or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › WGA (writers') Strike - where shows stand
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WGA (writers') Strike - where shows stand - Page 8

post #211 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I don't think anyone has ever said that the perks and bonuses that executives and CEOs get are somehow benefitting society. However, to say that unions are bargaining for the greater good of its members is a fallacy.

I strongly disagree with that. I know that union leaders are professional negotiators; that's been the case for many years. But to make an all-encompassing accusation that they care only for themselves and not the greater cause of their membership is cynical and unfair. I can far more easily believe that the bloated CEO's referred to above make their decisions based on what will maximize their own personal gain which usually gets convoluted with the greater good of the company. Laying off 10,000 workers may cause the stock to jump in the short term, and result in an avalanche of back-dated stock options (or as I like to refer to them, ill-gotten gains, but that's just me), but may not be in the long-term best interest of the company. It certainly isn't in the best interest of those who find themselves out of a job, yet see the millions showered on the jerk that threw them out to dry.

CEO pay packages are set by Boards of Directors, whose members often serve on a number of other boards. It becomes a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" game they play. And there are other reasons that boards so often give outrageous compensation packages to individuals that simply do not merit them, but this post is long enough, and it's about time that somebody is again going to whine about this thread going off topic.
post #212 of 248
That's the benefit of owning a company. Rank and file are free to start their own company and dictate their own terms - or at a minimum, they can choose to sell their services to a different owner. If stockholders are dumb enough to allow a CEO to receive an ungodly amount of salary, options and perks - that's their perogative.

Simply being hired does not grant an employee ownership rights to the company or any of its products.
post #213 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Your assumption is that all jobs in the economy are equal.

No, that assumption is no part of the point I made. What I said is that there is no "Man" -- no foot on your neck. What meant by that is that there is no justification for the collective bargaining system being abused in the manner it is being abused (IMHO). The whole point of getting a new job is that the job you have is "bad" in some way. If you cannot find a better job, then maybe the job you have is perhaps the best warranted by your skills and experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

When employees lose the ability to bargain collectively, then they will simply be abused individually.

Keep in mind that you're talking about the way I operate with my employer, so I know from first-hand experience that what you're saying is false. Beyond that, turn it around; Employers are not allowed to collude, in the way that members of a union collude. So employers are unfairly abused by this system. As an investor, I find that objectionable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

One of the problems with this "new economy" is that higher paying jobs are being eliminated and lower paying/status jobs are being substituted.

One of the ways higher paying jobs are being eliminated is by shipping them off-shore. That's because people are willing to do the same work, perhaps better, in foreign countries. Our country cannot impose international laws protecting us against competition internationally without engaging in isolationism. So either pick up that 1920s isolationism banner, or face the fact that the point you've made here about the "new economy" is justification for the opposite of what you're trying to advocate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

No, of course it doesn't. But it does help 100% of the rank and file in that particular company or industry that employs collective bargaining.

Which is why it should end: It unfairly benefits a small group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Good grief! To say that a union attempting to bargain collectively for the greater good of it's members is somehow "abuse", while a CEO who collects multi-million dollar bonuses, perk packages, and golden parachutes, while committing all manner of blunders and causing the company's stock to tank is somehow benefiting society is difficult to understand.

It shouldn't be. Condemning unions doesn't include a requirement to extol the virtues of executives. You've crafted a Straw Man argument here.


Is anyone else amused that NetworkTV, CPanther95 and I find ourselves in perfect agreement in this thread?
post #214 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

But to make an all-encompassing accusation that they care only for themselves and not the greater cause of their membership is cynical and unfair.

That's not the case. You've committed two distortions that belie your assertion here. First, you've changed the meaning of the word "they". In the message you were replying to, the statement was that, "However, to say that unions are bargaining for the greater good of its members is a fallacy." You changed that to be, "union leaders". NetworkTV didn't say "union leaders" and wasn't talking about "union leaders" but rather was talking about "unions" very specifically. Second, you've tried to assert that union leaders are acting for the "greater good" because they're working in the best interests of their membership. That isn't the "greater good" --- or if it is, then we can say that the company negotiators are working for the "greater good" since they're working in the best interests of the owners of the company.

