The AMPTP appears to be displaying increasing desperation as the WGA’s presenting itself as a reasonable bargaining partner is showing dividends. Having brokered the deal with Worldwide Pants that brought Late Night back with writers, WGA has now cut a deal with UA and is reportedly on the brink of a similar achievement with the Weinsteins. The AMPTP’s response on their website:
One-off deals do nothing to bring the WGA closer to a permanent solution for working writers. These interim agreements are sideshows and mean only that some writers will be employed at the same time other writers will be picketing. In the end, until the people in charge at WGA decide to focus on the main event rather than these sideshows, the economic harm being caused by the strike will continue.
Curiously the AMPTP ignores that the deals don’t “mean only that some writers will be employed;” the deals also put hundreds of non-writing employees back to work. Crew people and such who were out of work because the writers had gone on strike. Yet amazingly the AMPTP doesn’t hesitate to invoke the hardship those bystanders face whenever they’re trying to slag the striking writers.
Behind the scenes they must be ballistic about the producers who are voting with their feet and their wallets by bargaining individually because it underscores what the WGA has been saying all along: The demands are not unreasonable. The AMPTP is unreasonable.
PAD
• 
Oh wow.
Though I did mean to rant, I did not mean to double post. If you wish to remove it, please do!
(Kath the Wife here. Done and a note to the rest of the group, let some time go by before hitting the button again. We are still dealing with some board issues so we are running a bit slow)
Osbo: I don’t want to have anything to do with your sexual frustration, so I’ll just leave that one alone.
(OSBO, January 10) “The argument at hand is between the AMPTP and the WGA. It’s negatively affecting others’ livelihood, yes, but it’s the fault of the parties who aren’t reaching an end to negotiations.”
This is the post to which I responded. I agree with you that the AMPTP is largely at fault for the continued strike, but that’s not what you were talking about. You claimed that the worker’s plight was “the fault of the parties who aren’t reaching an end to negotiations.” There are two parties to the negotiations – the AMPTP and the WGA. Neither of them has reached an end to negotiations, as you know. They are “the parties who aren’t reaching an end to negotiations.” Contrary to my own thinking, your argument lays the same responsibility on both of them. You are mistaken in claiming I have said the WGA has sole responsibility for the situation. You are mistaken in thinking your own argument does not (wrongly) assign it equal responsibility.
Jeffrey, what do you want the WGA to do that they aren’t doing?
There are careers devoted to providing work for others — and writing isn’t one of them. This means your citing the people being put out work by the strike isn’t relevant to holding out against AMPTP coercion.
What are you demonstrating a fidelity to other than protectionism, coercion, and domination? How is that not the very soul of sniveling?
Mike, as I thought I had made clear, I don’t want the WGA to do anything it isn’t doing. I was taking issue with two things – 1. PAD’s dismissal of the crew members’ plight as a valid issue. In this, he has been very clear that he was speaking only for himself, so this has nothing to do with the WGA; and 2. OSBO’s statement that the problems of the crew members come from the failure of the two sides to reach an agreement. To be accurate, OSBO’s statement is correct. The crew members would not be out of work if the strike ended, and the strike would end if the two sides came to an agreement. His formulation didn’t leave any room for the issue of which side is in the right. Most or all here are confident the WGA is that side. It seems very clear that OSBO spoke for himself rather than representing the WGA, so again this has nothing to do with the union’s conduct. As for your statements, Mike, it is true that the WGA has no obligation to provide work for the crew members. It is also true that if the crew members believed the WGA was indifferent to their situation the ill will would be a serious problem (strikes, boycotts, work slow-downs, ill will, etc.). It seems, from official WGA statements, that the union is entirely aware of this and making serious efforts to remain friendly with those affected by the strike. The WGA is doing the right thing, no thanks to the poor advice offered here by PAD and you. (I imagine neither you nor PAD finds that linkage flattering – Maybe at least one of you is dead wrong.)
Jeffrey, review the bolded text. You’ve admitted that there’s nothing to be done by the people you’re complaining about. Not only do we not know what you’re doing here, you don’t know what you’re doing here.
Mike, review my post, and see about whom I was complaining (Here’s a hint: PAD, OSBO, Mike). Then review again and see about whom I was not complaining (WGA).
