the cold weather and you have to picket outside for 4 hours in order to receive you strike pay.

Not to mention all the garbage you will have to go through when you get back to work from the bosses and other management people. But, sometimes it IS a necessity in order to protect and preserve the future of the union workers to get a fair and decent salary and benefits.

I could go on forever about this topic but most of the people here wouldn't want to hear it so I will end it off there
otiscom
rightclickscott, if your on strike you're not supposed to write!
rightclickscott
otiscom wrote:
rightclickscott, if your on strike you're not supposed to write!


If I was going to write anything worth reading, I wouldn't share it until this strike is over.
standready
rightclickscott wrote:
Me and my fellow scribes aren't writing until we get payed. And just because I never got payed for my writing anymore, it doesn't mean that no one can start paying me. Start emptying out those pockets.

No one should pay you anything until you learn how to spell! Then maybe, you might get paid.
Indyan
Although the strike really sucks. I am backing the writers They are the most important people behind the show but get paid very little.
eggg
scotty wrote:

In Australia some brilliant dude made a law to allow employers to dock workers' wages if they strike and fair enough. Unions aren't good for business.


Which is exactly the point. A lot of things that are good for business are bad for workers. And business is not an end unto itself. People are.
Chris24
scotty wrote:

In Australia some brilliant dude made a law to allow employers to dock workers' wages if they strike and fair enough. Unions aren't good for business.


Nice comment you must be one of the bosses where you work. If not how in the world can you say unions are bad. The members are trained correctly, their safety is taken into account as well as the safety of the client or employer, they fight for your basic rights as an employee, they fight for you to be treated with respect, they fight for your right to have medical and financial benefits. If you look around nowadays everything is run by corporations, but who is trying to keep these money hungry people at bay? the unions....Look at the way people who aren't represented by unions are paid and treated I would say 85% of these people are unhappy with it. Hey how about a 2% raise, per year when the rate of inflation outpaces the rate or your increase. Think you can get by without working 2 or 3 jobs with a family? good luck....How about those $50 co-payments on your medical visits? My union gets us to pay only $5, big difference....

Rather than continue on with this I will end it here, there are too many advantages to being in a union as opposed to NOT being in one.....
ankitdatashn
What are all you people talking about, I am not getting the essence of this thread, are you people saying that we should get paid on frihost for posting??
unknownc1c
haha nice, have fun with that Razz I don't fit in here at all that's the reason i'm posting haha. It's just soooo away from me that i had to post, that and i already posted my thoughts about a lot of the current topics i found interesting. I haven't posted in ages so i had to post something some where ^_^
scotty
Chris24 wrote:
scotty wrote:

In Australia some brilliant dude made a law to allow employers to dock workers' wages if they strike and fair enough. Unions aren't good for business.


Nice comment you must be one of the bosses where you work. If not how in the world can you say unions are bad. The members are trained correctly, their safety is taken into account as well as the safety of the client or employer, they fight for your basic rights as an employee, they fight for you to be treated with respect, they fight for your right to have medical and financial benefits. If you look around nowadays everything is run by corporations, but who is trying to keep these money hungry people at bay? the unions....Look at the way people who aren't represented by unions are paid and treated I would say 85% of these people are unhappy with it. Hey how about a 2% raise, per year when the rate of inflation outpaces the rate or your increase. Think you can get by without working 2 or 3 jobs with a family? good luck....How about those $50 co-payments on your medical visits? My union gets us to pay only $5, big difference....

Rather than continue on with this I will end it here, there are too many advantages to being in a union as opposed to NOT being in one.....


I didn't say they weren't good for workers, in fact I'd go the other way and say they are great for the workers in the short run. But, strikes are bad for everybody, if unions could negotiate rather than terrorize it would be far better. If you look back in history, unions have had some if not all the involvement in causing the big recessions of our time. Unions will press for higher and higher wages when the economy can't support it and the "money hungry" people are out of work just like the hundreds of workers.