You keep trying to defend the unfairness that unions commit by referring to the unfairness you perceive in how executives are compensated, but the two issues aren't related, and even if they were, two wrongs don't make a right. Beyond that, executive compensation is a reflection of a perfectly competitive system, without any conspiracy or collusion. It's ethical, without being made so by act of law, while collective bargaining had to be explicitly legalized by Congress, and, again, that legalization was done for a specific purpose, that was a reflection of the public interest, specifically.
post #215 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Is anyone else amused that NetworkTV, CPanther95 and I find ourselves in perfect agreement in this thread?

I figured you hit your head or something. Be careful, once you're on the side of common sense, it can be habit forming.
post #216 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

That's the benefit of owning a company. Rank and file are free to start their own company and dictate their own terms - or at a minimum, they can choose to sell their services to a different owner. If stockholders are dumb enough to allow a CEO to receive an ungodly amount of salary, options and perks - that's their perogative.

That's a false premise. The stockholders of most companies are sheep. They don't attend the annual shareholders meeting, nor do they carefully go over the annual report, nor do they have any inclination to make waves by being a gadfly. They don't understand any of it, nor do they care. They care whether or not their stock price is going up or down, and that's it. While there may be exceptions, and perhaps you yourself are one, they in no way represent the vast majority of the thousands of shareholders in any given company, especially since the majority of them have an interest in the company only because it's a part of their mutual fund or 401k investment plan. Thus, they have no say in how their Board of Directors functions nor do they care. They just want to see positive returns, which may have been more the result of financial shenanigans than an honest increase in the value of the company, and in no way reflect the skill or lack thereof of the Chief Executive. This is reality. Your attempt to frame the issue in terms of how it would be in a perfect world where the stockholders paid attention and gave a crap is neither realistic or valid. These guys play by their own rules and nobody is going to tell them otherwise.

That's also why bicker's comment that "executive compensation is a reflection of a perfectly competitive system, without any conspiracy or collusion" is bogus. They collude all the time up there in their private boardrooms and on the fairways of America's most manicured golf courses. I know this; some of those guys are related to me.
post #217 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

They care whether or not their stock price is going up or down, and that's it.

That's their prerogative -- it isn't yours to judge whether their prerogative is valid or not.

If you hate our specific free enterprise system so much, you should direct your ire at that in the appropriate venue, not misdirect your upset regarding that by trying to draw a correlation between it and the issue regarding unions abusing their collective bargaining privileges beyond the bounds of what those privileges are intended for. You're just muddying the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

They collude all the time up there in their private boardrooms and on the fairways of America's most manicured golf courses. I know this; some of those guys are related to me.

No. Your implication that they're ganging-up on their employees is pretty silly IMHO. Regardless, this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Absolutely nothing.
post #218 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

That's their prerogative -- it isn't yours to judge whether their prerogative is valid or not.

I know that. The point is that their "prerogative" represents the status quo, and saying that if it were otherwise, then there would be due diligence done on executive compensation, is a false argument. It's not and there isn't any, not from the average shareholder. Read what I said more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

If you hate our specific free enterprise system so much, you should direct your ire at that in the appropriate venue, not misdirect your upset regarding that by trying to draw a correlation between it and the issue regarding unions abusing their collective bargaining privileges beyond the bounds of what those privileges are intended for.

The first part of that paragraph represents why discussions such as these end up going down the road to ruin. It's a common tactic to accuse those who advocate for a more fair and equitable system to be accused of hating free-enterprise, and by extension, hating America and Mom and Apple Pie as well. It's ridiculous. Personally, I happen to love the free enterprise system; it's been very good to me. But I also happen to believe that if one stops fighting for economic justice, then they get what they deserve. All I want is for the playing field to be level. To often, it's not, and it usually tilts to one side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

No. Your implication that they're ganging-up on their employees is pretty silly IMHO.

I never even implied that. What they do is try to maximize their own take while minimizing the rank & file's. Perhaps that's human nature, a law of capitalistic claw and fang that can never be overcome without a profound evolutionary change in the nature of the human animal. And it is why workers need to protect their interests as well. Sometimes that includes collective bargaining and to sum all of this up in the words of a well-known super-capitalist who has a reputation for mistreating her minions, it's a good thing.
post #219 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

The stockholders of most companies are sheep.

Nobody said owners/stockholders are necessarily smart, or even good businessmen. People do all kinds of stupid things and make dumb decisions on the disposition of stuff they buy.