1. The WGA has no statutory obligation to preserve crew jobs.
2. If it doesn’t at least mouth the words of caring about crew jobs, it will alienate people it is best not to alienate.
3. As far as I can tell, the WGA is saying and trying to do the right things.
4. Some people here, who acknowledge they do not speak for the WGA, think it is irrelevant, at least for the purpose of discussion, to consider the effect the current strike has on non-WGA members. (Perhaps they feel all rosy about such peons in the privacy of their own hearts, but think it gauche to let on.)
5. It’s a good thing the the WGA negotiators have better judgment than to ignore the feelings of crew members who are integral to the WGA members’ continued employment.
Jeffrey, I took you at your word you have no grievance against the WGA, and my last post did not depend on you having any such grievance to be true. As such, you haven’t in any way contradicted it.
(Mike) “You’ve admitted that there’s nothing to be done by the people you’re complaining about” indicates that you believed I was complaining about the WGA, when in fact I was complaining about PAD, Osbo and you. There’s much to be done about PAD, Osbo and you.
Oops. Substitute “GE” for “Viacom” and it’s the same point. Letterman (and Ferguson) are still owned by Letterman, not by CBS/Viacom. Leno is owned by NBC/Universal. (As is Battlestar, so I should remember this stuff.)
Thanks for swinging by to clarify matters, Mark. Also, Mark Evanier was making some of the same points about how residuals serve some unions by benefiting their respective health plans. Folks may want to check out Evanier’s blog as an excellent ongoing commentary on the strike. Basically, I guess any comics-related writer named “Mark” is a good source of info.
The sad thing is that had I posted word for word what Mark V said, Jeff would have been jumping all over it.
PAD
Mike’s defending me in posts that actually make sense.
I’m going back to bed.
PAD
(PAD) “Mike’s defending me in posts that actually make sense.”
I don’t think he defended you at all, so your mental equilibrium is safe. He took my post disagreeing with you and Osbo as a criticism of the WGA. Perhaps he still feels that way, and perhaps not. It’s always difficult to know whether one has convinced him of something. What I was saying (and I don’t doubt you know it, whether you agree with it or not) is that the WGA appears to be making the appropriate gestures toward the crew members affected by the strike, but that your own statements, clearly designated as your own and not made on the WGA’s behalf, were far more dismissive. An additional thing Mike read as criticism of the WGA was Osbo’s claim that the blame for the crewmembers’ situation was with those who failed to reach an agreement. That formulation ignores the matter of which side’s demands are correct. As an analogy, if I demanded that you pay me $70,000 or I would do harm this blog (more than I have, I suppose), and you told me to go to Hëll, the blame for nonresolution of the problem would not fall evenly on us. You would not be a schmuck for not offering me half of what I had demanded – despite neither of us agreeing to what the other wanted. In the case of the WGA strike, it would end if the producers gave the WGA what it has demanded; It would end if the WGA gave up on its demands. Neither side has brought the negotiations to an end, so by Osbo’s reasoning both are at fault. By my own reasoning (and God help you, probably your own), the producers are being obstructionist and the WGA is only demanding what is fair, so that dual responsibility claim seems foolish.
This is what Mike took as an attack on the WGA.
Well, you know PAD, Mark V DID say what he said, and I already said I agreed with it. It may not be apparent to you, but every time I have disagreed with you you have said something I think is wrong or insensitive. If you said something I agreed with, I wouldn’t be at all upset (and it has happened a few times, too).
My response was true for you complaining about “1. PAD” and “2. OSBO.” You have nothing to complain about. Your sniveling is nauseating.
The bolded text refers to statutory obligations. Good judgment is a different matter.
If I were to see Mike about to be eaten by a python I would have no obligation to rescue him, but it could be argued (not by me) that I really should.
Jeff:
Wow. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Mike:
Thanks for stepping in when you did not have to.
-Osbo
Osbo, your point was that the plight of the crew members was the fault of those not coming to an agreement. I haven’t proved that and don’t believe it. Your model ignores the question of which side is making reasonable demands and which is not. It is true that a surrender by either side would end the strike, but most here think one side has justice on its side.
You are invoking a privilege you are denying those you are complaining about. There is no defense against your personal agenda.
It has the quality of a game, so I make no claim of altruism.