Thus, power should never be in the hands of unions because as we can see from the past, unions don't know when to stop. The biggest pull unions have is when they stop work, the laws in Australia have removed the incentive for workers to become part of a mob mentality because when they are not working, they won't get paid.

So I still stand by what I said, unions are bad for business. I do agree that unions are good for the workers and in some industries vitally important to represent the workers. In fact some employers insist that every employee be part of the union so benefits are negotiated on behalf of everyone so everybody is treated equal. However, when it comes to determining pay, unions have a track record of ruining our economy. The reason for this is that unions have had too much power in the past and striking was seen as an easy option. In the long run, workers are better off without the union when it comes to money. Employ other methods of protest before you jump on the band wagon and strike.

P.S. - I have no idea what is happening with regard to writer's guild and this is a pretty general opinion.
Chris24
I understand what you are talking about using a strike to get what is not given. But, let me ask you this....IF the unions did not strike and they tried to negotiate with the companies, if there were no threats of a strike how much do you think the employer would increase salary or other provisions?

I work for a very large and well known company that is union. When I see profit sharing given to management, very large increases in salary, medical benefits paid, and other perks of the job I get a little shall we say frazzled by this. This coming contract the company is trying to take away all that we have fought for in the past and a salary increase over the length of the contract that does not keep up with the rate of inflation. Not to mention other things that are major. If we were not union the company could just do these things. The union keeps the large company at bay by protecting the workers rights to fair pay and benefits. Not to mention the workers are pretty much the heart of the company...

Let me also mention that neither side wants a strike, we went into negotiations over a year early to avoid such an event...
eday2010
Unions aren't good for anyone or anything except the union heads. They are the ones raking in money in union dues. If people are unhappy with their job in one aspect or another, they should look for a new one. Unions are about control; not about protecting workers and their rights. If they were, then employees taking a job at a company that is unionized would have the right to not be part of the union. They should have that right but they don't. Why? Because then the union can't control them.
scotty
I agree with nothing but your last statement - negotiate early to avoid confrontation. But, striking is a stand over tactic, and it works both ways. What if productivity is down, so "management" decided they won't pay payroll one week to cover costs? A bit far fetched perhaps, but is a same tactic unions use. What if there is a worker that is completely useless and the company fires him? The "little guy" is perceived as a victim and the company bad mouthed when in reality, the guy was a hack.

Being able to dock workers' pay for time spent on strike is a step towards equal balance. But the traditional idea and mentality of unions still precedes what they perform today. They don't typically take into account the current circumstances and based on history, have been more trouble than they're worth.

However, your story of profit sharing and corporate inequality highlights what I would suggest is a shade more greed of upper management than a "normal" situation. In this case I'm sure you will be thankful for unionisation at your workplace but I don't think it relates to the argument here.

Every person is different, and thus individual contracts is by a long shot the best way to operate. It is a free market and if you don't like your employer, find another one. The way unions operate is outdated and traditionally a necessity, I'd say these days there are enough government safeguards to ensure you are getting fair pay and good working conditions.
Chris24
scotty wrote:

Being able to dock workers' pay for time spent on strike is a step towards equal balance.


Do you mean that when they return from strike their salary should be docked?

Maybe it is different at my place of work with our union compared to others. But, I couldn't see not having one. Just the issues alone on job safety that are enforced are worth it imho

Let me throw something by you eday2010...If you drove trucks for a living, and your boss told you to take a certain truck and make the delivery. Now, while doing your pre-trip you notice some safety violations. Manager tells you to make the delivery or find employment elsewhere. What would you do? Honestly......In my place of work we do not go out with deliveries if there is just one infraction, no matter how small. The Union makes sure there are no jobs threatened and the car is either fixed or red tagged. And the load is put on a truck that is safe...