Starbucks bought a small coffee shop just so they could snag the use of the name "frappacino" (or one of their other drink names). Some idiot bought Barry Bonds home run baseball for about $700K (?) just to stamp an asterisk on it and donate it to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

I fully believe in the rights of intellectual property owners - but the key is "owners". If a writer sells that intellectual property to someone else, they should have no right to ask for a higher purchase price if the owner successfully markets it.
post #220 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Some idiot bought Barry Bonds home run baseball for about $700K (?) just to stamp an asterisk on it and donate it to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

That guy may be a blooming idiot with more money than he knows what to do with, but he's a frakkin' hero to me.

Oh sorry, did I go off-topic?
post #221 of 248
Yeah - I didn't say I didn't appreciate it.
post #222 of 248
It seems there are at least two separate arguments going on here:

1) Does the law and collective wisdom of the USA support the right of workers to band together and engage in collective bargaining? I believe the answer to this one is yes, with much historical precedent.

2) Do the writers (or anybody) deserve some percentage of residuals? I won't take a position on that one.

- Tom
post #223 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry View Post

2) Do the writers (or anybody) deserve some percentage of residuals?

Yes, that's the key question. But more accurately, it is "Does every writer deserve a percentage (and the same percentage) of new media residual.

As with all collective bargaining, it has a tendency to take skill and merit out of the equation.
post #224 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

The first part of that paragraph represents why discussions such as these end up going down the road to ruin. It's a common tactic to accuse those who advocate for a more fair and equitable system to be accused of hating free-enterprise, and by extension, hating America and Mom and Apple Pie as well. It's ridiculous.

It is no different than expressing outrage regarding executive compensation as justification for attacking folks who object to the exploitation of the collective bargaining system by unions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I never even implied that.

Then I cannot figure out what you're trying to say.
post #225 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Yes, that's the key question. But more accurately, it is "Does every writer deserve a percentage (and the same percentage) of new media residual.

Even more specifically, do screen writers deserve the right to use the special protections provided by the NLRA in a draconian manner (shutting down an entire industry is draconian) to extract agreements regarding, specifically, new media residuals.
post #226 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Even more specifically, do screen writers deserve the right to use the special protections provided by the NLRA in a draconian manner (shutting down an entire industry is draconian) to extract agreements regarding, specifically, new media residuals.

I'm not sure it matters exactly what they are requesting, only that they are negotiating for compensation. Like any other bargaining if they ask for too much their demands may not be met. And in collective bargaining that can mean a strike. After all, like with any other worker, the refusal to work is their only real power in this negotiation. But if we don't grant workers the power of collective bargaining then it becomes each single individual on one side of the table against huge organizations on the other. History has shown that mis-balance of power can become very one sided and probably not good for society as a whole.

There are some obvious downsides and market inefficiencies to unions and I personally do not choose to belong to one. But I still believe they have been shown to be a necessary counter balance against other evils.

- Tom
post #227 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Is anyone else amused that NetworkTV, CPanther95 and I find ourselves in perfect agreement in this thread?

I completely disagree with this allegation....
post #228 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry View Post

There are some obvious downsides and market inefficiencies to unions and I personally do not choose to belong to one. But I still believe they have been shown to be a necessary counter balance against other evils.

- Tom

One has to wonder, though, if those "other evils" are driven by the often adversarial relationship some unions have with the companies they support. Could it potentially result in a greater drive for both sides to "get theirs"?
post #229 of 248
I'm not going to dive further into the generalities of collective bargaining, I'm going to keep focused on the question at hand. Specifically, this comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Because writers are the real talent. You can train someone fairly quickly to be a technician, but the creative talent represented by a good writer is far more rare and not so easily replaced.

This representation of the crew as technicians must stop. And there are very few Oliver Stones in the world, so for most Hollywood productions, dispense with this idea of the writer as auteur. Particularly in episodic television where there is a room full of guys bouncing ideas off of each other to come up with this week's episode of Cave Men or Carpoolers.

It is the people outside the writing staff who take a line in a script like The race begins and create either Ben Hur, Cannon Ball Run, or the Pod Race from SW:E1. In the time between the first draft of the script and the time the show premieres, major changes to a script will happen that are entirely out of the writer's control. A whisper from the production designer in the director's ear, a what if... from the line producer, or an unexpected pitch from the visual effects supervisor can cause a 10 page rewrite faster than you can imagine. So lets break down who some of the other players are in what is undeniably a collaborative creative effort:

The production designer is usually a skilled fine artist with an in depth knowledge of architecture, color theory, graphic design, perspective, art history, and is responsible for the overall look and aesthetics of their show, from the design of the set to props handled by the actors. Often they got their start designing scenery for live theater. They take an empty room and turn it into Charles Foster Kane's dining room, Hogwarts School, or the surgical wing of Seattle Grace. Even when a show shoots on location, they wield an enormous influence on which locations are chosen.

A good editor understands human psychology as well as any therapist. He distills thousands of minutes of film down to exactly the number of frames he needs to manipulate the emotional response he wants from an audience. By including an unplanned glance from an actor in an otherwise bad take, or asking for an insert of some object in a room, he can create motivations for the characters and relationships that the writer and actor never thought of. Similarly, under his knife, whole scenes and even entire characters may be eliminated from a film.

A half-hour sit-com might be costumed off the rack, but it takes a real fashion designer in his own right with skilled team behind him to give a show like Ugly Betty its look. Imagine then how hard it is to pull off a series like Rome or The Tudors or a movie like Memoirs of a Geisha. Your first and most lasting impression of a character can be based entirely on the costume (think Darth Vader).

A good gaffer's knowledge of lighting instruments and how to use them to set a mood or make an actress look beautiful rivals that of a Broadway lighting designer.

The set dresser is an accomplished interior designer with a knowledge of periods and styles that spans many centuries. The items she chooses to place around a set can tell you more about a character than any words that appeared in the script or came out of an actor's mouth.

A great camera operator is a professional photographer as skilled as you would find in a coffee table book. She has a mastery of how to choreograph and compose a shot, as well as lighting, depth of field, film stocks, how different lenses create different moods, and she does it at 24 frames per second. Although she reports to the Director of Photography, she is ultimately responsible for capturing the image on film. This is why it is not unusual for camera operators to become directors.

The animators, matte painters, and compositors of the visual effects crew who choreographed the spectacular battle sequences of Pear Harbor, brought Davy Jones to life, and created Middle Earth for the big screen, are world class digital artists, and the visual effects supervisor who leads them is the cream of the crop. On the TV side they create the entire context of Battlestar Galactica, use green screen to put Ugly Betty into an entirely CGI version of Queens, stage the super-human fights of Smallville, and created a squad of little green army men who hunted down William Hurt for 60 minutes without a single line of dialog in the show.

All of these people have an enormous effect on your impression of a show, creating imagery and story context never imagined by the writer, and I don't think any of these positions gets a dime in residuals. Yet in television they all work in the exact same unstable working conditions as the writers, with the same lack of job security, the same 12-14 hour days, generally making less than the weekly salary of a staff writer.

So lets not belittle them so much and imply that writers are the only talent in Hollywood. While there are some brilliant talents creating some amazing shows, a single script from Yes, Dear or Charmed should should be enough to prove that the average series writer is no more creative than the other professionals he/she works with.
post #230 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Why, you're right! Without unions, the Mill owners could demand that workers go back to the conditions that prevailed when American manufacturing ruled the world: 16 hour sweatshop workdays slaving for 6 cents an hour! Just like today in China and all over southeast Asia!! Why, who wouldn't want to cave in to that kind of ultimatum so they could keep those wonderful jobs...? Besides, the govenment keeps telling us how many jobs have been created in this "booming" economy. Unfortunately, here in rural North Carolina where textiles and furniture manufacturing were once king, they mostly require you to memorize the phrase "You want fries with that?"

My wife is in the garment import business. I have gone with her three times to visit garmant factories in China. I know what I am talking about in this matter.

The going rate for workers in these factories is $1 an hour. The workers are grateful for the job because if they didn't have it they would have to go back to the farm where they worked for 10 cents an hour. I they had to be paid U.S. minumim wage the work would disappear and they would have to go back to the farm and work for 10 cents an hour. These factories are also introducing free markets to China. My wife talks with the China factory owners almost daily. His big problem is the his most skilled workers are going for better jobs elsewhere.

The U. S. design houses that used to design the clothes and manufacture them now do not do the manufacturing. However due to the lower cost for clothes their design business is growing and they do lots more of the high value added stuff such as clothing design, quality control, and warehousing.