There are pros and cons but in my own opion I take the unions side, as well respect other people's feelings toward unions.
Davidgr1200
To quote Scotty:


I didn't say they weren't good for workers, in fact I'd go the other way and say they are great for the workers in the short run. But, strikes are bad for everybody, if businesses could negotiate rather than terrorize unions it would be far better. If you look back in history, businesses have had some if not all the involvement in causing the big recessions of our time. Businesses will press for lower and lower wages or longer working hours for the same wages, whilst themselves making big profits.
Thus, power should never be in the hands of businesses because as we can see from the past, businesses don't know when to stop. The only pull unions have is when they stop work. Businesses have all the rest of the power.
scotty
Chris24 wrote:
scotty wrote:
Being able to dock workers' pay for time spent on strike is a step towards equal balance.

Do you mean that when they return from strike their salary should be docked?

Yes. They were not working so why should they be paid?

When it comes to wages/pay, unions need to get lost, they don't know what is good for them and what isn't. However, I agree with you Chris on one point, safety and conditions are different to money and it seems unions have a fair grasp on what is reasonable and what isn't. As I said, some employers require union membership specifically to ensure safety and condition requirements are met.

Davidgr1200, union members only have a job because of "businesses". Investors who have not spent money on a plasma t.v., instead forgoing consumption at hope of future return. Why shouldn't they have the power? It is their money that gave them a job to start with.
tony
i dont get this post... do you mean you will no longer type/write on these forums? is that the strike? or what? please explain...
jabapyth
tony wrote:
i dont get this post... do you mean you will no longer type/write on these forums? is that the strike? or what? please explain...

if you read all the posts in this topic, you wouldnt ask.

I think workers unions are a little dated... but to each their own, i guess
divinitywolf
I think its well worth striking about!
Lol it provides an interesting topic to read
dfebb
scotty wrote:
...union members only have a job because of "businesses". Investors who have not spent money on a plasma t.v., instead forgoing consumption at hope of future return. Why shouldn't they have the power? It is their money that gave them a job to start with.
Well, for starters, we're not living in the 1800s, the Industrial Revolution has been and gone.
These days, progressive employers are savvy on the fact that happy workers are more productive. Google is used as a shining example. Providing workers with medical benefits, and a host of other services, can offer cost-benefits to the company, as well as increasing their productivity. You wouldn't need unions in companies like these, because the working conditions are great.

Even when their company posts massive losses, Executives get massive bonuses and golden handshakes. If because of management's incompetence, a company has to lay off workers, that's considered unfortunate. Yet, when people take action against these sorts of conditions, it's considered 'Union bullying'. <shrug>


Are the writers still on strike over there?
scotty
Fair point, conditions are important. However, when was the last strike over an employer not providing a free cafe? There never has been one, strikes are invariably over money. Workers want more money, management wants to make more money and "increase shareholder value", obviously a balance must be met to succeed and I doubt as a result of this thread we are going to make a major breakthrough.

But, when workers strike, it is always the company that gets the bad name. When business isn't good (exporter, unfavorable exchange rate for example), companies lay of workers sometimes to keep the rest of the workers employed. Then the union calls a strike because a few unproductive workers are laid off robbing the company of productivity. Why should the mum and dad shareholders loose out because of it? Why does management have to forfeit bonuses because they are just doing their job? It is union bullying and it should be stopped. The media and the general public shouldn't always assume it's "management's" fault and start analysing how they work and how much the get paid and how the little guy worker with get all angry on camera and make good television.

/rant for now.

There are obviously exceptions, I just think the stigma that strikes are required to get action is ridiculous, dated and way out of line. In the end there are thousands of unemployed who will do the same job for less money.
Billy Hill
Aless wrote:
What is the point of this post?


What is the point of this reply?
indianinworld
What is this all about ?? Why Strike ?????