Rick R
post #231 of 248
Posted: Tue., Nov. 20, 2007, 5:46pm PT

Writers show hope for holidays

WGA, AMPTP set table for new talks

By DAVE MCNARY

Will there be a holiday gift for striking writers and studios ... or a lump of coal?
Talk of next week's negotiations predominated Tuesday in Hollywood, where the Writers Guild of America drew about 4,000 supporters at an energetic, milelong Labor Solidarity march and subsequent rally in front of the Chinese Theater.

"We're entering the holiday season -- a season of charity and of Scrooge," noted John Bowman, chair of the guild's negotiating committee. "Please, AMPTP, don't be typecast," he urged. "Let's get this done by Christmas."

While the guild was marshalling support from fellow unions, major moguls took a mildly conciliatory step Tuesday as they sent out pre-Thanksgiving emails to staffers -- notable for keeping its criticism of the WGA on a measured level. CBS Corp. chief exec Leslie Moonves said that while the two sides still have substantial differences, "We continue to believe that with hard work, patience and understanding from both sides, they can be overcome."

Moonves' email message was almost identical to a letter Warner Bros. distributed to staffers, indicating that the CEOs apparently agreed on the basic structure of the letter. Each conglom then customized the ending.

Still, the missives contained plenty of grist for pessimists. Moonves warned that CBS won't make a deal that doesn't make good financial sense -- a refrain that's been sounded repeatedly by AMPTP companies in their complaint that new-media business models are unproven.

"Suffice it to say that while we are committed to hammering out a fair deal with our WGA members, CBS cannot make an agreement that places our company at a disadvantage or makes it impossible for us to meet our commitments to our many constituencies -- other employees, shareholders, advertisers, the producers with whom we work and the public that these days is constantly redefining the way they experience our programming," Moonves said. "The producing organizations and the writers who are so integral to our business are both facing the same challenge. We live in a new-media world, and all of us must wrestle with the 21st century realities of our business. Going forward, we must work together to craft a new contract that is fair and keeps our business strong."

In Gotham on Tuesday, the WGA drew nearly 200 supporters to a rally at Sony Plaza on Madison Avenue -- despite persistent cold and rain. That prompted the chant: "We're wet, we're cold, but we're not gonna fold."

Attendees included Julianna Margulies, Chris Elliott, Gilbert Gottfried, Robert Klein, Paul Haggis and Seth Meyers, along with members of the writing staffs of "Late Show With David Letterman," "Late Night With Conan O'Brien," "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report."

On Hollywood Boulevard, Bowman stressed that the WGA's new-media proposals would have cost the companies less over the three years than the $82 million severance package for one unnamed mogul (presumably former Viacom CEO Tom Freston). And he noted that companies have an "enormous" strategic advantage in exploiting the Internet -- "us."

Bowman cited the numerous strike-related videos crafted for free by WGA members.

"Think what you could do if we got paid and you could hire attractive SAG members," he added. "We are your partners and we will conquer the Internet - just like we did talkies."

With both sides agreeing last week to a news blackout as part of the resumption of talks, Bowman and WGA West prexy Patric Verrone were notably more limited in their criticism of the AMPTP than in other recent public appearance.

Both opted for broad strokes rather than specifics of what's on the table. At one point, Verrone declared, "What we're fighting for is our future - and that of the entire industry."

Verrone launched the afternoon march at the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar Avenue with a historical reference.

"Seventy-five years ago, 10 writers met at the Knickerbocker Hotel near here to form a union with teeth," he said. "We are here today to show our teeth. What that means is that we're here to walk down Hollywood Boulevard and smile."

Verrone then introduced singer Alicia Keys, who performed two songs to loud cheers from the back of a parked truck. He then started the march to the Chinese.

Verrone launched the rally 45 minutes later by thanking other unions and politicians for their support. He singled out Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for walking the picket line last week.Other speakers included writer Akiva Goldsman and thesp Sandra Oh, who suggested that writers boycott the congloms via such tactics as stayiong away from Disneyland. "You need to speak the language that they understand," she added.

Teamster Local 399 secretary-treasurer topper Leo Reed, who had urged individual drivers not to cross picket lines, elicited loud cheers and praised the WGA West for its assertiveness.

"The only thing the companies care about is getting kicked in the ass," he added. "You're acting like a militant union and I'm saying that's good."

The rallies will stand as the WGA's last strike-related demonstrations until the guild's talks with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers resume on Monday.