anyways all the best for ur strike Laughing
jackiz
wtf dude Question Exclamation
dfebb
scotty wrote:
Fair point, conditions are important. However, when was the last strike over an employer not providing a free cafe? There never has been one, strikes are invariably over money. Workers want more money, management wants to make more money and "increase shareholder value", obviously a balance must be met to succeed and I doubt as a result of this thread we are going to make a major breakthrough.
Perhaps we won't make a major breakthrough, but we can try. There's never been a strike over lack of coffee in the workplace to my knowledge, judging by the some of the coffee served up in places I've worked, perhaps there should have been! Razz
If success = "increase shareholder value", as is the case in the business world, then people are dispensable. If you can get someone to do someone else job for half the wage, then that's 'good business'. Of course, you're totally neglecting the fact that someone has gone to a lot of trouble to attain that post, and some people take their work very seriously, and it's a complete lack of respect to just ditch someone, purely because the work they do is doable by someone else for half the price.
This also devaluates the work that is being done. Just like in IT, where there has been a massive shift in the last 10-15 years to people into the IT sector, where your average coder used to start on $45k(AUD), but no commands a starting salary of $38k(AUD).

scotty wrote:
But, when workers strike, it is always the company that gets the bad name. When business isn't good (exporter, unfavorable exchange rate for example), companies lay of workers sometimes to keep the rest of the workers employed. Then the union calls a strike because a few unproductive workers are laid off robbing the company of productivity.
That's the excuse given in response to Unionism.
Unionism robs ventures of productivity, and Union bosses are fat lazy thugs.
By and large, I wouldn't totally disagree with that. Union bosses are only there because a Union exists, and without people striking or resorting to industrial action, they wouldn't have a job.
One line of argument however, is if you worked hard, in good conditions and enjoyed your job, you wouldn't feel the need to strike, would you?

scotty wrote:
Why should the mum and dad shareholders loose out because of it? Why does management have to forfeit bonuses because they are just doing their job? It is union bullying and it should be stopped. The media and the general public shouldn't always assume it's "management's" fault and start analysing how they work and how much the get paid and how the little guy worker with get all angry on camera and make good television.
I don't believe that management have to forfeit bonuses. If the company is performing well, is it managers that shoulder the credit? I'd say the company as a whole should be rewarded, from management to line-worker. However, this doesn't happen. You get CEOs who have their contracts terminated when a company performs poorly, to the tune of millions of dollars in payouts! A lot of board members are on boards of several companies as well, and when that company posts record loses, workers get laid off, but they get paid out, and move onto the next management position.

I agree with you when you say there needs to be a balance. In a lot of places around the world, there isn't balance. Without industrial action, what else is stopping a company from hiring kids to do the work of adults for a fraction of the price, and maximising their profits that way?

scotty wrote:
There are obviously exceptions, I just think the stigma that strikes are required to get action is ridiculous, dated and way out of line. In the end there are thousands of unemployed who will do the same job for less money.
Exactly. Which is great for business, but what about these faceless thousands that are doing jobs for half the price they should be?
I just think that sometimes profits and shareholder dividends tend to make people forget about simple things treating people as people and not as numbers.

I agree that in some places there's an overabundance of Unionist power, and it results in people striking so often that it loses it's meaning. You're right in saying there needs to be balace.
gamerhost
What the ...?
ForceRun
I never really understood the Hollywood hype. The actors are idalized, and the people who do all the work never get much back. I usally don't even think of who the director is, or the writes of a film just the main actor. I guess that is the Hollywood programing at work. I don't you can expect to get a fair deal in a system like that though. Just to much media, corruption, money, and passing attention. There is no morals or ethics, just push what sells, so why in a system like that do you think they will give you a fair deal, just doesn't make much sence at all. I decided a while a go, it sucks to be poor but I get a honest wage for honest work.
scotty
@ dfebb, I have to say that is the least spammy early post of a new member I've seen yet, well done and welcome! I think we have definitely established balance is the key in this situation. I feel that we should be looking towards government for this. Good thread though. I wonder what has actually been happening witht he writers' guild strike?
Related topics
Counter strike
Favourite game? (OFFICIAL THREAD)
Counter Strike website!
My Counter-Strike: Source Clan
Counter Strike Condition Zero
The "Best Game" Counter-Strike
Counter Strike
100 Fps en Counter Strike
Nyxem virus set to strike tonight
Counter-Strike Source Servers
Counter-Strike
Teachers on Strike
COUNTER STRIKE-CSS
Counter Strike Favourite Weapon.
Cs Counter strike
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.