Read the full article at:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117976360.html
post #232 of 248
Quote:


Current (Nov 26) Estimated Status of Broadcast Primetime Shows

All of this information is subject to change.


Network Show Strike Effect
ABC 20/20-FRI No effect
ABC According to Jim* Unknown
ABC AMER FUNN HOME VIDEOS No effect
ABC BACHELOR, THE No effect
ABC BIG SHOTS Reruns after 6 more episodes
ABC BOSTON LEGAL Reruns after 8 more episodes
ABC BROTHERS & SISTERS Reruns after 4-5 more episodes
ABC CARPOOLERS Reruns after 7 more episodes
ABC Cashmere Mafia Unknown
ABC CAVEMEN Reruns after 7 new episodes
ABC DANCING W/STARS RESULT-TU No effect
ABC DANCING W/THE STARS-MON No effect
ABC DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES One episode saved for Jan
ABC DIRTY SEXY MONEY Reruns after 3 more episodes
ABC Eli Stone Unknown, 13 episodes expected
ABC EXTREME MAKEOVER:HM ED-7P No effect
ABC EXTREME MAKEOVER:HOME ED. No effect
ABC GREYS ANATOMY Repeat on 11/29, New on 12/13, One new in Jan
ABC Lost * Unknown, likely 8 episodes
ABC MEN IN TREES Reruns after 12 more episodes
ABC Miss/Guided Unknown
ABC Notes from the Underbelly Unknown
ABC October Road Unknown
ABC Oprahs Big Give No effect?
ABC PRIVATE PRACTICE Reruns after 2-3 more episodes
ABC PUSHING DAISIES Reruns after 2 more episodes
ABC SAMANTHA WHO? Reruns after 6 more episodes
ABC SAT NIGHT FOOTBALL Finished before 2008
ABC SAT NIGHT FTBL PRE-GAME Finished before 2008
ABC UGLY BETTY Reruns after 4 more episodes
ABC WOMENS MURDER CLUB Reruns after 3 more episodes
CBS 48 HOURS MYSTERY No effect?
CBS 60 MINUTES Reruns
CBS Amazing Race No effect, Finale in January
CBS BIG BANG THEORY, THE No more new episodes left
CBS Big Brother Unknown, potential Jan launch
CBS CANE Reruns after 6 more episodes
CBS CBS NFL NATL POST GAME Finished before 2008
CBS COLD CASE Reruns after 4 more episodes
CBS CRIMETIME SATURDAY No effect?
CBS CRIMETIME SATURDAY 8PM No effect?
CBS CRIMINAL MINDS Reruns after 2 more episodes
CBS CSI New on 12/6, 2 new in Jan
CBS CSI: MIAMI Reruns after 4 more episodes
CBS CSI: NY Reruns after 5 more episodes
CBS Do You Trust Me No effect
CBS GHOST WHISPERER Reruns
CBS HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER Reruns after 2 more episodes
CBS Jericho* No effect on 7 episode mini-season
CBS KID NATION No effect, finale on 12/12
CBS Million Dollar Password No effect
CBS MOONLIGHT Reruns after 4 more episodes
CBS NCIS Reruns after 4 more episodes
CBS NUMB3RS Reruns after 3 more episodes
CBS Power of 10 No effect
CBS RULES OF ENGAGEMENT Reruns after 0-1 more episodes
CBS SHARK Reruns after 2 more episodes
CBS SURVIVOR: CHINA Finished before 2008, finale airs 12/16
CBS The Captain No effect
CBS The New Adventures of Old Christine* Unknown, 8 episodes available for midseason
CBS THE UNIT Reruns after 2 more episodes
CBS TWO AND A HALF MEN Reruns after 2 more episodes
CBS WITHOUT A TRACE Reruns after 3 more episodes
CW ALIENS IN AMERICA Reruns after 9 more episodes
CW ALIENS IN AMERICA-SUN Reruns
CW AMERICAS TOP MODEL-3 No effect, finale 12/4, will return for #4 in 2008
CW AMERICAS TOP MODEL-3-ENC No effect, finale 12/4, will return for #4 in 2008
CW BEAUTY AND THE GEEK-2 No effect
CW Crowned: Mother of All Pageants No effect, premiere Dec, 8 episodes
CW CW NOW No effect?
CW EVERYBODY HATES CHRIS Reruns after 15 more episodes
CW Farmer Wants a Wife No effect, premiere 12/12, 8 episodes
CW FRIDAY NIGHT SMACKDOWN No effect
CW GIRLFRIENDS Reruns after 3 more episodes
CW GOSSIP GIRL New through 12/12, then new 1/2 and 1/9
CW LIFE IS WILD Reruns after 5 more episodes
CW One Tree Hill* Unknown, reportedly 12 episodes available
CW Pussycat Doll Presents Unknown, 8 episodes ordered
CW REAPER Reruns after 2-4 more episodes
CW SMALLVILLE Reruns after 7 more episodes
CW SUPERNATURAL Reruns after 3-5 more episodes
CW THE GAME Reruns after 3 more episodes
Fox 24* Unknown, delayed indefinitely, 8-9 episodes ready
Fox AMERICAN DAD No effect, all episodes ready
Fox American Idol Tues No effect
Fox American Idol Wed No effect
Fox AMW: AMERICA FIGHTS BACK No effect
Fox Anchorwoman Unknown
Fox BACK TO YOU 3 new episodes held till March
Fox BONES Reruns after 4 more episodes
Fox Canterbury Law Unknown
Fox COPS No effect
Fox COPS 2 No effect
Fox DONT FORGET THE LYRICS No effect
Fox FAMILY GUY No effect, all but 3 episodes complete
Fox Hells Kitchen No effect
Fox HOUSE After 11/26, 3 episodes remain for Jan
Fox K-VILLE Reruns after 2 more episodes
Fox KING OF THE HILL No effect (almost), all but 1 episode complete
Fox KING OF THE HILL-SUN 7P No effect (almost), all but 1 episode complete
Fox KITCHEN NIGHTMARES No effect
Fox New Amsterdan Unknown, does it exist at all?
Fox NEXT GREAT AMERICAN BAND No effect
Fox On the Lot No effect
Fox PRISON BREAK Returns on 1/14 for 5 episodes
Fox Return of Jezebel James Unknown
Fox Rules of Starting Over Unknown
Fox SIMPSONS No effect, all episodes complete
Fox SIMPSONS-SUN 7:30P No effect, all episodes complete
Fox SMARTER THAN 5TH FRI-8P No effect
Fox SMARTER THAN 5TH GRADER No effect
Fox So You Think You Can Dance No effect
Fox Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles Unknown, 13 episodes ready, Jan 13 premiere
Fox THE OT No effect
Fox TIL DEATH Reruns
NBC 1 vs. 100 No effect
NBC 30 ROCK Reruns after 4 more episodes
NBC American Gladiators No effect
NBC Amne$ia No effect
NBC BIGGEST LOSER 4 No effect, expanding from 90 minutes to 2 hours
NBC BIONIC WOMAN Reruns after 2 more episodes
NBC Celebrity Apprentice No effect
NBC CHUCK New through 12/3, 2 New held for 2008
NBC Dateline NBC No effect, Sunday mid-season
NBC DEAL OR NO DEAL-FRI No effect
NBC DEAL OR NO DEAL-WED No effect
NBC E.R. Reruns after 5 new episodes
NBC FOOTBALL NT AMERICA PT 2 Finished before 2008
NBC FOOTBALL NT AMERICA PT 3 Finished before 2008
NBC FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS New through 12/7, 6 New in 2008
NBC HEROES Season ends after 2 more episodes, finale Dec 3
NBC JOURNEYMAN Reruns after 5 more episodes
NBC LAS VEGAS Reruns after 10 more episodes
NBC Law & Order Unknown
NBC LAW & ORDER:SVU-SAT Reruns
NBC LAW AND ORDER:SVU Reruns after 6 more episodes
NBC LIFE Reruns
NBC Lipstick Jungle Unknown
NBC Medium Unknown, likely 9 episodes
NBC My Dad is Better than Your Dad No effect
NBC MY NAME IS EARL Reruns after 3 more episodes
NBC NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL Finished before 2008
NBC OFFICE Reruns only. Replaced by Apprentice on 1/3
NBC PHENOMENON No effect?
NBC SCRUBS Reruns after 7 more episodes
NBC SINGING BEE Reruns, uses union writers
NBC SUNDAY NIGHT NFL PRE-KICK Finished before 2008


*2008 premiere scheduled/rumored

Special data thanks to Variety, TV Guide and LA Times.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/26...1890#more-1890
post #233 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Even more specifically, do screen writers deserve the right to use the special protections provided by the NLRA in a draconian manner (shutting down an entire industry is draconian) to extract agreements regarding, specifically, new media residuals.

Yes, they do. at the clowns who think otherwise.

'On Hollywood Boulevard, Bowman stressed that the WGA's new-media proposals would have cost the companies less over the three years than the $82 million severance package for one unnamed mogul (presumably former Viacom CEO Tom Freston). And he noted that companies have an "enormous" strategic advantage in exploiting the Internet -- "us."'

Yeah, I feel real bad for the millionaire idiots crying foul.
post #234 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyehill View Post

Yes, they do. at the clowns who think otherwise.

'On Hollywood Boulevard, Bowman stressed that the WGA's new-media proposals would have cost the companies less over the three years than the $82 million severance package for one unnamed mogul (presumably former Viacom CEO Tom Freston). And he noted that companies have an "enormous" strategic advantage in exploiting the Internet -- "us."'

Yeah, I feel real bad for the millionaire idiots crying foul.

So no executive should ever be paid a bonus or severance package unless the labor unions have no outstanding demands? I can see where that would be so terribly productive going forward.

It should be fairly simple. Boards determine what to pay executives and what to pay writers. Let them decide what to pay each person based on their worth to the company. If the writer or the executive feel slighted, leave for a company that is willing to pay you what you are worth (either to leave or to stay).
post #235 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by agregjones View Post

It should be fairly simple. Boards determine what to pay executives and what to pay writers. Let them decide what to pay each person based on their worth to the company. If the writer or the executive feel slighted, leave for a company that is willing to pay you what you are worth (either to leave or to stay).

In a perfect world, where Board members always acted in the best interests of the company, that would be swell. However, in real life, Board members treat their CEO charges with a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" philosophy because that guy is possibly a member of of their board where they serve in an executive capacity. It's an exclusive club and they control not only who gets in, but tightly control how much information is revealed to the sheepholders about how these executive compensation packages are assembled. It's a joke, really. That's precisely how the recent scandalous explosion of executive compensation has occurred, regardless of merit, and why nobody seems to care much about it.
post #236 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

In a perfect world, where Board members always acted in the best interests of the company, that would be swell. However, in real life, Board members treat their CEO charges with a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" philosophy because that guy is possibly a member of of their board where they serve in an executive capacity. It's an exclusive club and they control not only who gets in, but tightly control how much information is revealed to the sheepholders about how these executive compensation packages are assembled. It's a joke, really. That's precisely how the recent scandalous explosion of executive compensation has occurred, regardless of merit, and why nobody seems to care much about it.

Boards are only accountable to shareholders. It is shareholder money. They can choose to make all the bad decisions they want.
post #237 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by agregjones View Post

Boards are only accountable to shareholders. It is shareholder money. They can choose to make all the bad decisions they want.

That is indeed true. What a shame that so few of them are accountable to their own conscious (assuming they have one). Bad decisions are just a natural byproduct of such a system of fundamental unaccountability and cronyism. It is disingenuous to refer to shareholders, or as I like to call them, sheepholders, as some singular entity concerned with proper oversight. They care about the share price, nothing more, and only a small percentage are even concerned to that degree. Remember that most "shareholders" in this society are members of that club only because they hold amorphous 401-k plans or the like through their work. They have no clue how the stratospheric compensation packages in the executive boardroom are determined.

In such an environment, it's hard not to sympathize with labor. In this particular case, it's pretty easy.
post #238 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

In a perfect world, where Board members always acted in the best interests of the company, that would be swell. However, in real life, Board members treat their CEO charges with a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" philosophy because that guy is possibly a member of of their board where they serve in an executive capacity.

Then fix >that< by getting the government to pass laws requiring more independence on Boards of Directors. Don't grant permission for collective bargaining because writers feel slighted. That's like spending all this extra money to build more lanes on a highway, because some people drag race, and it is safer for the drag racers to have their own lanes.
post #239 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Don't grant permission for collective bargaining because writers feel slighted. That's like spending all this extra money to build more lanes on a highway, because some people drag race, and it is safer for the drag racers to have their own lanes.

Ah, but isn't this example exactly what has happened with CEO's and the boards that support them?
post #240 of 248
Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter because the granting of collective bargaining privileges is extended to labor not CEOs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › WGA (writers') Strike - where shows stand